|
A now or never moment for advocates of child sex crime law reform
By Ivey Dejesus
Advocates of child sex abuse victims are calling it their now-or-never moment. On Monday, a bill they say would widely tip the scale of justice in favor of victims of sexual abuse and away from predators goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee. At stake is the future of House Bill 1947, which would amend the civil statute of limitations and eliminate all criminal statutes on future child sex crimes. The bill would also give past victims of sex abuse the opportunity to file civil claims against predators. Monday's hearing before the judiciary committee, the first since the bill's passage in the House in April, is slated to focus on arguments of the bill's constitutionality. "We have a moment when the survivors need to make a point - that this is all about survivors from all categories," said Marci Hamilton, a constitutional law expert and a leading expert on statute of limitations reform. "It's really time for Pennsylvania to do the right thing." Hamilton, who will be testifying on Monday on the constitutionality of HB1947, has successfully advocated for reform of child sex crime laws across the country. She says the proposed legislation is within the bounds of the law. "There's no question that in Pennsylvania the constitutional reviving of expired statute of limitation to help a victim is consistent with the remedies clause," Hamilton said. "The plain language of the remedies clause is that it is for people who have been injured. It is not a haven for defendants and those who endanger children." Advocates know that in order for the law to change the bill must survive the scrutiny of the judiciary committee, which is led by chairman Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, (R-Montgomery). Over the past month or so since passage of the bill in the House, Greenleaf has been mum about the bill. Castor testifying Monday He will on Monday consider the testimony of Bruce Castor, the second-highest-ranking official in the state's Attorney General's office, who will be testifying on behalf of the Commonwealth. Advocates fear that Castor, a former district attorney from Montgomery County with ties to his former law partner Greenleaf, is intent on arming the judiciary committee with the ammo necessary to strip the bill of the revival element and ostensibly defeat it. Castor, who in January was brought out of retirement by embattled Attorney General Kathleen Kane, said he was simply asked to give legal analysis, and while he has no personal thoughts on the bill, his outlook on it is colored by a lifetime spent in law enforcement. "When you spend three decades in law enforcement you can probably guess I favor the idea of punishing wrongdoers, whether civilly or criminally," said Castor, whose extensive resume includes multiple terms as district attorney and county commissioner in Montgomery County. Castor has also served as president of the state's District Attorneys Association and on the state's Supreme Court Rules Committee. "Having to make the decision over the years based on the law and evidence and sometimes requiring that guilty people go free, I'm well aware of the distinction between what I want to be the case and what the law allows," he said. For advocates, House Bill 1947 represents a drawn-out attempt to reform the law. After a string of failed attempts to enact reform legislation, the bill passed out of the House in April in the wake of the latest child sex abuse scandal in Pennsylvania. A grand jury report in March announced findings of a two-year-long investigation into the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese that found the systemic abuse of children by priests over decades and the coverup by church leaders. The Altoona-Johnstown case seemed to tip the momentum in favor of advocates, who rode a groundswell of public outrage fueled by other stunning sex abuse cases in the state – including the clergy sex abuse case out of Philadelphia Archdiocese, the Jerry Sandusky case and the ongoing court case involving Bill Cosby. The bill, which passed the House with a majority vote of 180-15, has pitted powerful forces in the state against each other: namely its opponents – the business and insurance sectors and the Catholic Church – against its supporters – victims and their advocates. Retroactive measure 'blatantly unfair' The Catholic Church, which has been rocked by clergy sex abuse scandals, says the bill unfairly targets the church and would result in devastating lawsuits. The church and its legislative branch, the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, has long been concerned that retroactive components of the law conflict are unconstitutional. "I expect that many of these same constitutional concerns that are specific to Pennsylvania's constitution and law will be addressed in the Judiciary Committee hearing on Monday," Amy Hill, spokeswoman for the organization, said. Hill reiterated that the conference does not oppose the elimination of the criminal statute of limitations but considers the retroactive measure that was amended into the bill "blatantly unfair." "It discriminates against survivors who suffered sexual abuse in public institutions and prevents them from seeking recourse," she said in a written statement. "It allows lawsuits to be filed against private institutions for long past actions, but continues to protect public ones, including schools and juvenile facilities." Delilah Rumberg, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, argues that the push for reform has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. She points out that the majority of child sex abuse involves adults who are close to the child – whether family, neighbor or friend of the family. "It's not about the Catholic Church," Rumberg said. "It never started out that way for any of us. It really is trying to give victims the opportunity to come forward, those who haven't had the opportunity to experience justice. That's what we really want to do is make sure we give survivors time they need to come forward and hold accountable those who did harm." Similarly, the business sector, including the insurance industry, argues that the retroactive component of the bill would be detrimental to business. Reforms have swept country Victims and victims advocates argue that the amendment to the law would grant past victims the one vital thing denied to them: justice. Advocates widely point to scientific research into abuse, which increasingly concludes that child sexual abuse is so traumatic and devastating, most victims require decades before they are ready to come forth about their abuse. By then most have timed out of the legal system. Advocates, who have for more than two decades fought to reform the statute of limitations, are riding a wave of reform legislation across the country. Some 32 states have recently amended statutes of limitations. Pennsylvania – along with New Jersey and New York – are ground zero for some of the fiercest ongoing battles. Over the past 10 years, more than three dozen states have eliminated the criminal statute of limitations (for the top counts); approximately eight have imposed "windows" or revived expired statutes to allow victims to come forth.In every state – California, Delaware, Minnesota, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Georgia – where attempts to revive expired statutes of limitations have been challenged, courts have upheld the reform as constitutional. Hamilton said she plans to note in her testimony that the state's remedies clause is not – as detractors have argued – distinctive to Pennsylvania. The purpose of clause, she argues, is to protect plaintiffs from legislative action that will undermine an individual's remedy for an injury done. The clause states: "All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by law direct." Added Hamilton, "In fact the Supreme Court said it was similar to that of 30 other states." Public definitely following Since the announcement last week that Castor would testify on behalf of the Commonwealth, victims and victims advocates have expressed concern that he will thwart their goal. Hamilton said Castor represents a conflict of interest not only because of his ties with Greenleaf, but his failure to prosecute Bill Cosby, which she said shows he is not on the side of victims. "This is a tainted witness," Hamilton said. "He has already let down all of the victims of Cosby. This is just politics. The last person anyone should be listening to on the protection of children is a Catholic bishop and Bruce Castor." Castor declined to comment on the focus of his testimony. However, he provided his assessment of public opinion on this issue. "My read on the public's tolerance of the law enforcement's inability to pursue older cases has reached its limit," he said. He added that he thought the bill passed the House under public pressure, and while the Senate widely takes a more deliberative approach, its members also will fall under that same public scrutiny. The clergy sex abuse cases out of Altoona-Johnstown and the archdioceses of Philadelphia and Boston, Castor said, "have culminated in the public becoming much more intolerant of this behavior and desirous of granting law enforcement powers to deal with it. "I believe the senators while more deliberative will take a similar view to the House. Whether they take the exact view is a nuance I can't predict," he said. "But I would be surprised if the Senate did not do something similar to what the House did in an effort to grant law enforcement greater powers to deal with a social issue that the public has lost its tolerance for waiting on." Contact: idejesus@pennlive.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.