Should the bishops who covered up/failed to report child abuse be put on trial...

achtungbarry

.... for aiding and abetting the abuse of children.

There has been a lot of talk recently about resignations and whether such and such a bishop should or should not resign over the cover up of the horrific abuse that took place as well as the failure to report these crimes to the Gardai.

Am I missing something here?

Surely we should be talking about whether we should be arresting these people and charging them with facilitating the rape of children by simply moving abusers from parish to parish rather than reporting their crimes to authorities.

Again, am I missing something here?

If we were talking about, say, the GAA instead of the Catholic Church and it was discovered that county boards had moved coaches who were abusing children from club to club instead of reporting the crimes. Surely in this case, these board members would be charged with facilitating a crime.

So in short, should the bishops who helped these men to abuse be put on trial?

In my view, yes.

orourkeda

On trial for what? Facilitating rape? WTF is that?

achtungbarry

orourkeda wrote: »

On trial for what? Facilitating rape? WTF is that?

I admit I don't know the full legal complexities of exactly what the charge would be but surely moving abusers from parish to parish and covering up the crimes of these people breaks some laws.

The_Minister

If they were ordinary citizens and had committed the same acts, and they would have been charged for that, then Yes. If people want to charge them because they should be held to a higher standard then No.

prinz

achtungbarry wrote: »

If we were talking about, say, the GAA instead of the Catholic Church and it was discovered that county boards had moved coaches who were abusing children from club to club instead of reporting the crimes. Surely in this case, these board members would be charged with facilitating a crime.

Swimming coaches spring to mind.

Cookie_Monster

Aiding and abetting
Failure to report a crime
Conspiracy to withhold information
Conspiracy to coverup
Aiding a know criminal (known now in some cases)

take yer pick

but same as the politicians in this country they will get away with it, Do you see Trev Sergent or Willie O'Dea being brought to court for offences a "normal person" definitly would be?

orourkeda

achtungbarry wrote: »

I admit I don't know the full legal complexities of exactly what the charge would be but surely moving abusers from parish to parish and covering up the crimes of these people breaks some laws.

Sorry. I dont mean to be facetious and perhaps it does break some laws but I'd be amazed to see this happen at this point.

Blackhorse Slim

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that orourkeda may be right. There may be no law for what these people have done, such institutionalised depravity was not previously conceived of.

Much like the Italians dealing with the mob, we will need new laws to deal with the church.

orourkeda

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Aiding and abetting
Failure to report a crime
Conspiracy to withhold information
Conspiracy to coverup
Aiding a know criminal (known now in some cases)

take yer pick

Why were there no charges brought before if theres such a choice?

How do they apply to clerical abuse?

achtungbarry

The_Minister wrote: »

If they were ordinary citizens and had committed the same acts, and they would have been charged for that, then Yes. If people want to charge them because they should be held to a higher standard then No.

My thinking would be definitely along the lines of your first reason. Surely nobody is above the law.

As I mentioned, if this went on in the GAA or FAI or whatever, charges would be brought against those who failed to report/covered up the crimes.

Why should bishops be immune?

Giselle

Can a person be charged with knowingly endangering a child? Or disregarding the safety of a child?

Ideally it would be more appropriate to charge them with being complicit in the sexual exploitation of children. Or facilitating the rape of children.

Whatever the charge would be, it should reflect the fact that the safety of children was of no interest to them whatsoever, but the freedom of paedophiles to continue abusing was.

orourkeda

achtungbarry wrote: »

My thinking would be definitely along the lines of your first reason. Surely nobody is above the law.

As I mentioned, if this went on in the GAA or FAI or whatever, charges would be brought against those who failed to report/covered up the crimes.

Why should bishops be immune?

If these laws for not reporting are to be applied to bishops like you suggest, why wouldnt they be applied to other people concerned? (other inmates etc)

prinz

Just on this OP, if you had too much to drink at last year's christmas party and drove home while your boss knew, then in January you get transferred to another department of the company where you go drink driving again and end up killing someone, should your boss/company management be held liable? If your friends/drinking buddies/local barman knows you frequently drive home drunk and never told anyone should they be liable for your future actions?

I agree with you that the bishops etc should be put on trial btw.

orourkeda

prinz wrote: »

Just on this OP, if you had too much to drink at last year's christmas and drove home while your boss knew, then in January you get transferred to another department of the company where you go drink driving again and end up killing someone, should your boss/company management be held liable?

I agree with you that the bishops etc should be put on trial btw.

The boss (a) did not drink and drive and (b) did not kill anyone.

It is an impossibility to know when a drink driver will next drive drunk unless you are sittng beside them when they do it. To blame the boss or hold them responsible appears nonsensical.

TheZohanS

prinz wrote: »

Just on this OP, if you had too much to drink at last year's christmas and drove home while your boss knew, then in January you get transferred to another department of the company where you go drink driving again and end up killing someone, should your boss/company management be held liable? If your friends/drinking buddies/local barman knows you frequently drive home drunk and never told anyone should they be liable for your future actions?

I agree with you that the bishops etc should be put on trial btw.

Totally different scenario.

If you're an electrician, wire up a shower incorrectly and cause someone to die, your boss company knows about it and moves you on to another county where it happens again.

Is your boss liable for your shoddy work?

Damn sure he is.

mailforkev

Yes, a good chunk of them were well aware of what was going on for years and did nothing. These guys should all be hauled up under whatever laws can get them.

This utter nonsense of "doing right under Canon Law" needs to be hit on the head immediately.

If I ever did get nicked for something I'd love to be able to get away with it claiming that under "Kevin Law" I had fulfilled my responsibilities and everything was now ok.

Smart Bug

Of course not, they'll be punished for any wrong doings in the afterlife. Oh no, wiat, there is no afterlife.


BOOM!! HEADSHOTS!! for all.

Blackhorse Slim

prinz wrote: »

Just on this OP, if you had too much to drink at last year's christmas and drove home while your boss knew, then in January you get transferred to another department of the company where you go drink driving again and end up killing someone, should your boss/company management be held liable? If your friends/drinking buddies/local barman knows you frequently drive home drunk and never told anyone should they be liable for your future actions?

Not a valid comparison.

Imagine instead of having too much to drink, you murdered the receptionist and dumped the body. Your boss caught you, and moved you to another branch. Where both receptionists soon went missing, presumed dead. And your boss knew. So he moved you again, and guess what? More receptionists turn up dead. And still he didn't report it, because the bad publicity might cost the company in terms of share price and/or sales. More innocent receptionists turned up dead, over 20 years, while your boss not only covered for you but silenced any witnesses.

When you are finally caught, should your boss be immune from prosecution?

prinz

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

Not a valid comparison.

Imagine instead..

You are basically giving the same comparison just with murder instead if drink driving. Where does one draw the line?

Blackhorse Slim

prinz wrote: »

You are basically giving the same comparison just with murder instead if drink driving. Where does one draw the line?

In your example, drink driving itself is a reckless act that endangers lives - rather than a premeditated act that causes massive harm and becomes a pattern of behaviour.

I don't know whether there is a law for this, but if there isn't there should be.

prinz

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

In your example, drink driving itself is a reckless act that endangers lives - rather than a premeditated act that causes massive harm and becomes a pattern of behaviour..

If someone drives to the pub, gets liquored up knowing they will be driving home, then it is premeditated. If they do this often and it is known about by others then it is a pattern of behaviour. I am just curious as to how far people are willing to take the reporting of criminal behaviour.

The_Minister

mailforkev wrote: »

If I ever did get nicked for something I'd love to be able to get away with it claiming that under "Kevin Law" I had fulfilled my responsibilities and everything was now ok.

Kevin's Law

I don't see the relevance.

mailforkev

The_Minister wrote: »

Kevin's Law
I don't see the relevance.

Bleedin' Wikipedia, how was I to know it was an actual thing

phantom_lord

achtungbarry wrote: »

So in short, should the bishops who helped these men to abuse be put on trial?

In my view, yes.

It doesn't matter what people's views are, either what they did is a criminal offence or it isn't.

Outrage

We should get all former Taoisigh out of retirement and hang them publicly in front of the outraged mob while we're at it. lol.

And the judges, the gardai, the doctors, the nurses, the teachers, the social workers. In fact, let's just massacre everyone over the age of 65 just to be sure that society is rid of this evil once and for all. Think of the money we'd save in the name of "protecting children"