Rog, you question my thinking on statutes of limitations. Please remember that I'm thinking out loud here, not enacting legislation. Yes, I think that for most crimes, a twenty-year statute of limitations would be appropriate. Murder is an obvious exception, as is rape. In the period that the Tuam home existed, 1925-1961, we have records that show that eight babies died of malnutrition - and we don't know the circumstances. In fact, there's a lot that we don't know about Tuam and the other institutions, and it is essential that we know the facts and study them impartially before we come to any conclusions.

There are those who want to blame the entire thing on the Church, and want to hold the Vatican responsible for it all. Others blame local churchmen and nuns. Others might be willing to admit that local and national governments of Ireland must bear a good part of the blame. I think that in honesty, Irish society and all of Western society must bear a significant portion of the blame, because these institutions carried out what seems to have been the will of the people. That sort of thinking is diminishing now, but Western society has long condemned unwed mothers as "bad girls," while holding the fathers blameless. The Church was complicit in this and is certainly not blameless, but this has been the thinking of all of society - not something imposed on society by churches.

But back to statutes of limitations. As I said above, my personal feeling is that prosecuting a crime after 20 years doesn't do much good; and I think that society is wasting its resources if it puts extraordinary effort into resolving crimes that are more than twenty years old. But yes, there are crimes like murder and rape that cause such outrage and such trauma that twenty years isn't long enough. For such crimes, I think we should stop attempts at prosecution at fifty years, because I can't imagine being able to conduct a fair trial after more than fifty years. People bring up the fact that the Germans kept meticulous records during the Holocaust that could be used as evidence, but then I ask why weren't those meticulous records used in prosecution fifty years ago. So, now that the Holocaust is almost seventy years ago, I think it's time to stop trying to prosecute ninety-year-olds for crimes they committed at the age of twenty.

Admittedly, this discussion of statutes of limitations and the Holocaust and such is a sideline, but there are parallels. As I have said before, the conditions in the church-run institutions in Ireland in the first half of the twentieth century were indeed deplorable. I agree wholeheartedly with Jim Carroll's "never again" declaration. I'm also pleased to see that Jim Carroll admits that prosecution is not the appropriate response to the way these institutions were operated half a century ago.

And yet, we have here a case where the Tuam story created an international outrage against an order of nuns and the Catholic Church for murdering* 800 babies and dumping their bodies into a septic tank. The nuns and the church were prosecuted in the press, and the call for execution has been loud and clear. Except for the fact that it appears the bodies were buried in soil, not dumped in a septic tank. And the babies died at a rate of about twenty per year, and of natural causes.

So much speculation has clouded the issue of these institutions, that it is becoming more and more difficult to sort out the truth. The Philomena movie and other accounts are very helpful, but we must also take note that such movies have modified information to make it work as a movie. We have a lot to learn from this issue, but we can learn only if we make an honest and thorough exploration of all the facts of the matter. We can't learn if we are shrouded in speculation and rash generalizations.

Ed T brings up an issue: That (restorative justice) is exactly where I suggested (in earlier discussions) where the RC church failed with the priest sex abuse cases, Joe. Because of that failure, and frustration from the victims, they paid faced a significant financial cost. That's a matter worthy of discussion, Ed, and I agree with you to a great extent. I guess I'd better cut the grass before I post an answer. Let's talk about that later.

-Joe-


*Jim Carroll will now rush to the dais and huffily insist that he never accused anyone at Tuam of murder, so let me agree that's true. Jim did not make such an accusation. But Musket termed the 800 deaths at Tuam as murder, and so did some others here and many others in the press. And yes, no doubt that someone will attack me for using 800 as a number instead of 796, but so be it. All we really know about Tuam is that Catherine Corless found 796 death certificates for people who died at the Tuam home, and that various natural causes were listed as the cause of death. That's a good starting point, and it's clear that more facts are available - but most of what we've read is sheer speculation.