Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can any, and I mean ANY feeling, empathetic human being rule that these sexual predators of children remain anonymous?? How?
Apparently the court feels the right to the Priests' reputation is more important than the public right to know. Poor babies, it would be a shame if anyone would start outing them.
How can any, and I mean ANY feeling, empathetic human being rule that these sexual predators of children remain anonymous?? How?
Apparently the court feels the right to the Priests' reputation is more important than the public right to know. Poor babies, it would be a shame if anyone would start outing them.
Where does the constitution state that Christian priests who commit crimes shall be protected by law? This ruling should surely be overturned, and the judges asked whether they are in fact fit to do the job.
How can any, and I mean ANY feeling, empathetic human being rule that these sexual predators of children remain anonymous?? How?
Apparently the court feels the right to the Priests' reputation is more important than the public right to know. Poor babies, it would be a shame if anyone would start outing them.
We have this thing in our country called presumption of innocence.
But there's a problem with that, too. Yes, I agree with the presumption of innocence. But if there is evidence of such abuse, I would think they should be tried in same manner as any other citizen.
But there's a problem with that, too. Yes, I agree with the presumption of innocence. But if there is evidence of such abuse, I would think they should be tried in same manner as any other citizen.
Well, isn't that what a Grand Jury DOES?--looks for evidence that these priests did anything to be tried for in the first place? What you are really saying therefore is that if someone is merely SUSPECTED of abuse, their name should be public property as a suspect before there is even enough evidence for a trial. I disagree in this case.
This is a case of particularly heinous crimes against children, which evokes high emotion and horror and anger. God forbid someone in that list of suspects didn't really didn't do anything and some angry nutter takes it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner and harms an innocent person. Yeah, it would be dandy if everything could be even-handed in the system, but the fact of the matter is that nobody's going to have that same emotional reaction in a Grand Jury investigation about insurance fraud or tax evasion.
If enough evidence is found that they are charged and brought to trial, then release the names.
We have this thing in our country called presumption of innocence.
We do?
Wonder what Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Louis C.K., and others think about that. Oh, but they are #metoo accused, so it's A-OK.
How often do we here of people being arrested and accused, and a trial has not happened yet. Mugshots.com as example?
No, that is not an excuse. Let them be named, let them go to trial, and let those chips fall were they may. Not all States use the grand jury system. Pennsylvania only required them until 1968.
Well, isn't that what a Grand Jury DOES?--looks for evidence that these priests did anything to be tried for in the first place? What you are really saying therefore is that if someone is merely SUSPECTED of abuse, their name should be public property as a suspect before there is even enough evidence for a trial. I disagree in this case.
This is a case of particularly heinous crimes against children, which evokes high emotion and horror and anger. God forbid someone in that list of suspects didn't really didn't do anything and some angry nutter takes it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner and harms an innocent person. Yeah, it would be dandy if everything could be even-handed in the system, but the fact of the matter is that nobody's going to have that same emotional reaction in a Grand Jury investigation about insurance fraud or tax evasion.
If enough evidence is found that they are charged and brought to trial, then release the names.
Wonder what Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Louis C.K., and others think about that. Oh, but they are #metoo accused, so it's A-OK.
How often do we here of people being arrested and accused, and a trial has not happened yet. Mugshots.com as example?
No, that is not an excuse. Let them be named, let them go to trial, and let those chips fall were they may. Not all States use the grand jury system. Pennsylvania only required them until 1968.
However, those three men could sue for libel...and if they don't, that may say something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
