The state of Maryland is currently considering a new law that may be implemented in the next legislative session. The law, if passed, would eliminate the statute of limitations in cases of child sexual abuse for the purpose of civil lawsuits. There is already a federal law in place that does essentially the same thing. Interestingly, the Catholic Church of Maryland and the Maryland Catholic Conference will support the passage of this law. I describe the decision as “interesting” because abuses by priests were some of the driving factors that spurred legislators to consider the bill to begin with. But this issue raises other questions regarding the appropriateness of having any statutes of limitations as well as the distinction between criminal charges and civil lawsuits. (CBS Baltimore)
The Maryland Catholic Conference will support legislation that could potentially eliminate the statute of limitation in civil lawsuits involving cases of child sexual abuse, the MCC announced Monday.
The Catholic Church in Maryland will support legislation that may be introduced during the 2023 Maryland General Assembly session that prospectively eliminates the statute of limitation in civil lawsuits involving cases of child sexual abuse.,” the MCC said.
I’m not going to focus on the Catholic Church aspect of this story, though the church still has plenty to answer for in this regard. In reality, a law like this could apply to any pedophile, including people ranging from Hollywood elites to elected officials. Most decent people consider child sexual abuse to be among the most heinous crimes imaginable. (And if you somehow don’t, seek help immediately, please.)
But there are two separate aspects to handling these terrible cases. One involves actual criminal penalties while the other covers civil lawsuits that can be brought against the perpetrator. Should there be a statute of limitations for either? Or both? It’s tempting to simply say “no” because of the horrific nature of the crime, and perhaps that’s the right answer. But to approach the matter honestly, we need to recall why we have such statutes for any crime in the first place.
There have been laws placing time limits on prosecutions and other legal actions dating back to the Roman empire. This can be extremely frustrating for victims, but legal scholars offer a number of arguments as to why such statutes are needed. People’s memories can fade and become more unreliable as the years go by. Also, important evidence (both for the prosecution and the defense) can be lost or degraded in quality over time. According to this theory, a fair trial of either sort (criminal or civil) may not even be possible after a certain amount of time.
Then, if you accept the idea such a time limit is appropriate, exactly how long should the limit be? The laws vary wildly from state to state across America. Quite a few states have no statute of limitations for the prosecution of child sexual abuse. Meanwhile, others offer only very short windows. (Hawaii’s statute lasts only three to six years, depending on the age of the victim.)
With all of that in mind, if the public agrees that there is a need for statutes of limitation for the reasons outlined above, how do we justify making exceptions and eliminating the statute for certain types of crime? Are people’s memories somehow more reliable when it comes to child sexual abuse than other events? Does evidence from the case stand up better over time than evidence from, for example, a robbery?
If, on the other hand, you disagree with the reasons given and don’t believe there is a need for such statutes, how would justify imposing such restrictions for any crime whatsoever? As you can see, this is probably a more complex question than it might first appear. Personally, from an emotional level, I dislike the idea of such statutes because of the limits they can impose on victims and the idea that the guilty might get off scot-free if they can just manage to run out the clock. But I also find it impossible to totally reject the arguments made as to why such statutes are needed. And having arrived at that conclusion, I would argue against this law in Maryland, but not because I think pedophiles deserve a break. (Obviously, I hope.) But our laws should be applied consistently to all.
