It has been said recently before, if you can't believe the media about this type of thing, why believe them when they report about earthquakes? That's what I'll be asking my jw family members if this subject comes up.
What Some Loyal JW's Are Saying About The Oakland Case.
by Bangalore 63 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sir82
So why is the money more important than putting this sex offender in prison?
This one culprit molested a handful of girls. He is a monster, and eventually will probably be killed in prison.
However, the policies of the Watchtower Society enable literally thousands of these monsters to rape 10's of thousands of children.
The policies of the WTS must change, to protect children.
How do you get the attention of the WTS, and force them, however grudgingly, to do what they should ethically and morally do?
You sue them, win a court case, and get awarded $28 million, that's how.
-
wannabefree
From legalmatch.com about statute of limitation in California ...
Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Abuse
In California, the filing of a civil claim of sexual abuse must be made within 8 years of the age of majority (meaning before your 26th birthday). However, California is one of 28 states that have adopted an extension of the statute of limitations based on the "discovery" of child sexual abuse or its effects. While nearly every state has a basic suspension of the statute of limitations while someone is a minor, many states have recently adopted these new "discovery" extensions specifically designed for cases of sexual child abuse. The discovery rule allows for civil lawsuits to go forward when they are "within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.
This rule was designed to counter the problem of prosecuting molesters who's victims had repressed the memories for decades, long after the statute of limitations expired. Now, upon "discovery" of the memories of abuse (often through therapy), a person has 3 years to file a claim.
After the Catholic Church abuse scandals, California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their "employee, volunteer, representative, or agent", and failed to take "reasonable steps" to prevent it. Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue.
Criminal Prosecutions for Sexual Abuse
For criminal cases, a prosecutor may file a charge of aggravated rape at any time, with no limitation (in California, an aggravated rape is rape that involves a weapon, more than one person, or seriously injures the victim). Prosecution for "normal" sexual assault has a statute of limitations of six years. However, there is an exception made for DNA analysis. Since it is a relatively new technology, if a DNA test can conclusively prove the identity of a rapist, prosecution can take place within one year of the discovery.
In regards to child molestation, there has been a series of great upheavals regarding the statute of limitations in California. In the early 1990s, the legislature passed a bill that retroactively waived the statute of limitations for all crimes of child molestation, meaning even people who were previously immune to prosecution could suddenly be arrested. This law was overturned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a recent case, so now the law's retroactive provision is eliminated.What remains is a 10 year statute of limitations for child molestation. HOWEVER, the crime can also be prosecuted within one year of WHENEVER a victim tells the police (even past the 10 year mark). This sounds rather contradictory, because this means that the 10 year limitation is essentially pointless, but it is the current law of the land. The California legislature is constantly debating about this, so the law may change in the near future. You should talk to a California attorney familiar with these cases for the most up to date information.
-
Doubting Bro
It seems to me the main objective here was to get the WTS (and other religious institutions) to do more to protect kids from this sort of abuse. Even the Boy Scouts and Penn State are facing similar issues. You can't convict a corporation of this sort of crime, but you can punish their lack of reasonable action via the civil system.
Bottom line, entities that are given trust such as religious entities, youth organizations and schools must do everything in their power to protect kids. The WTS has shown that they care more about their reputation than they do about their children.
Even if this verdict is overturned on appeal (which would mean there was some sort of technical error made by the trial judge) I think the jury sent a loud and clear message to all these organizations that this type of behavior is not tolerated. They must do everything in their power to protect children and warn parents in their congregations and people in the community about the abuser. This individual was going door to door under the direction of elders who are directly appointed by the WTS.
-
Bobjohnrob
So the trade off is leaving a pedophile to roam free in Oakland with getting an organisation implicated in a civil suit and made to pay large amounts of money?
Is any amount of money or notoriety against a large organisation worth it if this man abuses one more child because a criminal case was not brought against him instead?
If this is about protecting children from pedophiles how could leaving one to roam free be justifiable?
-
Emma
He's not just roaming free; he's a registered sex offender. This will bring his name up to the public in a big way and act as a warning to others.
-
Bobjohnrob
A civil suit does not result in someone going on the sex offenders list, so if he is on it, it is for another conviction?
I have not heard of any suggestion that been on the list stops someone reoffending if they are a serial sexual abuser. It is simply for police to check names against those who commit abusive acts to see if they are on it and keep an eye on them.
Do you think this man should be in prison for what he did? I do.
This case does seem to be more about getting money than putting a pedophile in prison.
-
sir82
because a criminal case was not brought against him instead?
According to the new article on msnbc:
Kendrick was eventually convicted in 2004 of the sexual abuse of another girl, and is now a registered sex offender in California, Simons said. He has not been criminally charged with abusing the plaintiff, but Simons said the case is under investigation by law enforcement.
Not sure why you are so insistent that because a civil case against the WTS was brought, that a criminal case against the individual can now never be made.
-
Doubting Bro
Well, this piece of scum was convicted in 2004 for yet another molestation and is listed on the CA sexual predator list. I agree that he should have never gotten out of prison because he's just going to offend again. But, at least everyone around him knows that he's a predator and won't be allowed near kids by certain institutions (the WTS not being one of them at this point).
It's not really a trade-off but 2 separate issues. The police are investigating the Conti case and hopefully they'll be able to put together a good enough case to get a criminal conviction. But, even then, I think the law is way too soft on these folks and they'll be out offending again. I personally think they should have a life sentence because of the point you inferred, that pedophiles don't EVER stop offending.
But, I'm not sure why you think that the victim pursuing a civil case is somehow preventing the criminal investigation? The police are the ones driving the criminal investigation not Ms Conti. The only thing Ms. Conti had within her power was a civil suit. So what was she supposed to do? Wait?
The WTS needs to do the moral thing and WARN members in the congregation when they have a convicted sex offender, NOTIFY the police with full details (not call from a pay phone and provide the least amount of information possible which is what the WT lawyers advise elders when they are in a mandatory reporting state).
I really hope this verdict causes them to change their policy to favor the alleged victim over the alleged abuser.
The only thing the WTS (and many other institutions) cares about more than its reputation is money. Now, they're looking at a hit to both. Hopefully, they'll do the right thing.
-
Bobjohnrob
I would be very happy if a criminal case is brought against him but why was a civil case brought first? As I said above the only reason to have a civil suit before or without a criminal case is if the proof involved is not good enough for a criminal conviction.
A criminal conviction directly effects civil suits, if it is successful then it helps give gravity to the civil suit but if it fails the civil suit is also effected negatively.
this would mean they thought the civil case was more important than the criminal one even if they go on to pursue one now. It means the money/notoriety is more important than the offender being put in prison ASAP. And if he abused a child within that time frame again why would this be worth it?
Have you any proof that it is the police that are delaying the criminal case?