SOME MOLESTERS TO GO FREE OLD CASES: ABUSE LAW STRUCK DOWN

San Jose Mercury News ^ | Fri, Jun. 27, 2003 | Brandon Bailey and Elise Banducci

[nickcarraway]

Authorities dismissed the first of hundreds of child molestation cases Thursday, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned part of a California law that allowed prosecutors to bring charges for abuse years after it occurred.

In ruling that the 1994 law could not be applied retroactively, the nation's highest court effectively annulled hundreds of cases around the state, including numerous convictions and dozens of high-profile charges that have been brought against Roman Catholic priests in the past year.

[per loin]

I reckon that some of them lawmaking folks forgot about that part of the Constitution that denies the states the right to pass any ex post facto law.

[Cindy]

""Today's ruling will allow child molesters to escape prosecution, simply because they preyed on our children years ago,'' California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a statement."

THE AMBER ALERT SYSTEM state-by-state

PEDO WATCH.org: "SEX OFFENDER AND OTHER OFFENDER LISTS"

FBI's MOST WANTED: CRIME ALERTS

[muawiyah]

Those same lawmakers are also finding out that in the days when California was soft on pedophiles, they had a lot of them around.

The question that should be asked is why it was that California lawmakers before 1994 were soft on pedophiles. It may not be too late to make some relevant "busts".

[SkyPilot]

OK--I have had it!

The SCOTUS is out of control. In one week, they rule that:

1. "Diversity" is in the Constitution, emanating from a penumbra of some vapor

2. Gave a home run pitch to homosexual "marriage"

3. Nullified justice for hundreds for victims who endured horrible sexual abuse at the hands of homosexual monsters masquerading as human beings

I put their fate in the hands of Almighty God. May those members of the court receive His justice--and contemplate it in eternity.

[SkyPilot]

Also, I noted that most of the cases of sexual abusers were homosexual pedophiles. This was reported by our local German telelvision news affiliate as affecting 850 cases--most of those being "gay men."

There is a story about the higher profile pedophile priests on AP and Yahoo News...
HERE.

[jimtorr]

**I put their fate in the hands of Almighty God. May those members of the court receive His justice--and contemplate it in eternity.**

So, then, nothings changed. Their fate always was and always will be in the hands of the Master of the Universe.

**I reckon that some of them lawmaking folks forgot about that part of the Constitution that denies the states the right to pass any ex post facto law.**

The constitution explicitly says that the government cannot enact a law that would punish someone for an act that was not subject to punishment at the time the law was passed. California cannot simply ignore the statute of limitations.

[tdadams]

As convenient as it may be for attorneys general and prosecutors, the statute of limitations laws are in place for a good reason and serve a good purpose.

I'm sure many of the same would love to repeal laws against double jeopardy. It would make their jobs so much easier. But our Constitution and these laws aren't in place for the ease and convenience of prosecutors. They are to protect citizens from endless legal persecution.

[SkyPilot]

The first part of your response was to my post, the second:

**I reckon that some of them lawmaking folks forgot about that part of the Constitution that denies the states the right to pass any ex post facto law.**

was per loin's, not mine.

[SkyPilot]

I think they should post the names and addresses of these perverts in the newspaper.

One of the men I have been most honored to have as a friend in my life is Father Tom Doyle. If anyone is unfamiliar with him..do a search. He has dedicated the latter part of his life towards helping the victims of abuse at the hands of these monsters. Father Doyle has been an expert witness in literally hundreds of abuse cases. As a Canon Lawyer, Tom Doyle wrote a white paper back in 1985 warning the Catholic Church of the pedophiles in their midst, and the horrific consequences if it was ignored. He was marginalized and punished by the Church for his stance.

Forgive the quality of the picture, it was convered to a bmp file:

One thing he told me was chilling. He had talked to priest who were caught red-handed sexually abusing boys. He said that, to a man, they had absolutely no remorse or outward guilt whatsoever. The only regret they had was getting caught, the only anger they harbored was not at themselves, but at the parents, police, and prosecutors who were holding them accountable for their actions.

Publishing their names may protect us in some fashion, but it will never "shame" them.

[freekitty]

Surely, the Supreme Court did not have this in mind? Molesters on the loose?

[just mimi]

``What's heartbreaking is we've got to pick up the phone and try to let the victims know before they read it in the newspaper,'' said Karyn Sinunu, assistant district attorney for Santa Clara County.

I agree that they should post the names and addresses. I also think that since the DA's office certainly knew this ruling was a possibility, they should have sent a letter to all of the victims way beforehand to be watching this case and why.

[Sandy]

The constitution explicitly says that the government cannot enact a law that would punish someone for an act that was not subject to punishment at the time the law was passed.

Not really. Ex post facto has always meant that the government can't punish someone for an act that was not subject to said punishment at the time act was committed.

[jimtorr]

Actually, my entire reply was directed to your post.

This ruling by the Supremes does nothing more than force the State of California to abide by their own laws, and Statute of Limitations. California Legle Beagles always knew that there was a good chance their prosecution of 30-year old crimes would be thrown out.

Many said as much when the statute of limitations was eliminated in 1994.

[gitmo]

It's pretty difficult to prove where you were on March 15, 1976 at 3:00 PM.

[SkyPilot]

Actually, my entire reply was directed to your post.

Then please don't place someone else's post right after mine as if I wrote it.

Thanks

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I have had it too.

I'm dejected and depressed about the whole thing.....

[FreePaul]

Interesting how the Supreme Court can stumble around and find the correct answer in The Constitution on occasion. Too bad that they can't find some of the amendments, such as the second and the tenth, when the need arises.

[SkyPilot]

On one positive note, I love your screen name.

The second positive note of this is that we can now point to Liberal / Left / Democrat raging hypocrisy everytime they attempt to say that Bush's presidency is "illegitimate" or (what was the word Michael Moore liked to use?.....hmmmm...FICTICIOUS! yes--that was the word).

So here is the Liberal "logic" (if there is such a thing):

1. When SCOTUS ruled 7-2 to stop the fixed and illegal "recounts" in Florida, the court was ILLEGITIMATE!

2. When the SCOUTUS rules 5-4 that homosexuality is essentially a good thing and that discriminating because of the melanin content of your skin is a certain percentage of your DNA makeup, then the court is ENLIGHTENED!