30 Aug 23
5 edits
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/30/sex-abuse-charges-dismissed-for-ex-catholic-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick-as-judge-rules-93-year-old-is-not-fit-for-trial/
A Catholic priest had a trial dismissed regarding sexually abusing a teenager in the 70's because he's now old with dementia.
Is this a valid reason to not pursue criminal charges? Shouldn't justice still be served? Or is trying someone not "mentally fit" to stand trial unjust, even there's reasonable evidence against that person?
30 Aug 23
1 edit
To be clear: I'm not referring to crimes committed by people with disabilities. The priest in question was at one time mentally fit, but this went away with age. The alleged crime happened 50 years ago when when he was younger. If the defendant was mentally fit during the the alleged crime, should he/she still not be prosecuted if this is no longer the case?
30 Aug 23
1 edit
@vivify saidEasily done.
Crap...this was supposed to be in Debates. My mistake.
Alert the OP, select “something else” and in the notes ask the moderator to move it to debates.
30 Aug 23
@divegeester said"Only subscribers can alert posts".
Easily done.
Alert the OP, select “something else” and in the notes ask the moderator to move it to debates.
31 Aug 23
@vivify saidCdl. McCarrick is very famously a part of numerous east coast USA Catholic church scandals, and may have been behind a deal which was trafficking young Colombian priests that were essentially functioning as sex workers for some of the homosexuals in the east coast church's hierarchy over several decades.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/30/sex-abuse-charges-dismissed-for-ex-catholic-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick-as-judge-rules-93-year-old-is-not-fit-for-trial/
A Catholic priest had a trial dismissed regarding sexually abusing a teenager in the 70's because he's now old with dementia.
Is this a valid reason to not pursue criminal charges? Shouldn't justice ...[text shortened]... eone not "mentally fit" to stand trial unjust, even there's reasonable evidence against that person?
This can't even really be investigated by people outside of the church, though, as there is little to go on here: how is a local authority supposed to charge anyone when we are talking about allegations that young men willingly joined the Catholic church for relatively high remuneration with the expectation that they would be having sex with senior Catholic clergy...
When the origin point of the crime is in a different country with inadequate investigatory research, all participants are willing, and it is not even a conventional case of prostitution...
Needless to say, there is a motive for Catholic clergy to keep such scandals concealed... And another fact of the matter is that people routinely lie about how bad the Catholic church is because these stories always sell. So, I don't know...
Regardless, yes, McCarrick was the kingpin of sex scandals and homosexuality in the American branches of the Catholic church and it is a shame that he never faced the music...
DEDHAM, Mass. (AP) — A judge ruled Wednesday that a 93-year-old former Roman Catholic cardinal is not competent to stand trial after both prosecutors and defense attorneys determined he suffers from dementia, and dismissed charges he sexually assaulted a teenage boy in Massachusetts decades ago.
But the legal logic here makes sense.
If somoene has been diagnosed as incapable of being lucid, of recollecting their crimes, etc., and is in the advanced stages of senility, the idea that they can be competent to stand trial and defend themslves goes out the window, as do ideas about whether or not they are able to really be punished without it being considered cruel.
Did he "escape" justice? In a sense, yes, much like everyone who did a crime and died before facing secular justice has done so... But in another sense, his very existence is a punishment.
Would you rather go to jail, or suffer from dementia and severe senility, having only a few years at most left on this earth..?
I guess I back the court's decision.
@philokalia saidThe victim in the article seems to be a minor based on the words "teenage boy". I didn't see the age mentioned but the victim is at least 15.
how is a local authority supposed to charge anyone when we are talking about allegations that young men willingly joined the Catholic church for relatively high remuneration with the expectation that they would be having sex with senior Catholic clergy...
the idea that they can be competent to stand trial and defend themslves goes out the window, as do ideas about whether or not they are able to really be punished without it being considered cruel.
Suppose he became senile *after* conviction? Would it still be cruel to keep him in prison to serve the remainder of his sentence? There are incarcerated people with dementia.
As far as "defending themselves" suspects rarely ever take the stand anyway and remain silent while their lawyers do the talking.
31 Aug 23
@vivify saidI think it stems from the fact that if someone is mentally so decrepid that they can’t comprehend the charges against them, then it’s no longer any form of justice.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/30/sex-abuse-charges-dismissed-for-ex-catholic-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick-as-judge-rules-93-year-old-is-not-fit-for-trial/
A Catholic priest had a trial dismissed regarding sexually abusing a teenager in the 70's because he's now old with dementia.
Is this a valid reason to not pursue criminal charges? Shouldn't justice ...[text shortened]... eone not "mentally fit" to stand trial unjust, even there's reasonable evidence against that person?
They’d obviously also be unfit to defend themselves.
However, I’m not too sure where I stand on this. Generally, it sounds quite sound, but there are cases of it being used to get people off the hook.
I would then think, should a miraculous recovery take place, that the proceedings should be resumed.
31 Aug 23
1 edit
@shavixmir saidI believe the standard criteria are that the defendant should be able to understand the charges against him and assist in his defence.
I think it stems from the fact that if someone is mentally so decrepid that they can’t comprehend the charges against them, then it’s no longer any form of justice.
They’d obviously also be unfit to defend themselves.
However, I’m not too sure where I stand on this. Generally, it sounds quite sound, but there are cases of it being used to get people off the hook.
I would then think, should a miraculous recovery take place, that the proceedings should be resumed.
Actually, I’m not sure Trump meets those criteria, but for a different reason than dementia.
31 Aug 23
@vivify saidit shouldn't
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/30/sex-abuse-charges-dismissed-for-ex-catholic-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick-as-judge-rules-93-year-old-is-not-fit-for-trial/
A Catholic priest had a trial dismissed regarding sexually abusing a teenager in the 70's because he's now old with dementia.
Is this a valid reason to not pursue criminal charges? Shouldn't justice ...[text shortened]... eone not "mentally fit" to stand trial unjust, even there's reasonable evidence against that person?
mental fitness should impact sentencing if found guilty
someone more legally knowledgeable should weigh in on whether that judge abused his power (like judges in the US and, let's be honest, everywhere do) but for me it sounds like an injustice.
31 Aug 23
@zahlanzi saidThat’s probably where time, costs and priorities come in.
it shouldn't
mental fitness should impact sentencing if found guilty
someone more legally knowledgeable should weigh in on whether that judge abused his power (like judges in the US and, let's be honest, everywhere do) but for me it sounds like an injustice.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
@vivify saidthe problem is a justice system that is over 50 yrs late on delivering justice, not the mental fitness of the defendant.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/30/sex-abuse-charges-dismissed-for-ex-catholic-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick-as-judge-rules-93-year-old-is-not-fit-for-trial/
A Catholic priest had a trial dismissed regarding sexually abusing a teenager in the 70's because he's now old with dementia.
Is this a valid reason to not pursue criminal charges? Shouldn't justice ...[text shortened]... eone not "mentally fit" to stand trial unjust, even there's reasonable evidence against that person?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147479
31 Aug 23
@shavixmir saidwith you libs its always treat the accused with kids gloves, never any thought is given to the victims.
I think it stems from the fact that if someone is mentally so decrepid that they can’t comprehend the charges against them, then it’s no longer any form of justice.
They’d obviously also be unfit to defend themselves.
However, I’m not too sure where I stand on this. Generally, it sounds quite sound, but there are cases of it being used to get people off the hook.
I would then think, should a miraculous recovery take place, that the proceedings should be resumed.