Dolan Calls Child Victims Act "Unjust" To Church

[happyslug]

48. By the same Logic when two Milwaukee Police officers turn over to Dahmer one his victims?

In the early morning hours of May 27, 1991, 14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone (by coincidence, the younger brother of the boy whom Dahmer had molested) was discovered on the street, wandering naked, heavily under the influence of drugs and bleeding from his rectum. Two young women from the neighborhood found the dazed boy and called 911. Dahmer chased his victim down and tried to take him away, but the women stopped him. Dahmer told John Balcerzak and Joseph Gabrish, police officers dispatched to the scene, that Sinthasomphone was his 19-year-old boyfriend, and that they had an argument while drinking. Against the protests of the two women who had called 911, the officers turned him over to Dahmer. They later reported smelling a strange scent while inside Dahmer's apartment, but did not investigate it. The smell was the body of Tony Hughes, Dahmer's previous victim, decomposing in the bedroom. The officers did not make any attempt to verify Sinthasomphone's age and failed to run a background check that would have revealed Dahmer was a convicted child molester still under probation. Later that night, Dahmer killed and dismembered Sinthasomphone, keeping his skull as a souvenir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

This seems to have been the policy of the Milwaukee Police force among Homosexual lovers for decades, should Milwaukee taxpayers be force to pay for what they police have been doing for decades? Should the City of Milwaukee be liable for the failure of their Police Force to protect Konerak Sinthasomphone? Note the Police Officer turned over Konerak Sinthasomphone to Dalmer, that is more then any member of the Catholic Hierarchy is charged with (The Catholic Hierarchy has been held liable for NOT preventing the abuse NOT be helping them, as was the case with Dahmer and the Milwaukee Police). The Courts have rule NO, sovereign Immunity. The Victim's family could sue the Officers but NOT their employer.

Thus the issue is what is "Fair" to everyone. Any law that affects the Catholic Church MUST extend to everyone, and do we really want that? Do we want local government made bankrupt do to the illegal actions of their employees, actions the local government does NOT know of? What should be the cut off?

I will NOT go into the Legal Concept of "Latches" i.e. that the action can NOT be defended for the people who could provide a defense are no longer alive (In most of the cases we are talking about the cases involve priests who are NOW died). You can NOT bring in the alleged perpetrators to court, for they are dead, how do you defend? My point is there has to be some cut off as to the time to bring such actions, not only to be fair to the victim, but to anyone ALLEGED to have committed the case (They are cases where it became clear that the alleged victim was lying, no way could the alleged actions took place anywhere near the time and place he or she claims it did, by over time evidence that shows something could NOT have happened gets lost, the purpose of Latches and Statute of Limitations is to acknowledge such problems in any defense and thus force anyone filing an action to do so when it is possible to mount an adequate defense).

Thus what should be the Cut off, not that such a cut off should exist and again goes back to my original point, by when should we require people to bring an action by?