Is it just Church Lawyers that are morally repugnant?
I guess lawyers that represent people making accusations are crusaders for justice.
How many colors do you see, Bubba?
I only count two.
Cool yer jets .
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. wring, for example (you have been reading her posts as well…right?) has also been talking about the legal dynamics of these events, albeit from a different point of view than Zoff…I guess she has recto cranial inversion issues as well?
I previously stated my split feelings on the matter…quite frankly I don’t nearly enough about the law to form a conclusion about specific statements/questions made as a part of a trial or deposition…especially from a newspaper article that mentions the “did you enjoy it” question in passing.
There are several lines of thinking being addressed here, one of the lines has to do with court procedures, and whether it’s ever relevant/legitimate to act as the lawyers are reported to have acted. That is an important (though not the only) part of this discussion. Discussing that issue does not mean that other issues are not important.
The people making accusations may be lying. Whether they are lying or telling the truth the lawyers for defense are vile, worthless excuses for human beings. You can stretch all you want, and the only excuse you can come up with for that question involves the priest “consentually” sleeping with the victim. Whatever legal excuses you can come up with ammount to commiting further wrongs against the victim.
The example you gave way back on page 2 involved a 16 year old “seducing” a preist. I will guaran-fucking-tee that that isn’t the way it went down [sub]no pun intended[/sub]. Look at the situation, who has the power? Can you sexually harass your boss? Does a buggy push the horse up a mountain? Maybe on bizarro world.
The negative attitude you have toward the accusors is a little disturbing Scylla. I can believe that not every Catholic preist is a child molestor, is it so hard for you to accept that not all of the accusors are white trash moneygrubbing theives? Even among those who are white trash, I would be willing to bet that a distinct minority of them are lying. You know what? It’s possible that none of them are lying.
I accepted your appology earlier, but the only reason I appologised is that I realised I had said something that made me look like a fucking idiot. I would urge you to re-read your posts in this thread and offer your appology to the alleged victims, rather than to some dumb-ass on a message board.
beagledave, I did blow my top a little there. The legal discussion is rediculous, whether the question is admissable has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should have been asked in the first place. It seems to me to be a hijack of the grandest order, which I believe was started by Scylla.
If arguing the legal relavance of the question has anything to do with right and wrong, allow me to suggest that the church must be in the right because Notre Dame has a good football team. It’s just as relavant to the original discussion.
No Grendel:
There is a presumption of innocence in these things.
We start off presuming that the person being accused is innocent, and that the person making the accusation is wrong.
The accuser must then attempt to prove that the accusation is true beyond a reasonable doubt. The accuser has the burden of proof.
We’ve been doing things this way for a very long time, and there’s a reason we do so.
In this country our legal system has as one of it’s principles that it is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be falsey punished.
This is also includes Priests.
Some have said repeatedly that the Church should back off on its defense. That its ok if they pay out some extra dollars on fraudulent claims.
Such stupidity baffles me.
When a man gets accused of such a thing, whether it’s a criminal suit, or a civil suit, his life is very much on the line. His professional reputation, his status in the community, his ability to follow his vocation, perhaps his ability to get a job, his ability to hold his head up and say “I am a good priest,” all this is being attacked.
This is what he stands to lose.
In the face of that, I’m not too worried about the accuser being asked difficult, embarassing, or even potentially hurtful questions.
It’s supposed to be hard to destroy a man’s reputation. Even when it’s justified.
I’d rather 99 people who were abused never get their money, or satisfaction, than one innocent priest goes to jail, or is defrocked, or has his reputation destroyed for a crime he didn’t commit.
It’s specifically that way for a very good reason. Our founding fathers set it up that way because experience has shown them that if it’s not, it’s all too easy to destroy the lives of innocent people, and lots of lives get destroyed.
“Did you enjoy it?” It doesn’t seem like a fair question to me. But, I don’t know the circumstances and neither do you. It is simply asinine stupidity to make a judgement about that questions propriety in those particular circumstances when it can only be founded on ignorance.
Somebody earlier commented on that Priest who was gunned down by an accuser and lamented the accuser didn’t know how to use a gun properly since the priest lived.
Fucking madness! Stupidity! Bigotry! An accusation does not merit a death sentence.
You have to prove it.
Presumption of innocence. Presumption of innocence.
Think about being falsely accused.
“Did you enjoy it?” A troubling question, especially to one who has been abused. An unfair question when you look at it naked like that.
Weigh the discomfort an pain that such a question may cause, against the worth of a man’s reputation, livelihood, and freedom, and you have to concede that it might be worth asking.
actually, Scylla what I was suggesting is that asking ‘did you enjoy it’ was a stupid question since it assumed that the event happened, and if you’re attempting to portray your client as innocent, it’s a tough sell if your attorney is essentially admitting the event.
the other person was focused on if that question would go towards a reduction in damages, but again, if you’re assuming and arguing that your client is factually innocent that question wouldn’t come up.
My last few posts were done in haste while at work. Now that I have a bourbon in hand, let me lay out a more structured approach to the problems with wring’s argument that the federal court case she cited would apply to the Illinois case.
There are a few things to ask in deciding whether the Mary M. v. North Lawrence Community School Corp. case would apply to the molestation case.
- Is the case in federal or state court
a. If the case is in state court, then the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is not binding on the Illinois state courts because inferior federal court decisions are not binding on state courts. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=95-974 “]See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona(“a lower federal court judgment is not binding on state courts, the District Court noted.”) So, if the case is brought in state court, then the Title IX case is clearly not precedential.
b. If the case is brought in federal court, we then have to ask what the cause of action is.
i. If it’s a Title IX cause of action, then the decision wring cited controls. However, there is no evidence that the suit is a sexual discrimination in education case.
ii. If it’s not a Title IX cause of action, then the decision wring cited does not control. Every cause of action is treated on its merits. The courts don’t make sweeping decisions that say “since consent doesn’t work in cases brought under X they don’t apply in cases brought under Y.” They might find the decision regarding cause of action X persuasive, but it’s not binding.
So, basically wring was assuming that the case was brought in federal court. I don’t know if she assumed it was a Title IX case, but as I’ve demonstrated, if it’s not a Title IX case, the case isn’t controlling. The case is only controlling if we assume that the molestation case is a Title IX action in federal court. It’s pretty clear that the case is not at all “spot on.”
Again, I’m not arguing that there is no Illinois authority for prohibiting raising consent in a civil suit. I simply want proof. All I’ve been given are assumptions supported by further assumptions.
Now let me address specific points others made since my last post
Again, you misunderstand. My contention is that we don’t have enough facts, while you argue we do. You basically argued that the courts universally won’t allow a consent defense. I argued that some do. So your citation of (1) criminal statues from (2) other states did nothing to prove universality of the principle you argued or that Illinois specifically follows the principle even if it’s not universal.
Since I am not affirmatively arguing that Illinois doesn’t apply your principle I don’t need to focus on Illinois law. By citing another state’s decision I have effectively destroyed your universality argument. Lacking a universality argument you must now prove that Illinois specifically forbids a consent defense. You have failed to do so. And citing a federal Title IX case doesn’t even come close for the reasons stated above.
Are you following?
I’m not asking for “more evidence” I’m asking for any evidence. Find an Illinois law that prohibits consent as a defense. The facts, which we don’t know by the way, don’t have to be exact. The decision or statute merely has to say that consent is not a valid defense for an action by an underage person suing an adult for sexual acts. It appears you’re deliberately raising a smokescreen by acting like I’m asking for some hyper-technical and fact-specific law. I’m not. I’ll take a general law or decision. Can you give me that? If not, then you have lost the argument that there are enough facts before us, because you are merely operating under an assumption.
I’m honored. I’m curious, were you as hopelessly in over your head with the other people you put on your list?
Considering that I’ve explicitly said I’m discussing the legal issues, I don’t know what the fuck you want. Don’t ask me questions if you don’t want answers. And isn’t the question-over the top response to answer-contrition cycle getting a bit tedious?
First of all, I’m not on a jury. I am not required to presume the priests are innocent. I hope at least some of them are. Do you also believe OJ is looking for the real killer?
Secondly presuming the innocence of the priests doesn not equate to belittling the accusors. Calling them moneygrubbing white trash theives was a low point for you, and I’m sure when things have died down you will feel guilty for that. I would hope for your sake that you take it back while people are still reading this thread and those who have lost respect for you will regain it.
More to the point, do you honestly feel that in the example you gave the question is appropriate? Do you honestly believe a child could “seduce” a preist? Do you want that preist to proclaim himself a “good preist” as you said? Don’t you think that belittles the church?
Do you believe the man who shot the priest was not molested? What motive do you suggest he had? I’ve never been molested, but I was gay-bashed through high school. I can understand the rage that would lead someone to attempt to kill a childhood abuser who was protected by the system.
My last post was directed at Scylla.
_Bubba-Ray
Jesus fucking Christ. Have you fucking read what I’ve fucking written? I was asked for a scenario and I provided one. I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever said whether it was the truth or not, or more probable than other scenarios. My entire fucking point has been that we should wait for facts. I don’t know what words I can use to make my point any clearer.
You’re free to be mad and jump to all the conclusions you want. But when you repeatedly show that you can’t fucking read what I fucking write you’re not doing yourself any favors.
Here it is all nice and pretty for you: A priest might have grabbed and molested a 7 year old boy. If he did, that’s fucking reprehensible. But we don’t know if that’s the case. It could be a 17 year old who had an affair. We don’t know if that’s the case. I’m not assigning probabilities to either scenario because we don’t have the fucking facts.
Well, then I retract my post. You know, I was going to ask if it was directed to me. My bad for ignoring my gut feeling. Do I at least get some style points?
**
Not at all. Lawyers can’t lecture. They have to ask questions. They can’t simply present arguments they have to do it interrogatively.
One of the best ways to take apart an accusation is to accept certain premises and show how they contradict other assertions.
I’ll give you an example: “L” for lawyer, “P” for Plaintiff.
L “Did you enjoy it?”
P “No of course not. :
: It was horrible. How could you ask me such a thing?”
L: “Well, I was wondering if you enjoyed it, because in this letter you wrote to your friend you talked about what a crush you had on the defendant, and how much you wanted to jump his bones?”
P: “It was just a juvenile crush. It happens to kids all the time. We don’t really know what we are doing. We don’t expect to be taken advantage because of our adolescent longings.”
L “Indeed. Did you fantasize about sexual encounters with the defendant?”
P “That’s none of your…”
L “let me rephrase. Did you write any letters in which you told others your explicit fantasies?”
P “I was just a child, I didn’t know…”
L “You didn’t know they would be used against you?”
P “No.”
L “So we’ve established that you had an adolescent crush on the defendant, that you shared fantasies about him. Did those fantasies come true?”
P “No. It was horrible. I was abused.”
L “Really? Were you really, or were you simply angered and hurt when the defendant rebuffed your advances, when he turned you down?”
P “No I…”
L “He didn’t rebuff you?”
P “No. He molested me.”
L “If he molested you, then why did he recommend you for counseling to the school psychologist?”
P “He what?”
L “If he recommended you for counseling wouldn’t he have been afraid that the horrible abuse he perpetrated upon you would be uncovered?”
P “I. I don’t know.”
L “Isn’t the truth that you simply had an… “adolescent crush” as you put it, and were terribly hurt and angry when your overtures were turned down, when he sent you away? In fact isn’t this “abuse” you claim only some fictional wish fulfillment and that this allegation of abuse is nothing more than a desire for revenge against the man who turned down your little crush?”
P “Yes! Yes! I admit it all.”
You get the idea.
Surely Wring you understand that damages are based on the degree of harm caused.
While I agree that molestation is always a heinous crime, some cases are worse than others, some are more damaging than others.
Even a civil case is a matter of public record. Even when guilt is admitted there is a difference between a man who was sex with a 16 year old who desires it, and say, a nine year old who is beaten and forcibly raped.
If I was still young man, and I was so foolish as to have sex with a 16 year old, and I was being sued for it, I think that I should be allowed to show that I was not some horrible monster but merely an idiot with extremely poor judgement. I think I still have the right to establish exactly my degree of guilt, especially if I’m admitting I did something wrong. The fact that I am admitting guilt isn’t a blanket admission to everything that I am being accused of.
There may be a matter of degree.
Especially in a civil case where by definition compensation is being awarded based on degree of guilt, this distinction is a valid one to pursue.
That’s the way civil cases work.
If I neglectfully run over your big toe with my bicycle and break it, I may be liable for your hospital bills and some pain and suffering.
If I’m drunk, and playing a game of riding straight at you and swerving away at the last instant, and I accidently hit you and paralyze you, than I may be liable for a lot more than if it had been a simple accident with a minor injury.
There are degrees of guilt in all things.
It is right and proper to establish what those degrees are.
It’s not that tough.
How very Christian
I lost my scorecard - could someone tell me again just WHO is holier than Who?
I know Swiss cheese is holier than American. 
So sue me, I needed to crack a joke.
**
I’m sorry. I thought we were having a debate. No, you are not required to argue reasonable and defensible positions. If you’re not interested in being reasonable and justifying your stances, then I see no point and have no interest in having this conversation. Let me know which it is.
**
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of “belittling.” I would personally find it belittling if I was to make such a grave accusation as molestation and then have a lawyer ask me questions in order to prove that I was lying. It would be belittling because I knew I was telling the truth, that something horrible had happened to me, and some piece of shit mouthpiece was trying to turn it around to make it look like I made it up.
It would be very belittling and humiliating.
Unfortunately it would also be necessary Why or why don’t you see that?
Bubba, I swear, this is the last fucking time. This is it. Get this through your thick skull. I did not say they were.
I never said that
Never.
What I said back on page 1 (and I quote) is:
" Is it possible that there was a kind and unselfish and innocent priest who’s name is being sullied by some white trash looking to pass the buck on their own irresponsibility and cash in on a hot social issue with some facil well-timed lies?"
I did not say that they were White trash telling lies.
I asked “Is it possible.”
We’ve been over this before my friend. You know better. Your constant misrepresentation of what I have said in the face of the bloody facts has left me with only two possible conclusions:
-
You have a major reading comprehension problem founded no doubt on an intellect who’s power which harnessed might suffice to toast bread.
-
You are deliberately misquoting me in attempt at high drama, and to make me look bad. You are trying to put words in my mouth because you don’t have a fucking rhetorical leg to stand on.
In short, you are lying.
Retract it, Bubba, or were through. It’s a scummy tactic, and stupid, too since the proof is on the first page.
**
Jesus Christ, Bubba. I don’t know. Nor do you. All I know is one guy shot another because he said he had been abused. To the best of my knowledge the guy had not been convicted.
I suspect that the guy that did the shooting was severely unbalanced. I say that by the fact that he walked up and shot somebody alone. The fact that he was unbalanced may be because he was abused, or it might have another cause.
Do you think it’s ok to just shoot people based on an accusation, or do you feel that perhaps the requirements should be a little more stringent?
I don’t know. That’s the point.
He could very well have been abused.
He could simply be a nut with a fixation. There’s lots of 'em. Go talk to Hinkley about Jodi Foster, and see what a fixation can do.
He could be angry becuase he was rebuffed.
He could be delusional.
He could have shot him for another reason and using an abuse accusation in an attempt to hide the real reason.
We don’t know. We don’t have enough info to form an opinion or a judgement. If we try to on the basis of total ignorance than we are being absolutely fucking stupid by the very definition of the term.
It could be anything including exactly what he says it was, but that’s not good enough.
Scylla, you might be a worthless, classist piece of shit with no concience and no remorse.
happyheathen, I made a joke about your comment but here is my actual response: Catholics may feel holier than we atheists, but they are not the enemy. The victims were Catholic. Living in the bible belt I can understand being upset at Christians, but the Catholics aren’t the ones that harass people- they don’t prosteletize in my experience.
It’s conceivable. I might be. I’m even open to the possibility.
You on the other hand have left no doubt as to your character.
As a lapsed Jew with little knowledge of Catholicism, I’m a little leary of getting involved in an argument that has become so acrimonious, but I have to inquire — given that the Church has an obligation to represent Christ here on Earth and serve the needs of the faithful, would the greater good be accomplished by simply accepting responsibility, even when none exists? Although the Church certainly enjoys the presumption of innocence and the ability to defend itself against false accusations, if the tactics it employs to those ends drive away too many parishoners, hasn’t it saved itself at the expense of those it exists to help? The soundest tactic would seem to me to be the one that heals the most wounds and offers the most hope for the future; if it costs a few bucks, what is that compared to the souls the Church exists to save?
Emilio:
You raise a possibility. It’s possible, maybe even probable that if they follow such a tactic and admit to all wrongdoings that they are accused of, that the weight of all those accusation may be the complete undoing of the Church, in which case, its works and missions would cease.
Scylla, you really don’t get it, do you?
I never appologised for anything I said about you, I was holding out hope that you would redeem yourself. I apologised for making an ignorant and rude comment that I felt was beneath me, I still hope you realise that some comments you have made were beneath you. Read what Giraffe said, what happyheathen and apotheosis said on page 1.
Oh, and while I’m at it… fuck you Zoff for this little crack
I guess you really don’t get it either. This isn’t some stupid fucking semantic game. We are talking about real issues, real pain. At least Scylla seems to get that to an extent, I have no idea what your problem is.