- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I'd like to point out a drawback to simply getting rid of statutes of limitation, particularly when it involves an accusation like child molestation. How, exactly, can the accused defend him or herself against an inflammatory accusation that goes back decades?
Brushing aside this concern with the offhand acknowledgement that while the Catholic church "might be a tempting target for unfair suits," we need to go ahead and do it because "the victims deserve their day in court," ignores the fact that it is individuals who are being accused -- not just that villanous "deep pocketed" abstract of a Catholic church with its history of "shady dealings." Child molestation is a profoundly serious accusation that can destroy the life of a defendant even if it's determined to have been false. It's not just the victim who deserves a "day in court." The accused also deserves, not just that day in court, but a system where guilt is not presumed and the evidence presented is not so heavily reliant on bare accusation and/or so out of date that it's practically impossible to refute.
