Given all the scandals in the Church and the suitably harsh penalties being imposed on guity parties, why did a grammar school teacher who admitted to the same kind of behavior with a young student get only six months in jail?
One of the things Fr. Benedict warned about last weekend was the effort in some states to abolish the statute of limitations in cases involving abuse and the Church. He basically said that, aside from issues of justice, this is largely driven by greed. And that it is patently unjust that the statute be abolished specifically in cases related to the Church, because of the breadth of damage that would do to so many (millions of) others.
It is my understanding that civil suits cannot be brought against public institutions, school boards, principals, superintendents, etc. over abuse of children by public school teachers and staff. And there is a certain justice in that: a settlement on behalf of one victim would cause disproportionate harm to too many other children by affecting the resources available for their education. Principals, superintendents and school boards may very well be guilty of culpable negligence, but the laws recognize the need to protect children's right to an education. If the statute of limitations is revoked for cases involving the Church, then it must, in all fairness, be revoked in these cases involving public schools. And at the very least, people found or admitted guilty of abuse of children should get more than six months of jail time, no matter where the abuse was perpetrated.
1 comment:
Right you are sister! Sometimes it seems like, though the hierarchy still has structures to fix and we all have hurt yet to heal, some people want to heap on more hurt and stress.
And what can we conclude apart from it being to their advantage!
Thanks for the post!
Post a Comment