Pennsylvania Law Weekly
September 13, 2018
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s
bombshell grand jury report on sex abuse of children by priests in six
Pennsylvania dioceses has been met with universal derision and unrelenting
criticism of the Catholic Church.
As the furor toward the church continued the
attorney general told “CBS This Morning,” “Because of the sophisticated
cover-up, because of the efforts that went through the bishops stretching all
the way up to the Vatican, they shielded these predator priests from the arm of
the law.”
The shield has been provided by the statute of
limitations. The public, advocates for victims of predatory sexual crimes and
victims themselves are incensed that an accepted legal tenant can keep
prosecutors and plaintiffs from holding 299 out of 301 priests named in the
grand jury report from being held accountable.
Concern over a statute that can bar a claimant from
raising a viable claim for recompense is not new. Over a century ago, Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. asked in a Harvard Law Review article, “What is the
justification for depriving a man of his rights, a pure evil as far as it goes,
in consequence of the lapse of time?”
Pennsylvania has grappled with the statute of
limitations and child sex abuse. Last term, H.B. 1947 proposed eliminating the
statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and expanding the civil
statute of limitation for a victim abused as a child to age 50. The sticking
point has been creating a retroactive window to all victims to look back and
seek damages for abuse committed beyond the current statute of limitation.
The current statute provides for criminal
prosecutions until the victim’s 50th birthday and within 12 years of turning 18
years of age to pursue a civil claim. The statute of limitations can also be
extended if DNA evidence becomes available and is used to “identify an
otherwise unidentified individual as the perpetrator,” 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section
5552 (c) (3).
Some senators and the hierarchy of the Catholic
Church suggest that the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 11, known
as the Remedies Clause, prohibits the General Assembly from eliminating certain
fixed rights, including the right to assert an established defense.
At a public hearing in 2016, Bruce Castor, at the
time Pennsylvania’s solicitor general, testified, “House Bill 1947, if enacted
into law in its current form and without amendment will, in our opinion,
violate the remedies clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Castor
continued, “Potential defendants, who have had the statute of limitations pass
without their being subjected to suit, will rightly claim a vested right in the
applicable statute of limitations.”
Castor and others were concerned that a retroactive
statute of limitations would infringe on a vested right already afforded
individuals accused of harming a child. Those accused individuals can rely on
the protections of the statute of limitations and to take that right away would
violate Pennsylvania’s Constitution.
Is creating a window to seek compensation for
damages for a specific group of victims the important question here?
The sexual abuse of children is a reprehensible and
cowardly act—a heinous crime whose perpetrators deserve no mercy. State Rep.
Mark Rozzi, D-Berks, a tireless advocate for child victims and the sponsor of
legislation to expand and eliminate the statute of limitation posted on his
legislative website, “One in four girls and one is six boys in your
district have been sexually abused before the age of 18. Only one in 10 will
ever tell. You probably interact with survivors every day … I too, am a victim
of child sexual abuse.”
There is a purpose behind the statute of
limitations. The statute, or some version of it, has been around since
antiquity. There has long been a concern that individuals should not be forced
to defend themselves years and years after an event that allegedly caused harm
to another person.
As time passes memories fade, potential witnesses disappear
or die and evidence spoils. An individual that is accused of a specific act
that occurred on May 1, 1988, may have recalled his whereabouts in 1990 or even
remembered where he was and who he was with 10 years later. But, what is
the likelihood he can remember that specific day 30 years later?
Certainly fairness to an alleged victim is extremely
important—but is it not the only factor?
Before we throw out the statute of limitations, let
us look at the reasons that it has been around for so long.
Santa Clara University professor Tyler T. Ochoa and
Judge Andrew Wistrich in “The Puzzling Purposes of Statutes of Limitation,”
suggest that the statute of limitation reduces uncertainty. A person accused of
a crime should be able to rely on the law and make decisions based on the law
as it currently exists. If the legislature wants to abolish the statute of
limitation for the crime of sexually abusing a child, then all people know, or
should, know the law.
Ochoa and Wistrich contend that the statute of limitations
prevents fraud. “The deterioration of evidence may make it more difficult to
decide claims correctly, limiting the time within which actions can be filed
may help to check the temptation to resort to fraud in filing or litigating,”
28 Pac. L. J. 453 (1997).
The authors continue, “This purpose rests on the
premise that the longer the gap in time between the events at issue and trial
on the merits, the more vulnerable the defendant is to spurious claims. It has
two aspects: first, to prevent fraudulent claims from succeeding; and second,
to prevent the use of fraudulent evidence in support of nonfraudulent claims.”
Another words avoiding the dangerous idiom, “the end justifies the means.”
The statute of limitations also preserves the
integrity of the legal system. “Courts do not want to be perceived to be
haphazard guessers about facts. Not only would this be demeaning to the legal
system, but it would breed disrespect for the political system as well,”
28 Pac. L. J. 453 (1997).
There will be a battle in the General Assembly.
Senate Bill 261, approved by the Senate 48-0, would
eliminate the statute of limitations for child sex crimes and gives victims
until the age 50 to file civil actions against their alleged abuser.
House Bill 612 would eliminate the criminal and
civil statutes of limitations for child sex abuse and would allow for a
two-year window to pursue a civil case were the statute has already expired.
Attorney General Shapiro recently told PennLive.com
that he favors the creation of a retroactive window for sex abuse victims to
bring civil claims. He said, “It’s the reforms as a whole—including the civil
window, ending any age-based deadline for bringing criminal prosecutions of
child sexual abuse, and clarifying state law on the duty to report child
abuse—are needed to prevent these types of widespread abuse and cover-up from
ever happening again.”
The rage over the grand jury report and the
Catholic Church is palpable. There was also rage over Bill Cosby and the Penn
State/Jerry Sandusky scandal—yet the debate continues.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with
Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George. His book “The Executioner’s Toll,
2010″ was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him
on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.
To visit the PLW CLICK HERE
1 comment:
Berikut Ini Adalah Link Alternatif Klik4d 2018 Terbaru
Post a Comment