Ruling on clergy abuse may yield new cases

In some cases, the crimes happened so long ago that criminal charges were out of the question. Statutes of limitations — time limits for prosecution — were a roadblock to many attorneys wanting jail-time for abusive priests.

But some attorneys — among them St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce — began to look for ways to file charges.

Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ruled that no statute of limitations existed to bar Joyce's prosecution of a priest accused of child sex abuse in the late 1970s.

As the article states, all of this hinges on the proper interpretation of the meaning of "or" and "during". A way was 'found' to get around the statute of limitations.

In 2002, Joyce charged [priest Thomas] Graham under a 1969 law that says anyone convicted of "the detestable and abominable crime against nature" can be given two years to life in prison. Because the code does not specify a time limit on prosecution, Joyce argued that the statute of limitations must be determined by the sentencing options.

Until crime code changes in 1979, Missouri law explicitly gave no statute of limitations for crimes punishable by "death or by imprisonment in the penitentiary during life." Most at issue in the code are the words "during" and "or."

The panel's July 6 opinion found that "during life" meant a life sentence. And "or" meant the crime did not have to have both the death penalty and life imprisonment as a sentencing option.

Thus, sodomy, for which an offender could receive two years to life in prison, has the same statute of limitations as does murder, which allows for both a life sentence or the death penalty.

Setting aside the statute of limitations issue for a moment, one thing I noticed immediately was that sodomy is referred to as "the detestable and abominable crime against nature" and it was punishable from 2 years to life.

One wonders, considering the relentless push for homosexual "unions", if sodomy, primarily practiced by homosexual males, is still "the detestable and abominable crime against nature" as it was before 1979 when Missouri crime code changes occurred or if it is now viewed as "loving and life-giving relationship" by the Missouri statutes - I guess I should check that out...

Anyway, as anyone who studied civics in high school may remember, there are valid and compelling reasons for statutes of limitations. "Memories fade. Documents are lost. People disappear."

On the other hand, David Clohessy of SNAP argues that:

[V]ictims frequently sit in silence. They are often convinced that the abuse isn't actually abuse. Sometimes they block out the incidents altogether.

"They don't understand first that it's abuse, second that they're being harmed," Anderson said. "It takes them time to come forward to report it, to take legal action."

Time limits are imposed for most crimes to avoid the "he said, she said" conundrum, especially when there is little or no physical evidence.

Some expect the ruling to be overturned on appeal - others are confident it will stand. I guess now we wait and see.

Article here.