# Statute of Limitations: time to rethink in view of Catholic molestation situation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 16, 2013, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-time-to-rethink-in-view-of-catholic-molestation-situation/650475 "2013-02-16T05:26:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stan\_Shmenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Stan\_Shmenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stan_Shmenge)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-time-to-rethink-in-view-of-catholic-molestation-situation/650475/21 "2013-02-20T04:24:07Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Are you implying that actively hiding a guilty party is direct involvement? Accessory after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-time-to-rethink-in-view-of-catholic-molestation-situation/650475/22 "2013-02-22T04:35:28Z")
That’s what I’m getting at. Mahoney knew what O’Grady was up to and simply kept moving him around and protecting him, not giving a shit what happened. It sure sounds that way in his deposition, anyhow. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-time-to-rethink-in-view-of-catholic-molestation-situation/650475/23 "2013-02-22T16:09:31Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > Accessory after the fact. > [@vivalostwages](#): > > That’s what I’m getting at. Mahoney knew what O’Grady was up to and simply kept moving him around and protecting him, not giving a shit what happened. It sure sounds that way in his deposition, anyhow. Unfortunately, moving him around, and not giving a shit what happened, while despicable, are not sufficient pieces of evidence to support a criminal conviction for accessory after the fact. Accessory after the fact requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a very specific intent, and “…not giving a shit…” is not enough to get there. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-time-to-rethink-in-view-of-catholic-molestation-situation/650475/24 "2013-02-22T18:40:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The rule is (at least in the federal system and most states – I don’t know if it’s universally true) that the legislature can extend the statute of limitations without violating the Ex Post Facto clause as long as the original period has not run. > > \ > > Not just my opinion, but the Supreme Court’s. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003). Since the OP’s quote also mentions civil cases, and most of the priest abuse litigation has been civil in nature, it’s worth noting that this rule only applies to criminal cases. Legislatures are free to pass retroactive statutes that are not “penal in nature” - such as extending the SOL for a civil action - as long as the explicitly say that’s what they are doing (see Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, for example). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-time-to-rethink-in-view-of-catholic-molestation-situation/650475/25 "2013-02-22T19:48:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Since the OP’s quote also mentions civil cases, and most of the priest abuse litigation has been civil in nature, it’s worth noting that this rule only applies to criminal cases. Legislatures are free to pass retroactive statutes that are not “penal in nature” - such as extending the SOL for a civil action - as long as the explicitly say that’s what they are doing (see Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, for example). Oh, absolutely. I tend to be myopic about criminal law – in this case, it was “This dude needs to die in prison,” that focused my attention thusly. But you’re absolutely correct – civil law allows extensions of time limits without implicating the Ex Post Facto clause. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statute-of-limitations-time-to-rethink-in-view-of-catholic-molestation-situation/650475.md?page=1)