BishopAccountability.org
	An Excess of Zeal The Cincinnati Post [Ohio] September 19, 2006 http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20060919/EDIT/609190309/1003 Officials in Hamilton County, taking advantage of a new state law, are trying to have a former Catholic priest formally labeled a sex offender - even though he was never convicted of such a crime. Both the law and Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters' decision to be the first to try it out strike us as overzealous. Even assuming the best of intentions - and who can argue against trying to protect society against sexual predators - this seems to be taking the law to unwise and unnecessary extremes. Deters on Friday filed a civil action against David J. Kelley, who among other things was once a priest at Little Flower Catholic Church in Mount Airy. Authorities said Kelley has been investigated for sexually abusing a student at the grade school there in the early 1980s but was not prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired. Deters' civil suit asks the court to decide whether Kelley would have been liable for assault and battery based on the available evidence. A finding he would have been liable (theoretical liability, really) would then pave the way for a declaratory judgment requiring Kelley to register with the Ohio Attorney General's civil registry as a sex offender. He would also be required to file his address with the Hamilton County sheriff's office and prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of a school. Failure to comply would be a fifth-degree felony. Protecting society from sex offenders is a legitimate goal of legislators and law enforcement officials. But even some of the new laws governing convicted sex offenders are starting to go too far, some authorities are starting to opine, because the restrictions are so onerous that offenders are going underground upon their release from prison rather than trying to comply. Ohio's new law is something else entirely. This is a man who has not been convicted of anything. He is not now accused of any crimes. Yet he must defend himself in court as if he were on trial for a criminal act. And if found to have civil liability, he faces consequences identical to those of convicted criminals. Moreover, there would appear to be little practical value in pursuing this case, given that Kelley now lives in Tennessee. We share the frustration evident in the new law about priests and others who have abused children and gotten away with it because the statute of limitations has expired. But authorizing what amounts to retroactive prosecution is not an appropriate response to that frustration. There is a legitimate reason for giving police and prosecutors a deadline for filing charges in most types of cases. In addition to protecting the courts from overload, it protects individuals from malicious prosecution. With respect to child abuse cases, if the societal need is to allow adults to obtain justice for wrongs done to them when they were young and impressionable, the prudent answer is to lengthen the statute of limitations (which in most states has already been done). Moreover, publicity about abuse by priests has already made parents and others much more vigilant and has gone a long way toward removing the stigma that once kept young victims from coming forward. One of the beauties of our legal system is that the appellate courts can review the actions of state and federal lawmakers to see if they meet constitutional tests. This law would seem to be a prime candidate for such a review.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.