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 Nathaniel in Religion and the Religious, Atheism and Atheists. Last reply by Pope Beanie 4 hours ago.
Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by TJ 11 hours ago.
Started by Dr. Bob in Religion and the Religious, Atheism and Atheists. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer 3 hours ago.
Started by Ro3bert in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Ro3bert Mar 17.
Started by Ro3bert in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Ro3bert Mar 15.
Sunday School March 19th 2017
Sunday School March 12th 2017
Sunday School March 5th 2017
Posted by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on March 22, 2017 at 4:00pm
Posted by Brad Snowder on March 18, 2017 at 11:17pm
© 2017 Created by umar.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.