He's not fooling anyone.
Hi there guys, what ever that guy says about that question does not matter at all. The situation as it is now is that religion is interlaced with the power structures in most countries & the leaders of the countries are usually compromised by this situation of the abuse of power; that is a fact.
How can this be used as any kind of defense? One of the foundational rules of British Law (upon which a lot of American Law is still based) is that 'ignorance of a law is no defense in law'. Whether you know (or knew) or not that a crime was a crime when you broke it, you still will be punished to the extant of that law.
The rule is as fundamental as Caveat Empor, Mens Rea and Actus Rea.
Well he may be using this defence, but that doesn't mean he's going to get away with it. There is a good chance he won't
The cookie jar defense is used by anyone in the spotlight with no way out. "I don't know, I don't remember, I don't know what I don't remember..." etc
This is clearly a legal deposition, and if you've ever sat through one of those you know that the insurance attorney gives you strict instructions to be accurate but not volunteer information. In this case, the deposition involves events from the 1980s. The bishop is not a defendant in the case, he is only being called as a witness to events from 30 years ago. As with all sources of information, it's worth considering the motives of a plaintiff's attorney releasing a small excerpt of a very long deposition, and the inherent conflict of interest there.
Going back to the raw data, a full transcript of the deposition can be found at http://www.stltoday.com/archbishop-robert-j-carlson-deposition/pdf_... . Relevant section is at page 109. This exchange comes as a result of a leading question by the plaintiff's attorney on whether he felt the therapist or the archdiocesan officials were more to blame. I haven't read the entire thing, so I'm not sure where that line of questioning was going.
The context of the question seems to be not about whether having sex with children was a crime, but whether failing to report (mandatory reporting for clergy) was a crime at the time. I wouldn't know that without looking it up either (it was not). At least that seems to be what he was responding to, not whether abusing kids was a crime.
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by proudAthiest in Small Talk 6 hours ago.
Started by Eric Andrist in Church & State. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer yesterday.
Started by Katherine A Flowers in Small Talk. Last reply by Andrew Brown yesterday.
Started by David Boots in Religion and the Religious, Atheism and Atheists. Last reply by Davis Goodman 5 hours ago.
Started by Violeta Babacan in Small Talk. Last reply by TJ on Wednesday.
Sunday School May 21st 2017
Sunday School May 14th 2017
Sunday School May 7th 2017
Posted by Brad Snowder on May 21, 2017 at 11:22am
Posted by Brad Snowder on May 13, 2017 at 6:52pm
© 2017 Created by Rebel.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.