Yes.
Absolutely you could.
Yes. You. as the juror, get to decide what you believe his actual intent was.
If you believe as a matter of fact that the first sequence is how it happened, then you vote guilty. If you believe the seocnd, the n you vote not guilty.
For the love of Learned Hand, please don’t listen to Bricker, MaxTheVoll. He’s spreading the same misinformation I’ve been trying to correct him on this entire thread.
Here’s your statement again:
*"But you seem to be saying that if I engage in bureaucratic chicanery in an effort to prevent my subordinates from being investigated and convicted for crimes they committed, and that’s my sole end goal, that’s a crime; but if I engage in bureaucratic chicanery in an effort to prevent my subordinates from being investigated from crimes they committed, but my larger interest is in making corporation look good, then there’s no crime.
In other words:
(1) Fill out form A to transfer guy B to location C
so that
(2) He will avoid prosecution
Is a crime, but
(1) Fill out form A to transfer guy B to location C
so that
(2) He will avoid prosecution
so that
(3) My organization will have a better public image
Is not a crime?"*
This is wrong, because of the difference between specific intent and motive and the possibility of multiple intents. Both of the above are crimes, because in both of them, you had the specific intent that the person you transferred will avoid prosecution, which is what the statute requires, that specific intent. The fact you had an additional motive is of little to no relevance to that finding of specific intent, you could have done it to protect your organization, because his name is Bob, or because you wanted to feel powerful. But if you had the specific intent that he will avoid prosecution, you’ve committed a crime. And in both your examples, you did have the intent that he avoid prosecution. Bricker’s wrong … again. If the jury found you had the specific intent (which you concede in both), then they should vote to convict.
This would be my understanding as well.
It is probably impolite for lawyers to call each other out on something like this but I would really love it if some other doper lawyer were to chime in here.
Ok, granted. (2), phrased as it is, also shows intent.
I agree that was an error on my part.
We make a living calling each other out on facts and the law every time we litigate.
Well yeah, of course I meant in this context, and though I used the word “lawyers” I had in mind just general professional politeness.
But this is the pit. 
So basically then it all comes down to a matter of opinion. Most of us here believe that protecting the Catholic Church isn’t a good enough reason to move child molesters to where they can do more harm, while you (I guess*) believe otherwise.
I think that perhaps it would be more productive to argue about this difference of opinion directly rather than to arguing about the legal technicalities.
*My guess may be wrong, but if you don’t believe it was a good enough excuse then I don’t know why you brought it in the first place.
I’m sorry I did.
So… where does that leave us? I thought your position was that Mahoney’s actions were similar to (2), and were not a crime. Can you clarify?
Here’s the distinction. I will say, however, I am coming to realize that it’s not, as I first imagined it was, a very useful or likely distinction.
But…
What I was saying actually happened was not exactly what you laid out in the second sequence. Instead, it’s:
(1) Fill out form A to transfer guy B to location C
so that
(2) My organization will have a better public image
And simply not intending “He will avoid prosecution.”
Recognizing it will happen, yes. Intending it, no.
But you have to intend “He will avoid prosecution” as it is the reason that 1 leads to 2.
You can stop being silly any time, Counselor. We’ve *already *established that the facts are otherwise; that Mahony did, in fact, intend to hinder prosecution of the child rapists he was harboring.
But isn’t it still the implied step 1.5 in there? I mean, there has to be some mechanism by which transferring guy B to location C results in a better public image, since merely transferring people around between churches, in and of itself, is presumably public-image-neutral.
That said, it’s a bit unclear to me whether you’re still hanging your proverbial hat on this argument. So, going back to the beginning, suppose these facts were pretty clearly not in dispute:
(1) A priest was under serious and plausible suspicion of child molestation
(2) It was likely that a police investigation was already underway, or would be soon
(3) Cardinal Mahoney knew about this
(4) Cardinal Mahoney then moved this priest to another parish in another state
Do you believe that it would be more accurate to say that Cardinal Mahoney had or had not committed a crime? If statute of limitations issues were not relevant, and this were brought to a trial, would a conviction be likely?
A conviction would be likely.
Shows over, folks.
Well, the good news is that the OP has stayed up on the front page of the BBQ pit for almost a week, and we have Bricker to thank for that.
Otherwise, it would have simply been 10 people agreeing that Mahoney is a total piece of dog shit, and the thread would have dropped off the main page in a day.
Now more people know about the disgusting things that Mahoney did, and his pathetic “I will pray for forgiveness for people who hate my pedophile-enabling ways.”
I know plenty of obnoxious lawyers. Hell, I probably am an obnoxious lawyer married to another. But old Bricktop takes it to an entirely new level.
I consider it very important that any number of terms be defined extremely specifically when used in the context of various legal relationships. But it would truly take a fool to presume that legalistic precision is required - or even appropriate - in all conversation. But I have no illusion that Bricker is a fool. Instead, he thinks he is flaunting his tremendous wisdom and unparalleled analytical powers, while trying to piss others off. I believe the technical legal term for such a person is “asshole.”
Rectal-Americans prefer the more dignified “colonists”. But nobody much cares what they think.
Are you referring to this? Cinematical Exclusive: Deliver US from Evil Director Amy Berg on the LA Archdiocese Payout, by Kim Voynar, Cinematical [Los Angeles CA], December 3, 2006
Moving kiddie-diddling priests around is something Mahoney engaged in years ago. He’s certainly had a lot of practice.