Where is the crime? What law is violated by the situation you describe above?
OK Bricker, like Elvis IANAL either, but. . .
an employee, in and during the course of employment commits a crime,
and that crime is directly related to the employer’s business,
the employer is fully aware that this crime has been committed,
the empoyer knowingly and willfully places the employee with the means and opportunity to commit crime,
the employer does this repeatedly.
If this isn’t a crime, then it surely oughta be!
5 time champ:
If I hit you over the head with a stick, it’s the crime of assault.
If I engage in the conduct described above, what crime do you claim that it is?
Perhaps, as you say, it ought to be a crime.
In states that criminalize the failure to report a felony to the police, perhaps it already is a crime.
So far as I can tell, in Massachusetts, it’s not.
If someone wants to point me to a specific law in Massachusetts that they claim is violated, I’ll be happy to reconsider this point. I am not, after all, a Massachusetts lawyer, and have no special expertise in Massachusetts laws.
But I can use LEXIS and search the MA criminal codes. I can’t find anything.
- Rick
What authority? Theoretically, I guess, Law could have threatened to excommunicate them (though practically speaking and under Church law he could not), but even if he did, the law doesn’t recognize that as “authority” over another individual.
Sua
He does not have to excommunicate them. As I have already shown in this thread once before ( and, I’m curious to see if the Attorneys of Record in this thread are going to say I’m blatantly misstating fact. :rolleyes: …), Gagging A Rape Victim is ALREADY something that Bernie has had his attorney’s try in the past.
He could undoubtedly try to do it again, and again, and again. So we see ( assuming I’m not the only one who belives that the reporter who wrote this article is not misstating facts ) that excommunication is not the only act of retribution open to Bernie, and his ace legal team.
Cold hard fact, cited.
IANAL and I’m in no way defending the actions of Law or his attorneys, but seeking to prohibit the victim from discussing the personnel records he will be receiving as part of a civil trial is a far cry from gagging the victims to prevent them from coming forward. After all, if there’s a civil suit, the victim has {b]already** come forward. And, BTW, the “ace legal team” lost.
I’m sure the reporter didn’t misstate the facts, but the facts are that the victim wanted personnel records, the church offered to turn them over if a gag order was imposed, the judge refused to impose the gag order, and the church says they will not appeal.Your interpretation that this constitutes “gagging the victim” in general,an act of retribution and the "using their authority to stop victims/families from coming forward "(5 time champ’s original question) are just that- your intepretations.
IF
A person acting in his capacity as a priest of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, MA sexually assaults a minor
said priest acting as either a spritual leader of the local parish, or as the secular leader of the parish parochial school or coach of CYO basketball team, or similar position
Bernard Cardinal Law, leader of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, MA recieves sworn affidavits from the victims of these assaults, believes them to be true, and compensates the victims of these assaults for their losses,
Bernard Cardinal Law, leader of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, MA reassigns this offending priest to another parish located inside the Archdiocese
[Parenthetical Note] Fortunately for the Cardinal, the Archdiocese of Boston, MA is located entirely with the boundaries of MA, or else he might well be facing Federal Charges**[/Parentethical Note]**
where the offending priest will continue have spiritual and secular authority over and access to minors,
Bernard Cardinal Law, leader of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, MA and the offending priest commit the above actions several times
It would seem to me, albeit a non-lawyer and nonresident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Conspiracy to Commit a Sexual Assault of a Minor.
And if it isn’t, then to paraphrase nonlawyer Charles Dickens and Lynn Compton, Chief Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles, CA "The law [of Massachusetts] is an ass.
I don’t know about Massachusetts law, but in NY, conspiracy requires that, with the intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, a person makes an agreement with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct. And I suspect it’s similar in nearly every state. All we can really be sure of is that Law *should have *known that the behavior was likely to occur again. We don’t have any reason to think he intended it, or made an agreement, or even that he believed any of the victims . .And I don’t really know that I want to hold employers criminally responsible for what they should have known,but may in fact not have (Civil responsibility is another issue) . It’s easy to feel that way about this issue , but what about other situations? What about the store owner who should have known (and would have if he checked the criminal records) that his cashier was likely to steal credit card numbers?Should he go to prison along with the cashier even though he didn’t intend or have anything to do with the theft?
Doreen
doreen?. First of all, yes I know his “ace team of attorneys” lost, I made that clear in the wording of my post up there. Thanks for reiterating it, though. 
Second of all, you just said this:
I could not disagree more. Do you really for one moment expect us to believe that he moved that Priest around all of those times, JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT??? Of course he knew the behavior was likely to happen again and again and again- what, this supposedly learned man is the only one on the face of the earth who is A) In a position where a lot of his employees work with young boys, and yet B) Has never heard the term, “recidivism” ?? Please.
I believe absolutely that there was, and has always been, a conspiracy to protect these priests. My local D.A. is travelling to the Bronx these days, trying to extract Church records to prove same in my own County.
So yes, he knew there were accusations against this Priest, and yes he moved him around repeatedly, always moving him again when he raped another boy, and yes I absolutely think there was an agreement between Bernie, and the Archdiocese administrators who were on the front lines, dealing with furious parents of the rape victims. I believe all of that.
So yes, I believe there was a conspiracy. Time will tell. To deny that very strong possibility is to paint him in such a saintly yet INCREDIBLY ignorant light that you might as well expect him to return from Rome freshly canonized, instead of freshly defrocked.
Who knows, perhaps that is exactly what you hope for. I do not.
No, there will be no defrocking. The Vatican will not even accept his resignation. I suppose if you want to see punishment and prosecution, that’s a letdown but imo it doesn’t address the possibility of getting apologies and acknowledgements that the procedures were harmful. Staying in his current position and heading the Church through all the allegations and resentment (and backlash from the faithful) is no picnic either, and I do wonder whether in the long term that is much more beneficial. He’s taking all the heat, very publicly, and now I am seeing more in statements from him accepting the blame and acknowleging errors in judgement. This is a big change imo. It may backfire though since so many are committed to his being removed in disgrace.
Another interesting angle from a legal standpoint (i’m not a lawyer either btw) is that these priests were removed from the parishes, in some cases sent for ‘treatment’, then reassigned. I don’t know what sort of treatment is employed but I do know that many Christian churches believe that most deviant sexual tendencies can be ‘cured’. (Homosexuality is considered deviant, I believe.) That also may be enough to cover him simply by recognizing a problem existed and trying to have it cured in some fashion. Again no cites, but if I have time later I’ll look through the Boston Globe or the Herald for pertinent stuff.
I didn’t even say that that **I **believed that.However, it is not uncommmon for friends and relatives of the accusedl to believe that he or she “would never have done that”,regardless of what the evidence is, or for employers to make it appear they’re taking action after a complaint,even if they don’t believe the complaint is true.It’s not even unheard of for (incompetent IMHO) psychiatrists to proclaim sex offenders cured.
Which DA would that be? (and why the Bronx?) All I’ve heard about the NY DA’s is that they want the records to try to prosecute the priests, not to charge the bishops and cardinals with crimes.
I’m sure there was such an agreement, even if unspoken. But for a conspiracy charge to stick in NY ,the agreement has to be that someone will perform criminal behavior.Transferring someone in response to complaints isn’t criminal behavior. There would have to be an agreement between the bishop or cardinal and the raping priest that the priest would go out and rape a child. Ain’t saying it can’t happen, but I don’t see any evidence that it did.And that’s what you need for a criminal case- evidence, not beliefs or feelings.
To say that someones’s conduct, however repugnant, on the basis of what is now known,does not appear to be a violation of criminal law is to “paint him in a saintly light”?
Doreen
Two points.
First, cartooniverse, do you think that the parents should be charged? After all, they were instrumental in allowing the cover-up to continue by not coming forward. Indeed, in some instances, they took money (in the form of a “settlement”) in exchange for not coming forward. Before you get all hot and bothered, I personally think that the law should be changed so that both Cardinal Law and the parents should be held criminally liable. Law should not have the right to cover up these crimes, and the parents should not have the right to foist the same harm on other families by not coming forward.
Second, absolutely there was a conspiracy. I don’t think anyone’s denying that. The problem is, under current law (and under information thus far uncovered), there was no criminal conspiracy.
A final point. Haven’t you had enough of accusing people who are pointing out the unfortunate legal facts and issues of siding with Cardinal Law? It’s really quite irritating behavior on your part.
Sua
Sua
Excellent post, doreen.
- Rick
Nor do I. God, that’s a really awful thing to contemplate. I did not say,nor do I think that there was a tacit agreement. But come ON people, you take a pedophile and move him from parish to parish, to move him away from families who are complaining, and place him in positions where he has access to MORE YOUNG BOYS???
Originally Posted by Sua Sponte
I agree with you here. What makes you think I approve of families who cover up rape? I don’t.
Tee?? You seem to know the mind of the Holy See. Please, enlighten us with cites? I disagree with your opinion that it’s more beneficial to let him stay on, and act as though he’s ‘fighting the good fight’ to clear up the unpleasantness. As I’ve cited in posts here, Bernie and his ace legal staff really are much more interested in gagging rape victims and covering his ass, than they are in doing the right thing. See, doing the right thing involves resigning,and turning over every SINGLE DOCUMENT that shows the very patterns of conspiracty that may very well prove his guilt. No…he won’t be fighting the good fight, he’ll just be making lots of neato red-faced speeches, and defiling the holiness of his pulpit by sermonizing, even as the people watching him are deeply disgusted. ( One cite I provided does indeed talk about Boston area Priests wanting Bernie to resign).
Originally Posted by Doreen
Doreen, meet Bitter Sarcasm. Bitter Sarcasm, meet Doreen. :rolleyes:
Sua? Haven’t you had enough of blindly ignoring the cites I’ve provided that prove that Bernie and his legal aces have a proven track record of attempting to gag rape victims, have cases overthrown, shift priests around to hide their activities and generally cover his ASS? You’d rather try to chastise me because you are an attorney, than read the cites I’ve so nicely provided, and learn how things really DO work up in Beantown.
Fighting Ignorance, indeed. Yes, I state opinions in this thread as well as facts, but god damn boy, do I really have to point out yet again that this is the BBQ Pit??? You WANT to take this to G.D., I heartily invite you to start a thread, that begins a rigorous debate on the merits of attempting to prosecute Bernie.
This ain’t that thread, much as you are trying to hijack it into such. Speaking my mind in a way that you find irritating is my right as a Doper. I’m not being a Jerk, I’m speaking my mind, and defending my position. You seem to forget that passing the State Bar Exam is not a prerequisite for becoming a registered member of the SDMB. I’ve provided a LOT of cite here, and you conveniently ignore it all. You need to reacquaint yourself with the rules of the road here, IMHO.
I’ll admit, my wishing for anything will not make it so of course. I do think that Tee is 100% correct. I just happen to find it despicable. Not that it’s Tee that said it, just that the thoughts stated by Tee are most likely the outcome. I am NOT calling Tee despicable.
See, here’s my problem. In one breath you get mad at the “hijack” (which was started by other posters and you participated in it prior to Bricker’s post) and seem to say that your feelings don’t need to be justified by cites. But in the very next breath you say you’ve defended your position and get mad that Bricker and SuaSponte are ignoring your facts. So if somebody argues the facts you get mad because “this is the Pit, not GD” but then you also criticize them for ignoring your facts. Which is it? Are you debating or not?
Nobody has said that your subjective anger is illegitimate. All they are saying is that, objectively, it does not appear that Law did anything illegal. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. Your anger and the inability to prosecute Law can coexist.