Court Strikes Down Law on Old Sex Crimes [Statutes of Limitations]

Associated Press ^ | June 26, 2003 | Gina Holland

[AntiGuv]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the government cannot retroactively erase statutes of limitations, a defeat for prosecutors trying to pursue priests accused of long-ago sex abuse.

On a 5-4 vote, the justices struck down a California law that allowed prosecutions for old sex crimes. It was challenged by a 72-year-old man accused of molesting his daughters when they were children.

The case was closely watched because of sex abuse problems in the Roman Catholic church, but it also has implications for terrorism and other crimes.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said the Constitution bars states from revising already expired legal deadlines.

Marion Stogner is among hundreds of people convicted under a 1994 California law that changed the statute of limitations for some sex offenses. Earlier this week, two former Catholic priests were charged with molesting children when they were assigned to the Los Angeles archdiocese decades ago.

Critics argue that it's unfair to change the rules after witnesses are dead and evidence lost. Supporters of deadline changes, including the American Psychological Association, contend that child molesters aren't usually exposed until after statutes of limitations have run out.

[VRWC_minion]

Common sense. What a waste of SC time.

[rockinonritalin]

Still a 5-4 vote though. Common sense does not always reign on the SC.

[Paradox]

5-4? Who voted how? This should have been a slam dunk.

[AntiGuv]

The majority was Breyer, Ginsburg, O'Connor, Souter, and Stevens; Kennedy, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.

[Still Thinking]

Supporters of deadline changes, including the American Psychological Association, contend that child molesters aren't usually exposed until after statutes of limitations have run out.

Well great, so maybe that's a reason to change the statute of limitations, or change the way is it calculated -- for FUTURE CRIMES. But that still doesn't give the legislature or anyone else ex post facto power to change the laws that were in place when some event happenned in the past.

[Paradox]

Interesting, thanks for the info. I dont usually find myself siding with the dark side..

[AntiGuv]

Chances are that the dissenters were more mindful that this ruling will likely strike down several minor portions of the USA Patriot Act, which retroactively withdrew statutes of limitations in terrorism cases involving hijackings, kidnappings, bombings and biological weapons. I think that may seem their likely rationale, because a couple of them [Thomas & Rehnquist] sided with the majority that overturned a similar Texas ex post facto violation several years ago. FWIW, Kennedy's dissent basically used the "it's for the children" defense of California's move (compelling state interest to save the children)..

[A. Pole]

Common sense. What a waste of SC time.

It is amazing that four justices would be for RETROACTIVE laws! Can you imagine being convicted in the future for doing something legal, NOW? For example if smoking tobacco will be punishable with life without parole ten years from now. Or disaproving a homosexual life style? Or voting Republican?

[Rodney King]

I can't imagine the justification of those who dissented.

[VRWC_minion]

Did they disent because the Feds shouldn't have been involved ?

[conservativefromGa]

We already have Retroactive laws. Remember the Laughtenberg gun control Amendenment to a fiscal bill a few years back? Even if you were convicted of a domestic violence misdomener in 1930 your gun can be taken away today.

[Pern]

Remember the Laughtenberg gun control Amendenment...

It's never enforced here in La. unless you actually try to purchase a gun. As far as hunting, the game wardens or cops never bother to check. And I know several duputies that think the law is bogus anyway.

It is an illegal retroactive law that just hasn't gotten to the courts yet.

[GSWarrior]

Be patient. When the fundamentalists tire of the sodomy threads they will be over here to offer their justification.

[Uncle Miltie]

In another random ruling, the Supremes wanted to golf, and so dismissed today's case, whatever it was.

Tomorrow, O'Conner is scheduled for her annual Pap Smear, and the plaintiff will lose. Upcoming events include the birthday of her granddaughter, and the lobby is packed with appellants trying to get that date.

On a cold day Tuesday, the Constitution was burned in the Supremes incinerator to provide a little more warmth. "When the hot flashes subside, I need that extra bit of heat," said the lady Justice.

Meanwile, a hostile takeover of the State of Connecticut by the Burea of Indian Affairs proceded nicely through the court, as David Souter's gambling debt appeared ready to be cleared. The $1.3B outstanding debt the the Animowauk tribe has lead the Justice to cede 93% of Connecticut to the tribe, leaving 7% still held by the Federal Government as a retreat for the Supremes. "I just couldn't be happier with the deal," exclaimed Souter.

Separately, Justice Brennan issued a fatwa requiring mandatory cleavage. "Except when a good racial case can be made, all women must expose at least 2.4 inches of cleavage," said the Justice. "Less well endowed individuals can appeal to this precinct for sufficient funding for implants."

Congress, meanwhile adjourned perpetually. Senator Kennedy assured the press, "There's nothing we could do that the Supremes can't handle with a lot less work. I'll see you all in the bar."

President Clinton was seen leaving the ladies room with Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. "I just love her hyme...I mean hyphen."

[Sandy]

But that still doesn't give the legislature or anyone else ex post facto power to change the laws that were in place when some event happenned in the past.

That's not true.

Suppose you commit a crime today and the statute of limitation is 7 years. Then suppose that, 5 years from now, the legislature changes the statute of limitation for your crime to 20 years. If you're caught 15 years after you committed the crime, you can still be prosecuted even though the statute of limitation was only 7 years at the time that you committed the crime.

[Sandy]

Did they disent because the Feds shouldn't have been involved ?

No.

(from the dissent)
The wrong was made clear by the law at the time of the crime's commission. The criminal actor knew it, even reveled in it. It is the commission of the then-unlawful act that the State now seeks to punish. The gravity of the crime is left unchanged by altering a statute of limitations of which the actor was likely not at all aware.

The California statute...does not criminalize conduct which was innocent when done; it allows the prosecutor to seek the same punishment as the law authorized at the time the offense was committed and no more; and it does not alter the government's burden to establish the elements of the crime. . . .

The Court...departs from established precedent, and misapprehends the purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court also disregards the interests of those victims of child abuse who have found the courage to face their accusers and bring them to justice. The Court's opinion harms not only our ex post facto jurisprudence but also these and future victims of child abuse, and so compels my respectful dissent.

[Still Thinking]

If you say that's what the law says, then I'll take your word for it, but I maintain it is not right, and violates at least the spirit of the prohibition of ex post facto laws.

[4Liberty]

The Liberals wanted to change this Law in order to go after the Catholic Church for sex crimes. In a way, I'm glad it was rejected. But in another way - I'm not: Bill Clinton is a big beneficiary here, and must be breathing a sigh of relief. Now Broaddrick and dozens of other assault victims can't legally prosecute him. Too bad.

Guess the Church and the Traitor are both happy this week.