Can States Change Statutes of Limitations and Reactivate Charges?

I've noticed this TV commercial that is pursuing sexual abuse cases against clergy in states where the statutes of limitations have been changed or eliminated. I thought that didn't seem right if the charges were nullified under the old laws when the abuse occurred. It isn't double jeopardy, as the accused was never charged, yet it is charging someone for a case that was already dropped due to the statute of limitations, a retroactive law basically.

I'm not sure how a law like this can't be grandfathered back and should only apply to cases after the date that the statute was changed, but apparently, that isn't how it works. Maybe I have this all wrong, but it seems like they are making cases that are based on retroactive laws, something I thought they aren't supposed to do.

I haven't looked into this much, but I'd like to hear what other members know about this. Thanks in advance.

Also, I find it interesting that these law offices are going after Christian clergy specifically when it should apply across the board.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Found this for you:

"The U.S. Supreme Court opined in Stogner v. California in 2003 that a change of a statute of limitations cannot be retroactively applied to crimes which were committed prior to the law's change"

Hope this answers your question

a reply to: PorkChop96

Cool, as I suspected, but why are these commercials claiming that it didn't matter how long ago the abuse may have occurred (they say it could have been decades ago) and why just the Christian clergy?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I'm sure it is just some "ambulance chaser" type that wants their big pay day in court but don't understand the rules.

As for the clergy aspect, I would guess that it's just another stab at trying to make someone else the enemy? No idea, your guess is as good as mine on this one.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Actually, they may be going for people who didn't realize that the laws have changed in their state and that they still have a case. I'm not sure, just putting it out there.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: PorkChop96

Cool, as I suspected, but why are these commercials claiming that it didn't matter how long ago the abuse may have occurred (they say it could have been decades ago) and why just the Christian clergy?

Churches are notorious for paying off accusers with credible complaints to avoid bad publicity, as are most businesses and people of notoriety.

Just the accusations alone can translate into a staggering loss of $$$$$; best sweep it under the rug.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Yeah, I think it falls under the whole ex post facto thing.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Ask Bill Cosby and Donald Trump.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Ask Bill Cosby and Donald Trump.

Hunter Biden was to be charged with more serious offenses, but The department of Justice waited until the eligibility window had closed before eventually indicting Hunter on lesser charges.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Civil or Criminal ?

Civil has no statute of limitations in most cases. That they are advertising, I'd say it's some shyster looking for a buck.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I've noticed this TV commercial that is pursuing sexual abuse cases against clergy in states where the statutes of limitations have been changed or eliminated. I thought that didn't seem right if the charges were nullified under the old laws when the abuse occurred. It isn't double jeopardy, as the accused was never charged, yet it is charging someone for a case that was already dropped due to the statute of limitations, a retroactive law basically.

I'm not sure how a law like this can't be grandfathered back and should only apply to cases after the date that the statute was changed, but apparently, that isn't how it works. Maybe I have this all wrong, but it seems like they are making cases that are based on retroactive laws, something I thought they aren't supposed to do.

I haven't looked into this much, but I'd like to hear what other members know about this. Thanks in advance.

Also, I find it interesting that these law offices are going after Christian clergy specifically when it should apply across the board.

Pardon my boggling, but are you really not aware of how the churches (Catholic, Protestant, Mormons) have constantly hidden, excused, and forgiven sexual abuse by the clergy since... well... probably since the founding of the religion. Accused clergy are often removed from one community and then sent to another one. And attempts by women to go to their church and complain about the abuse were met with scorn, with commandments that they go purifying theselves and quit tempting holy men... and sometimes ostracism and punishment.

Most victims are afraid to come forward -- they were commanded to do these acts by men that their religion said were holy and shepherds of the flock and to be trusted in all things.

a reply to: Byrd

I am aware and am sure you are correct to a point. I am merely wondering how this could be legal as I explained in the original post. Also, I still question, "Why just the clergy?" when this should apply to all regardless of occupation.

However, if you believe that last part you wrote, then you and those who you claim obeyed the clergy and became abused are not very bright and don't understand the scriptures.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Byrd

I am aware and am sure you are correct to a point. I am merely wondering how this could be legal as I explained in the original post. Also, I still question, "Why just the clergy?" when this should apply to all regardless of occupation.

In general, it's because others do not have this kind of support hiding their actions (so they don't make the church look bad.) It also occurs with school coaches and others but there's not an entire system hiding this. So many of those get caught and dealt with. The clergy's another story.

However, if you believe that last part you wrote, then you and those who you claim obeyed the clergy and became abused are not very bright and don't understand the scriptures.

These "not very bright" are women who are very devout for the most part. You may not be as familiar with the Bible as I am, so I will simply say that there are a lot of verses commanding women to obey faithfully the word of their shepherd (insert verses about damnation and so forth.) They have been told that they are supposed to follow a certain pattern and be an "American woman" and be "womanly" and submit to men and not protest. Ephesians is commonly cited

They were taught this; molded into this from birth by their parents and by the church (my knowledge is Southern Baptist and Methodist, so this is not all about Catholics.) The deacons believe that the best shepherd has been chosen to lead the flock and they don't believe you. Anyone you tell is likely to denounce you as a liar and you will be taken aside by the leaders (deacons, women's leaders) and told to repent of your horrible sins.

Didn't happen to me, but I sure watched it happen.

They're not stupid. They're behaving as "perfect women" - submissive and compliant, even to their abuser. Some pick suicide as the only way out.

Adding for info - PubMed on women and abuse by clergy


* 2003 paper "where are the women" = paywall but first page visible that answers a lot of things.
* President of the Southern Baptist Association - grooming and sexual assault. This was in 2010 and I can tell you he wasn't removed.

And on and on. When I used to post the "local sexual offenders registry" for the Crimestoppers BBS (I worked with several cities in the Dallas Ft Worth area in the early days to get this online), it was interesting to see just how many clergy ended up on the list (and how many of those were also guilty of incest.)

There can be reasons for overturning a statue of limitations... but I'm not a lawyer and will leave it at that.

I don't give much weight to anything but the words of Christ, the apostles were not all that bright in my opinion. I'd rather take my lessons from the teacher, not his other students that had a hard time understanding. In addition, Ephesians is attributed to Paul, however, that is only about half of scholars believe that.

Also, I've heard pastors talk about these passages and the man as head of the household is only if he is virtuous. Anyone, husband or clergy (or apostle), that wants you to go against the teachings of Christ is not to be obeyed. The wife should not obey any anti-Christian authority and sexual abuse is obviously not what Christ wants.

Still, I believe you about women getting taken advantage of in this way. If it is such an endemic problem, then I can see why lawyers would go for the clergy that has used their position to conduct sexual abuse.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I don't give much weight to anything but the words of Christ, the apostles were not all that bright in my opinion. I'd rather take my lessons from the teacher, not his other students that had a hard time understanding. In addition, Ephesians is attributed to Paul, however, that is only about half of scholars believe that.

Also, I've heard pastors talk about these passages and the man as head of the household is only if he is virtuous. Anyone, husband or clergy (or apostle), that wants you to go against the teachings of Christ is not to be obeyed. The wife should not obey any anti-Christian authority and sexual abuse is obviously not what Christ wants.

Still, I believe you about women getting taken advantage of in this way. If it is such an endemic problem, then I can see why lawyers would go for the clergy that has used their position to conduct sexual abuse.

The OTHER side of the coin is that the ones most often abused are children. Everyone seems to scream about little boys being abused but it happens to little girls, too.

Usually the statue of limitations is revoked to allow older cases to be brought in as evidence (children who were abused and who, after years of therapy, are able to speak out as adults.)

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Found this for you:

"The U.S. Supreme Court opined in Stogner v. California in 2003 that a change of a statute of limitations cannot be retroactively applied to crimes which were committed prior to the law's change"

Hope this answers your question

Tell that to Trump and his NY gadfly E. Jean Carroll.

www.safehorizon.org...

a reply to: ntech

Civil and criminal are two different things. I don't believe civil has a statute of limitations