Yes, Steve, that's what I'm saying, without the emotional add-ons. That's one of the many reasons why there are statutes of limitations for most crimes. We should be able to expect that our criminal and civil courts and our law enforcement agencies should be able to handle such serious cases with reasonable alacrity. There comes a point in time where evidence is stale and witness testimonies are no longer valid because of lapse of memory and the death or unavailability of witnesses. So, from a legal perspective, it is no longer possible to conduct a fair trial. And yes, I believe that there should be a law that sets time limits on prosecutors, requiring them to file charges and bring cases to trial within a reasonable amount of time. Yes, there may be a few valid cases that get missed because of that, but so be it.

Now, because of the special nature of child molestation and the fact that children are often not able to step forward and press charges until they have reached adulthood, I think the limit should be set at twenty to twenty-five years after the victim reaches adulthood. Ten years would be a reasonable limit for most crimes, but I think that the special circumstances of the crime of child molestation demand a longer time allowance.

But yeah, after a certain amount of time, the claims get less credible and harder to prove or disprove. And when we've reached that point, I believe it's time to stop. I say this with thirty years of experience as an investigator. It's not about sympathy or lack of sympathy for the victims - everybody has sympathy for the victims. There comes a time when it just doesn't make sense to try to get evidence about events that happened long ago. It's still worthwhile to research such things and learn from them, but information gets to a point where it is too old to be valid in a court of law.

Now, once a claim has been filed and a crime has been reported within the time allowed by that statute of limitations, then I think the case must be prosecuted to the end, even if the court trial takes years. And if there is a judgment against the offender or his/her employer, that judgment should never be invalidated by the simple passage of time.

I don't know the details of the story in Jim's March 2017 (thejournal.ie) link that says

In 2002, an indemnity agreement was entered into by the Fianna Fáil Government and 18 religious orders. Under this agreement, the congregations agreed to hand over €128 million in cash and property. This was increased to €353 million after the publication of the Ryan report.

Did the religious orders agree to the increase to €353 million? Can they afford to pay it? Did some of the orders pay, and others not? The Christian Brothers (not the LaSalle Christian Brothers, the Irish Christian Brothers) were particularly notorious in their operation of the industrial schools in Ireland and other institutions in Canada and other nations. They seemed to have a philosophy of harsh treatment, and they got found out. I would imagine that their portion of the debt is huge, and I also imagine that they may well be close to bankruptcy. So, it may be that the Christian Brothers have failed to pay their portion, while others like the Sisters of Mercy have paid in full. Sorry, but I don't believe that the Vatican should be required to pay the debts of individual religious orders or dioceses out of its endowment. These were local crimes, not Vatican crimes.

Now, the question arises whether all Catholics should share equally in responsibility for all reparations for all victims. I think not. The sexual abuse existed everywhere, but some dioceses and some religious orders responded to victims with compassion and sympathy and nearly-immediate compensation. Should those who "did the right thing" be penalized equally? I don't think so.

It's a difficult question. I believe that most of people involved tried their best to "do the right thing," but a sizeable number of people did not. What's the proper response in all this? Punish all for the misdeeds of a minority?

-Joe-