PENNSYLVANIA
SOL Reform
Marci A. Hamilton
Academic Director and Chairman, Board of Directors
CHILD USA
(215) 746-4165
Resident Senior Scholar
Program for Research on Religion
Co-chair, Common Ground for the Common Good Project
Fox Leadership Program
University of Pennsylvania
3814 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 353-8984 (cell)
hamilton.marci@gmail.com
Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf
Chair
PA Senate Judiciary Committee
Main Capitol, 19 EW
Harrisburg, PA 17120
June 13, 2016
RE: Constitutionality of HB 1947
Dear Sen. Greenleaf and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for asking me to testify at this hearing on the constitutionality of HB 1947, which modestly amends Pennsylvania’s statutes of limitations (SOLs) for child sex abuse.
I am a Resident Senior Fellow in the Program for Research on Religion in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania; a co-chair of the Common Ground for the Common Good project; and the Academic Director of CHILD USA, an interdisciplinary think tank on child abuse and neglect. After 26 years of full-time teaching, I now hold the Paul R. Verkuil Research Chair at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. My book, Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge University Press 2008, 2012), and website, www.sol-reform.com, are the leading resources on child sex abuse statutes of limitations, and I have researched, written, and testified on the issue in many states and abroad. The views expressed in this testimony are solely my own.
The issue this Committee has asked me to focus on is whether the revival of a civil SOL for child sex abuse is consistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution. The short answer is that along with a majority of the states, it is constitutional in Pennsylvania to revive an expired civil SOL.
HB 1947 does not violate due process under the Pennsylvania or Federal Constitution.
Let me first set aside the due process issues in this arena. It is unconstitutional to revive a criminal SOL, because it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 610 (2003). At the same time, it is not a due process violation and, therefore, it is constitutional to revive a civil SOL. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 267 (1994). Under the federal Constitution, revival of a civil SOL is constitutional if two due process requirements are met: (1) clear legislative intent and (2) the change is to a procedural element, like a statute of limitations. See Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 692-93 (2004); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 267-68; Chase Sec. Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 311-15 (1945); Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 6 S. Ct. 209 (1885).
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.