Pedophile Priest Hits Close To Home

[drfuzzy]

[hide]

At first glance you appear to present a good argument but analysis shows that it's full of holes.  

The discussion was about people who wait decades before whining that some pervert priest raped them.  In a lot of such instances the alleged perp is dead and now the victims just want a big pay day.  I said in such instances I would laugh the case out of court if I was on the jury.  And I would because there is no credible evidence that the victim can support the allegation.

You cleverly introduced the instance where a real crime victim was raped and filed a crime report and the cops collected the evidence and stored it.  Then as time passed a guy was snagged for some crime and his DNA was ran against the cold cases and he was busted for his crime.  That is completely different from the typical case involving a perp priest.  

Now in the case you cited the victim didn't sue for a big payout.  She didn't even want to go to court.  But she was caught up in the system because years ago she filed a legitimate compliant.  If she was a minor at the time of the incident she probably wouldn't even be required to testify in great detail as an adult because the DNA evidence and police report would probably be enough to get a conviction since she couldn't consent to sex as a minor.  But you said she was in college so she was probably over the age of consent.  She could have ignored the case if she had wanted to but that might have caused her some family problems. 

So the difference is that one person is a verified crime victim who has supporting evidence.  The other person is a self-alleged victim whose only evidence is other people's claims against the alleged perp and they also don't have any credible evidence.  They just want the money.

 Now if you were the alleged perp in such a case would you rather have someone like me on your jury or a person who is easily swayed by hysteria because someone is making a claim without any supporting evidence against you?

So you apparently don't believe that millions of children have actually BEEN raped by priests and suffer the after-effects for years?  Because that was my basic point.  Sure, there are probably some scammers in the bunch, but I personally believe the vast majority of them.  Not only that, but when there is one, there are usually dozens, and they corroborate each other's stories - - the few that find the courage to speak up as adults.  And an army of psychologists and detectives have usually analyzed their stories and reactions before they step into a court.  In child molestation cases that I have personally witnessed, the victim and the families did not seem to want money from the diocese.  They wanted the priest de-frocked.  I thought that they were very forgiving.  Put a rapist in front of me and I'm voting for death by very, very, very, very slow torture on national TV.  

If I was on a jury, and saw a "victim" who did not present as a victim, whose story was inconsistent, I would probably conclude they were faking it.  It would not be an instance for mocking and laughter, however.

Your utter lack of empathy and apparent absolute incapability to recognize that there are many instances of child abuse by priests and preachers is interesting.