Friday, July 26, 2002
Dale: Good. Now with that confession out in the open, on to other things. Like the end of the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Thanks to Amy Welborn for this stunner of a link. Essentially, California's legislature has passed a law waiving the statute of limitations on sexual abuse cases for one year starting January 1, 2003. The upshot is that anyone whose sexual abuse claim would have otherwise been time-barred gets a second chance:
"Although attracting few headlines, legislation signed into law earlier this month by Governor Gray Davis may prove to be the most devastating blow yet to Mahony's troubled domain -- as well as to Roman Catholic dioceses throughout California -- before the current scandal runs its course. The law extends by three years the statute of limitation for accusers to file civil lawsuits against child molesters and organizations that knowingly harbor them. More significantly, it provides a one-year window of opportunity, beginning January 1, for any alleged abuse victim to pursue legal action against the church. That means untold numbers of priest abuse victims who've never come forward because the time limit for their filing a lawsuit expired will now get their chance."
A commenter at Amy's [ah, informality--I've never met her] blog wondered if it would be a violation of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws. Actually, it would not. As the link makes clear, ex post facto laws change the legal consequences of the action after the fact. The California law doesn't. Here's an analogy. Say on Monday I spit on the sidewalk. This is a civil infraction for which I could be fined, theoretically. Some legislator who has it in for me sees this, runs to Lansing and enacts a state law on Tuesday declaring sidewalk spitting a felony with a minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. He also makes the new law retroactive. On Wednesday, I'm arrested and charged with the felony. That would be an ex post facto law.
The California law is not like that. It's not changing the legal consequences of sexual abuse--which was a crime and actionable in tort for damages and remains so. Instead, it's altering the statute of limitations (an artificial and discretionary limitation in itself) by lengthening and reviving the opportunity to file suit. The penalties have not changed--just the number of plaintiffs (by an order of magnitude). Hence, it is not an ex post facto violation.
Nevertheless, it's amazing. I've never heard of the like in my (admittedly limited) years of lawyering. Something tells me if the Archdiocese of L.A. had been more forthcoming, as opposed to hiring Enron's PR firm, the law would have never passed. Now it's goodnight, Irene. Los Angeles may be facing bankruptcy. It also might explain why the Archdiocese of Detroit has been engaged in full disclosure with the authorities and wielding a no-tolerance sledgehammer regarding abuse: Adam Cardinal Maida has a law degree. Sometimes it alerts you to the horribly creative possibilities...
"Although attracting few headlines, legislation signed into law earlier this month by Governor Gray Davis may prove to be the most devastating blow yet to Mahony's troubled domain -- as well as to Roman Catholic dioceses throughout California -- before the current scandal runs its course. The law extends by three years the statute of limitation for accusers to file civil lawsuits against child molesters and organizations that knowingly harbor them. More significantly, it provides a one-year window of opportunity, beginning January 1, for any alleged abuse victim to pursue legal action against the church. That means untold numbers of priest abuse victims who've never come forward because the time limit for their filing a lawsuit expired will now get their chance."
A commenter at Amy's [ah, informality--I've never met her] blog wondered if it would be a violation of the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws. Actually, it would not. As the link makes clear, ex post facto laws change the legal consequences of the action after the fact. The California law doesn't. Here's an analogy. Say on Monday I spit on the sidewalk. This is a civil infraction for which I could be fined, theoretically. Some legislator who has it in for me sees this, runs to Lansing and enacts a state law on Tuesday declaring sidewalk spitting a felony with a minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. He also makes the new law retroactive. On Wednesday, I'm arrested and charged with the felony. That would be an ex post facto law.
The California law is not like that. It's not changing the legal consequences of sexual abuse--which was a crime and actionable in tort for damages and remains so. Instead, it's altering the statute of limitations (an artificial and discretionary limitation in itself) by lengthening and reviving the opportunity to file suit. The penalties have not changed--just the number of plaintiffs (by an order of magnitude). Hence, it is not an ex post facto violation.
Nevertheless, it's amazing. I've never heard of the like in my (admittedly limited) years of lawyering. Something tells me if the Archdiocese of L.A. had been more forthcoming, as opposed to hiring Enron's PR firm, the law would have never passed. Now it's goodnight, Irene. Los Angeles may be facing bankruptcy. It also might explain why the Archdiocese of Detroit has been engaged in full disclosure with the authorities and wielding a no-tolerance sledgehammer regarding abuse: Adam Cardinal Maida has a law degree. Sometimes it alerts you to the horribly creative possibilities...
