Hundreds of molesters freed by Supreme Court - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sixate · 06-29-2003, 05:49 AM

LINKY

Quote:

Hundreds of molesters
freed by Supreme Court
Decision throws out legislation allowing prosecution of old sex-abuse cases

Prosecutors, defense attorneys and the California attorney general's office were still scrambling today to figure out a response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will free hundreds of confessed and convicted child molesters from prisons across the state.

Last Thursday, in a decision little noticed outside the Golden State, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that California had violated the Constitution's ban on ex post facto – after the fact – laws when the Legislature decided to change the time limit for bringing criminal charges in child sex-abuse cases and made the new limit retroactive to cover older cases.

As a result of the decision, a 55-year-old defrocked priest awaiting trial on charges of molesting four altar boys at the San Gabriel Mission in Los Angeles County – Lawrence Lovell – was one of the first released. He had been behind bars less than a week.

Hours later, Michael Wempe, a 63-year-old retired priest, whose bail had been set two weeks ago at $2 million after being charged with molesting five boys 20 years ago, was released.

Lovell and Wempe are among hundreds of people – some convicted, some confessed, some still awaiting trial –who will be released from jails and prisons across California or whose cases will be dropped as a result of Thursday's decision.

For many prosecutors, victims' advocates and police, the court's decision was hard to take.

The affected cases all involve not just allegations of abuse, but strong corroborating evidence, which was required under the 1994 law that the high court struck down.

In Santa Clara County, Assistant Dist. Atty. Chuck Willingham spent long hours after the ruling, calling victims to let them know the outcome. About 100 cases in his county will be affected.

Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley has estimated that at least 200 cases in the county may be affected by the ruling. But determining which cases are still viable is a slow process, officials said.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, nullified a 1994 California law giving prosecutors authority to bring new charges in child molestation cases where the charge-filing deadline already expired. The law allowed such new charges if they were filed one year after an abuse victim reported the crime to police, no matter when the assault had occurred.

The law was aimed at cases where the victim had reached adulthood, and then reported an abuse to authorities.

The court's decision apparently ended the prosecutors' case against Marion Reynolds Stogner of Antioch, Calif., who was charged in 1998 with criminal sexual assaults on his two daughters, in one instance 43 years earlier, and another 31 years before. At the time those alleged incidents occurred, prosecutors had up to three years to bring charges, but failed to do so.

The two daughters in 1998 told police about the assaults during an investigation of accusations of child sexual abuse by Stogner's two sons. That led to the new prosecution of their father, then 70 years old.

Breyer's majority opinion said the law ''authorized prosecution for criminal acts committed many years beforehand – and where the original limitations period has expired – as long as prosecution begins within a year of a victim's first complaint to the police.''

He said such a law falls into the definition of ex post facto that can be traced back to a 1798 ruling by the Supreme Court.

Allowing an extension of a prosecution period, after an earlier one has expired, allows ''legislatures to pick and choose when to act retroactively,'' Breyer said. That "risks both arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation."

The majority opinion was supported by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, and John Paul Stevens.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said that ''when a child molester commits his offense, he is well aware the harm will plague the victim for a lifetime.''

Now there's gonna be thousands of child molesting priests and a ton of other sick bastards running around again.
I can't believe that the Supreme Court would do something this dumb.
Child molesters are scum of the earth and should locked up or better yet strapped into the electric chair and killed.

scope · 06-29-2003, 05:54 AM

Not only do I feel this decision is scary, I
simply cannot see the reason behind it.
There is already too much perverse crime happening in today's societies...no need to add more. This is ridiculous! How are parents going to get ANY sleep at all, knowing that there are so many roaming sickos?

asaris · 06-29-2003, 06:04 AM

I'm with the Supreme Court on this one. The idea that a legislature can arbitrarily decide when to bring some one to trial, as Breyer writes, "risks both arbitrary and potentially vindicate legislation." I'd want to read the whole decision to be sure, but I suspect it only applies to those cases which occured before the law was passed -- that's what ex post facto means.

izzzzy · 06-29-2003, 06:14 AM

i feel that there should be no stxtute of limitations on any issue involving children child abuse in any form is not to be tolerated under any circumstances l

MSD · 06-29-2003, 06:37 AM

I don't care when the law was passed. a molestor is a danger to society, and one of the few cases where even I don't see rehabilitation as possible. I guess the best we can hope for is that they don't get around to un-registering these guys as sex offenders. How could our highest court do something so stupid? Whether or not it's illegal, it's wrong, and these people should not be allowed out.

etla · 06-29-2003, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by asaris
I'm with the Supreme Court on this one. The idea that a legislature can arbitrarily decide when to bring some one to trial, as Breyer writes, "risks both arbitrary and potentially vindicate legislation." I'd want to read the whole decision to be sure, but I suspect it only applies to those cases which occured before the law was passed -- that's what ex post facto means.

Exactly. Seperate in your mind the crime, however heinious and what the constitution rightly allows. No Laws should be able to be passed retroactively, talk about your tools for fascism.

Yah these people are scumbags but previous to 1994 they had unfortunelty got away with it.

Do you really want the state to retroactively be able to change laws and penalties? Got any problem with the state deceiding to change the penalty for speeding to $1000 and 6 month licence suspension? This is exactly the issue at stake.

--
"Good citizens - and good friends - oppose bad policies. By telling you the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but they are not your enemies. "

The_Dude · 06-29-2003, 07:38 AM

i agree w/ the court.

for criminal cases, you cant just prosecute somebody (who committed a crime earlier) under the new laws under no situation.

GakFace · 06-29-2003, 07:50 AM

I'm a little angry.. Notice how BOTH cases of child molesters were PRIESTS!?!?!? WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? Yeah i'm angry about the reading, but why the fuck can't they drop the fucking priest molesters.... people were molesting children BEFORE THEM. Its happened before, drop the fucking priests. They're not special..... augh! this just pisses me off so much.

Amethyst · 06-29-2003, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakFace
I'm a little angry.. Notice how BOTH cases of child molesters were PRIESTS!?!?!? WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? Yeah i'm angry about the reading, but why the fuck can't they drop the fucking priest molesters.... people were molesting children BEFORE THEM. Its happened before, drop the fucking priests. They're not special..... augh! this just pisses me off so much.

I would have to agree with everything you said . People need to drop the priest thing I am so tired of hearing about it. It makes me sick to think that in the country that I live in the Supreme Court passed this law. But I guess I don't have to worry about it because if I ever found out anyone touched either of my kids I would kill them so they wouldn't need to worry about the trial and going to jail.

WhoaitsZ · 06-29-2003, 09:15 AM

is there not a criteria for lawmakers to have common sense?

i can see the point on their issue of time. but letting everyone out?

if no one sees a connection between this and the church i feel bad for them. this is evil.

so..................

if there is a time limit, is it too late to go thin the herd?

its a shame we can't take action.

fuckers should die.

papermachesatan · 06-29-2003, 11:48 AM

The point is that permitting the government to make ex post facto laws is much more dangerous than letting hundreds of molestors go..

It's a horrible reality but the lesser of the two evils IS letting hundreds of molestors go.

andyc · 06-29-2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

The point is that permitting the government to make ex post facto laws is much more dangerous than letting hundreds of molestors go..

No it is NOT.
Child molesters are a special case - It does not matter how long ago the offence took place, if there is enough evidence they should be prosecuted.
I wonder if you would say this was the lesser of the two evils if you, or a member of your family had been the victim of one of these people. I also wonder if you will still agree with the court if next week one of these people who have been released goes and rapes a child.

papermachesatan · 06-29-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by andyc
No it is NOT.
Child molesters are a special case - It does not matter how long ago the offence took place, if there is enough evidence they should be prosecuted.
I wonder if you would say this was the lesser of the two evils if you, or a member of your family had been the victim of one of these people. I also wonder if you will still agree with the court if next week one of these people who have been released goes and rapes a child.

I wonder if you would still disagree with the court if ex post facto laws were used to eliminate entire political parties, religious groups, ethnic groups, etc. etc.(ala Stalin, Saddam, etc.)

papermachesatan · 06-29-2003, 12:37 PM

Also, sixate , do you have another link regarding the freeing over hundreds of child molesters? Worldnetdaily is a internet tabloid if IIRC.

yatzr · 06-29-2003, 12:52 PM

I also agree with the court on this one. Let's say they all of a sudden say that a DUI lands you life in prison. They couldn't go out and grab every single person that ever did it and throw them in jail. Drunk driving causes so many innocent deaths, i consider it worse than child molesting (it's close, but drunk driving affects way more people). But I wouldn't agree with them forcing the law on people that did it when a DUI wasn't that much of a biggy. THere's plenty of other examples i could use here too, but this one seemed to show the point better.

Tom Thumb · 06-29-2003, 01:32 PM

Another with the courts. It's unfortunate that some molesters will be set free, but upholding the constitution is far more important.

Another thing: What the hell is with the article describing people yet to stand trial as molesters? People are innocent until proven guilty in court, not in the media.

sixate · 06-29-2003, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by papermachesatan
Also, sixate , do you have another link regarding the freeing over hundreds of child molesters? Worldnetdaily is a internet tabloid if IIRC.

Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories...483621,00.html

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercuryne...al/6194725.htm

http://www.msnbc.com/local/knsd/a1676656.asp

Ogre840 · 06-29-2003, 03:40 PM

time to lock and load... those bastards make me sick...

If murder was only legal... even for just one type of person this would have to be it... and maybe those who passed a law to let these asses go...

seretogis · 06-29-2003, 04:06 PM

I'm with the court on this as well. You have to get over the emotional issue of hundreds of molestors being let go (for the time being, and under a close eye, I'm sure) and understand what sort of precedent that the ruling eliminates.

BBtB · 06-29-2003, 04:17 PM

Quote:

The point is that permitting the government to make ex post facto laws is much more dangerous than letting hundreds of molestors go..

Quote:

Originally posted by andyc
No it is NOT.
Child molesters are a special case - It does not matter how long ago the offence took place, if there is enough evidence they should be prosecuted.
I wonder if you would say this was the lesser of the two evils if you, or a member of your family had been the victim of one of these people. I also wonder if you will still agree with the court if next week one of these people who have been released goes and rapes a child.

No see you got it just backwards. Permitting the government to make ex post facto laws is VERY dangerous. I mean I am not premoting child molestation but just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean we can try people who did it before it was illegal like they did it when it was illegal. Its sad that their were no specfic laws for that then (or they were much softer) but all we can do now is remember this going forward. These people will not be looked at the same way by their family and community again. Even if they were not actully convicted child molesters. Sure we all want to burn the child molesters. Untill someone accuses you of being a child molester and this turns into Salem. In the end what it boils down to is this, while I am not a fan of child molestation I am more so against letting the goverment do whatever the hell it (or special intrest groups want it) to do. If we allow this then we must try everyone who is living and has ever commited a crime (even if it wasn't a crime then) under the new law anytime a law is passed. If they raise the cost of a speeding ticket EVERYONE who has paid a ticket in the area effectec must make up the differnce. ITS THE SAME EXACT THING.

papermachesatan · 06-29-2003, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories...483621,00.html

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercuryne...al/6194725.htm

http://www.msnbc.com/local/knsd/a1676656.asp

I think it would be prudent to be wary of sensationalist(usually) news coming from the Tabloids, wouldn't you?

Questioning a tabloid as a valid source is perfectly reasonable whether it's over news such as hundreds of molesters being freed by a SC ruling or news regarding Noah's Ark being found on Mt. Everest.

Thanks for the alternate links to more credible newsites.

vermin · 06-29-2003, 10:36 PM

Maybe they need a law making it a $5 fine for "Assault and Battery of a Child Molester" (this was the same idea I had for flag burners).

asaris · 06-30-2003, 03:19 AM

Just for those who are interested, this is what the majority opinion writes about the dissent:

Quote:

The dissent says it is a "fallacy" to apply the label " 'unfair and dishonest' " to this statute, a law that revives long-dead prosecutions. Post, at 18-19. The dissent supports this conclusion with three arguments. First, it suggests that "retroactive extension of unexpired statutes of limitations" is no less unfair. Post, at 19. Second, the dissent refers to the small likelihood that "criminals keep calendars" to mark the expiration of limitations periods, and it mocks the possibility that revival "destroys a reliance interest." Ibid. Third, the dissent emphasizes the harm that child molestation causes, a harm that "will plague the victim for a lifetime," and stresses the need to convict those who abuse children. Post, at 20-21.

In making the first argument, the dissent reverses field, abandoning its historical literalism to appeal to practical consequences. But history, case law, and constitutional purposes all are relevant. At a minimum, the first two of these adequately explain the difference between expired and unexpired statutes of limitations, and Chase's alternative description of second category laws itself supports such a distinction. See supra, at 5-6, 10-11.

In making its second argument, which denies the existence of significant reliance interests, the dissent ignores the potentially lengthy period of time (in this case, 22 years) during which the accused lacked notice that he might be prosecuted and during which he was unaware, for example, of any need to preserve evidence of innocence. See supra, at 3. Memories fade, and witnesses can die or disappear. See supra, at 8. Such problems can plague child abuse cases, where recollection after so many years may be uncertain, and "recovered" memories faulty, but may nonetheless lead to prosecutions that destroy families. See, e.g., Holdsworth, Is It Repressed Memory with Delayed Recall or Is It False Memory Syndrome? The Controversy and Its Potential Legal Implications, 22 Law & Psychol. Rev. 103, 103-104 (1998). Regardless, a constitutional principle must apply not only in child abuse cases, but in every criminal case. And, insofar as we can tell, the dissent's principle would permit the State to revive a prosecution for any kind of crime without any temporal limitation. Thus, in the criminal context, the dissent goes beyond our prior statements of what is constitutionally permissible even in the analogous civil context. Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 312, n. 8, and 315-316 (1945) (acknowledging that extension of even an expired civil limitations period can unconstitutionally infringe upon a "vested right"); William Danzer & Co. v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co., 268 U. S. 633, 637 (1925) (holding the same). But see post, at 6, 22. It is difficult to believe that the Constitution grants greater protection from unfair retroactivity to property than to human liberty.

As to the dissent's third argument, we agree that the State's interest in prosecuting child abuse cases is an important one. But there is also a predominating constitutional interest in forbidding the State to revive a long-forbidden prosecution. And to hold that such a law is ex post facto does not prevent the State from extending time limits for the prosecution of future offenses, or for prosecutions not yet time barred.

Meridae'n · 06-30-2003, 04:31 AM

One of the problems with "rule of law" is striking a balance between "punishing the bad guys" and "it is better that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent man be punished." Every so often legislatures push the bounds of legality and the courts rein them in. That's what happened in this case. You may not like it, I definitely don't like it, however, in the long run it's both better and fairer...

rs8001 · 06-30-2003, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BBtB
Permitting the government to make ex post facto laws is VERY dangerous. I mean I am not premoting child molestation but just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean we can try people who did it before it was illegal like they did it when it was illegal. Its sad that their were no specfic laws for that then (or they were much softer)

Was it that there were no laws about this behavior? Or was it that statute of limitations ran out first? In the first case, I think that would be insane. I'm sure I could find awful things to do to others for which no specific law existed. That really isn't the case here is it? Isn't a matter of the second case, where the statute of limitations ran out?

I am highly in favor of government limited its own power. If it was indeed a matter of a statute of limitations it does make this easier to swallow - unlike some other technicalities people have gotten off for. Ultimately, it is the government's fault for passing these limitations in the first place. I hope these laws will be changed so it doesn't happen again. I also hope that if there are still punishable offenses people come forward so justice can be done.

I would be extremely upset, beyond words, if I were one of the victims.

Bill O'Rights · 07-01-2003, 05:17 AM

Y'know what. Yes, this sucks. This sucks big time. But I would rather this happen, than the government have the arbitrary power to decide what is legal or illegal at any given point in time, then go after past offenders. Ex Post Facto, indeed. I wonder, though, why this falls under that catagory. I mean, was it a statute of limitations thing? Or was it that child molestation wasn't illegal 20 years ago? Either way...fucked up. Fix it! And another thing...I'm not Catholic, but even <b>I'm</b> getting a little tired of "priest bashing" Out of the hundreds that had to be freed, you can't tell me that the only two examples they could find were priests. If that were the case, that would have made for much more sensational headlines..."Hundreds of molesting priests freed..."

06-29-2003, 06:04 AM	#3 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I'm with the Supreme Court on this one. The idea that a legislature can arbitrarily decide when to bring some one to trial, as Breyer writes, "risks both arbitrary and potentially vindicate legislation." I'd want to read the whole decision to be sure, but I suspect it only applies to those cases which occured before the law was passed -- that's what ex post facto means. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

06-29-2003, 07:38 AM	#7 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i agree w/ the court. for criminal cases, you cant just prosecute somebody (who committed a crime earlier) under the new laws under no situation. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-29-2003, 07:50 AM	#8 (permalink)
GakFace Go Ninja, Go Ninja Go!! Location: IN, USA	I'm a little angry.. Notice how BOTH cases of child molesters were PRIESTS!?!?!? WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? Yeah i'm angry about the reading, but why the fuck can't they drop the fucking priest molesters.... people were molesting children BEFORE THEM. Its happened before, drop the fucking priests. They're not special..... augh! this just pisses me off so much. __________________ RoboBlaster: Welcome to the club! Not that I'm in the club. And there really isn'a a club in the first place. But if there was a club and if I was in it, I would definitely welcome you to it.

06-29-2003, 12:52 PM	#15 (permalink)
yatzr Insane	I also agree with the court on this one. Let's say they all of a sudden say that a DUI lands you life in prison. They couldn't go out and grab every single person that ever did it and throw them in jail. Drunk driving causes so many innocent deaths, i consider it worse than child molesting (it's close, but drunk driving affects way more people). But I wouldn't agree with them forcing the law on people that did it when a DUI wasn't that much of a biggy. THere's plenty of other examples i could use here too, but this one seemed to show the point better. __________________ Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

06-29-2003, 01:32 PM	#16 (permalink)
Tom Thumb Crazy Location: In a self portrait	Another with the courts. It's unfortunate that some molesters will be set free, but upholding the constitution is far more important. Another thing: What the hell is with the article describing people yet to stand trial as molesters? People are innocent until proven guilty in court, not in the media. __________________ My name is marketing. Now buy my product.

06-29-2003, 05:54 AM	#2 (permalink)
scope Banned Location: Canada	Not only do I feel this decision is scary, I simply cannot see the reason behind it. There is already too much perverse crime happening in today's societies...no need to add more. This is ridiculous! How are parents going to get ANY sleep at all, knowing that there are so many roaming sickos?

06-29-2003, 06:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
izzzzy Crazy Location: SW NEW HAMPSHIRE	i feel that there should be no stxtute of limitations on any issue involving children child abuse in any form is not to be tolerated under any circumstances l

06-29-2003, 06:37 AM	#5 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I don't care when the law was passed. a molestor is a danger to society, and one of the few cases where even I don't see rehabilitation as possible. I guess the best we can hope for is that they don't get around to un-registering these guys as sex offenders. How could our highest court do something so stupid? Whether or not it's illegal, it's wrong, and these people should not be allowed out.

06-29-2003, 09:15 AM	#10 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	is there not a criteria for lawmakers to have common sense? i can see the point on their issue of time. but letting everyone out? if no one sees a connection between this and the church i feel bad for them. this is evil. so.................. if there is a time limit, is it too late to go thin the herd? its a shame we can't take action. fuckers should die.

06-29-2003, 11:48 AM	#11 (permalink)
papermachesatan Psycho Location: Texas	The point is that permitting the government to make ex post facto laws is much more dangerous than letting hundreds of molestors go.. It's a horrible reality but the lesser of the two evils IS letting hundreds of molestors go.

06-29-2003, 12:37 PM	#14 (permalink)
papermachesatan Psycho Location: Texas	Also, sixate , do you have another link regarding the freeing over hundreds of child molesters? Worldnetdaily is a internet tabloid if IIRC.

06-29-2003, 03:40 PM	#18 (permalink)
Ogre840 Banned Location: OlyWa	time to lock and load... those bastards make me sick... If murder was only legal... even for just one type of person this would have to be it... and maybe those who passed a law to let these asses go...

06-29-2003, 04:06 PM	#19 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I'm with the court on this as well. You have to get over the emotional issue of hundreds of molestors being let go (for the time being, and under a close eye, I'm sure) and understand what sort of precedent that the ruling eliminates. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-29-2003, 10:36 PM	#22 (permalink)
vermin Indifferent to anti-matter Location: Tucson, AZ	Maybe they need a law making it a $5 fine for "Assault and Battery of a Child Molester" (this was the same idea I had for flag burners). __________________ If puns were sausages, this would be the wurst.

06-30-2003, 04:31 AM	#24 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	One of the problems with "rule of law" is striking a balance between "punishing the bad guys" and "it is better that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent man be punished." Every so often legislatures push the bounds of legality and the courts rein them in. That's what happened in this case. You may not like it, I definitely don't like it, however, in the long run it's both better and fairer... __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

07-01-2003, 05:17 AM	#26 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Y'know what. Yes, this sucks. This sucks big time. But I would rather this happen, than the government have the arbitrary power to decide what is legal or illegal at any given point in time, then go after past offenders. Ex Post Facto, indeed. I wonder, though, why this falls under that catagory. I mean, was it a statute of limitations thing? Or was it that child molestation wasn't illegal 20 years ago? Either way...fucked up. Fix it! And another thing...I'm not Catholic, but even <b>I'm</b> getting a little tired of "priest bashing" Out of the hundreds that had to be freed, you can't tell me that the only two examples they could find were priests. If that were the case, that would have made for much more sensational headlines..."Hundreds of molesting priests freed..." __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.