- This topic has 122 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
This morning I heard on the radio that three more women just stepped up to file suit against the estate of someone who killed himself last week.
This is transparent. Within a week of someone killing himself and no longer able to defend himself you already have three more women who jump on the bandwagon to make allegations against him and sue his estate.This is the climate we are now in.
I would not be so opposed to this new law if I believed that there would be semi fair trails, guilt would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the primary defendants would actually be the guilty parties, not those who have the deepest pockets to bankrupt, etc.
In reality, some will be little better than witch trials.
AJ:
No strawman. Courts require a burden of proof. True. But at the end of the proceedings, all the old cases will result in the accuser saying he did it and the alleged perpetrator saying he did not do it. In the legal sense, there has not been evidence or other proof, and the case should end in acquittal (I know this is in civil, not criminal court, and I am only borrowing the term). But in the climate of today, the alleged victim is always believed (the @MeToo baloney), and the juries will make awards. That is problematic. The accusation is accepted as if it is evidence, and the denial is dismissed as lying. In the absence of the insane awards of money, there will be the opportunity to destroy someone’s reputation. That is dinei nefashos. That should be done with actual proof, not the MeToo attitude.
AJ:
1. Incorrect. Their opposition was not out of fear of a flood of cases materializing but rather because even one case can bankrupt an institution. For something allegedly that occurred 50 years ago, or 60 or 30, under completely different faculty and students that are long gone. Even a false case can be won, as TLIK explained.
2. Because even one incident in 25 years is one incident too many.
Whoever thinks there’s no corruption in the US “justice system” is not very familiar with it. Every few months people who have sat in jail for years, many even for decades, are released due to new evidence such as DNA testing or the coming to light prosecuters corruption in the presenting of “evidence”. Stories happen all the time of pressure on (fake) witnesses by police and criminals who for lighter sentence will give fake accounts of incidents. What exactly was “proven” during these trial where the defendants are found innocent after years of incarceration?
Thousands of people pay laywers tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, getting torn to shreds financially and socially, while fighting for in court to prove their innocence even when it’s blatantly clear that they are innocent, but due to the corruption of lawyers, prosecutors, and judges, a case can be dragged for months and years in court.
Many frivolous lawsuits were awarded millions of dollars. Lawsuits were settled out of court, not because there was no chance of the defendants winnining, only because individuals and institutions did not want to go through the torture of trials that can stretch for years and rob them of their piece of mind or cause unwanted attention to individuals or companies.
And this is all with reasonable laws that were created to keep criminals off the streets. But laws that are unreasonable will introduce more abuse to the already abused system.
edited
AJ – thank you for that research. I read that as well but it wasn’t clear if the institutions who enabled includes our middos under totally new leadership. For instance, if a school district or an organization hides a molester, the district or organization remains responsible. But if its a lone institution and NONE of the players remain, i was told it might not be the same responsibility. And yes, even if the menuval died, the enablers are still responsible.
Thanks for the footwork
This law only makes sense if one can sue those responsible for protection and employment of a molester, not the institution itself. And the victims have to have proof that the enablers knew about the molestation. But after so many years have passed, it is doubtful that any institution will have the same administrators as when the alleged abuse took place.
Victims should only be able to sue if the abuser admitted to his crime and if there has come to light sufficient proof of abuse. There are so many new cases being filed and I’m very doubtful that for the majority of these cases proof of abuse came up so many years later.
why did the Brooklyn institution and the summer camp protect that molester for 25 years?
Maybe they believed him innocent. And maybe he was.
If everyone has a problem with money payouts in court, no problem, I happen to think the Torah’s punishment makes more sense, DEATH. Also since beis din does have the right to put people in jail, all enablers should get locked up. Maybe in the same cell as Jeffery Epsteins former cellmate.
“why did the Brooklyn institution and the summer camp protect that molester for 25 years?
Maybe they believed him innocent. And maybe he was.”
and maybe he wasn’t but they did the popular thing at the time and ignored it, hoping it would go away.
” Victims should only be able to sue if the abuser admitted to his crime and if there has come to light sufficient proof of abuse”
Oh, that sounds like a great idea! We should do that with murder and embezzlement too! victims should only be able to sue if the murderer or embezzler admits to his crime.
Syag, there were instances where criminals admitted to their deeds. I never said that criminals do it often, but it happens especially IF hard evidence does turn up and they can get longer sentences if they don’t admit guilt…
I understand that you need everything spelled out and you keep on harping on semantics ( like if I know what black and white means and with me stating numbers that were obviously my opinion but you devoted many posts to condemning that even if in my subsequent posts I said that I should’ve written it out – for people that don’t get that it was obviously my opinion…)
Now, I understand that you think that these things laws are black and white, kid get abused H”y and can’t overcome their pain until 50 years later when they sue presenting hard evidence to support their claims ….sorry it won’t work that way for the vast majority of cases.
phil – not sure what you were trying to say there, a few too many run on sentences trying to tell me off for things I said that you couldn’t follow. No, I don’t think it’s black and white (and I actually know what that phrase means).
Syag, I just don’t agree with you regarding this law so you dissect everything I say to the point of absurdity. And then you say I don’t follow what you are saying. Seems to me that you are not following what I’m saying…
Anyway…will try to keep this argument civil, I still feel bad for zetsing Joseph so much this past Tisha b’Av, I’m not trying to go there again… Have a good Shabbos ( if this is posted before Shabbos).
Now I *really* have no idea what you are trying to say.
I didnt mention joseph and i have nothing to do with your zetsing. Happy to put it to rest.Good shabbos
Syag, um ok…my goodness…I never said that you mentioned Joseph… I said that I still feel bad for zetzting Joseph and I DONT WANT TO GO THERE AGAIN- in other words, I don’t want to get into an argument and say things I’ll regret… I suggest that you simply process what is written and not what you think was implied.
I dont have problems processing. You said you want to be civil but rude seems to be more your style. How bout just not responding to my posts, tbat might make it easier to move forward.
Arkois MIGHT not be a problem, as many Rabonim have said that Arkois is allowed in criminal pursuit of CSA. The question is whether or not we should make a Chilik based on the idea that Criminal Court follows a version of “Hamotzei m’chaveiro…..” more strongly then Civil Court- especially since Civil Court follows it even less in bi’adike cases. Thus, we must fall back on Emunas Chachamim that there is a Chilik here, but to simply say “Arkois” is nisht genug, this is more complicated. If a law was made with the right chachma (ein shum yi’ush b’olam klal), the Frumer Velt may be able to reconsider. Hanose Teshuʿa l’malachim, yitein b’libam oob’lev kol yoʿatseihem v’sharaihem l’ʿasos tovah ʿimannu v’ʿim kol Yisrael.
ITP22
“I happen to think the Torah’s punishment makes more sense, DEATH. ”
Really?
Where exactly does the Torah prescribe death for molesting?
Are you reading the Koran perhaps?Syag, rudeness may certainly be my style if you say I said things I never said or implied or if you are rude to me because I have a different opinion than you… But I’m trying to work on my style regardless…
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to work on my middos.
“The laws created by the gentiles is inapplicable in how we Jews govern ourselves in our interpersonal relations, including financial compensation and/or courts which render such judgements.”
Not true. We are prohibited from doing things that would be mutar halachically if secular law prohibits them. We must pay our taxes even if they are not what the Torah prescribes. We must obey court orders including paying financial compensation when a court orders it to be paid. We must follow secular law regarding ownership of property even when it is inconsistent with halachah. If a beit din makes a ruling that is contrary to public policy as expressed in secular law, the beit din ruling gets overturned and we are bound to accept that. I could go on and on but I will add that there is no statute of limitations for damages in halachah and the new law about which people are complaining makes secular law more like halachah, not less.
Not following secular law is why we have kollels in prisons. 🙁
Charlie: As an Open Orthodox adherent of Mr. Avi Weiss you may believe what you just wrote has repealed Halacha and replaced it with non-Jewish laws. But we Torah Jews still believe in and keep the Torah and all its laws. To the exclusion of conflicting gentle laws, as our Torah directs us to.
Is Charlie an open orthodox adherent of avi Weiss or is this just more mud slinging?
Smerel, Epstein was a convicted sex offender who got off lightly due to his political pull with the US AG. His arrest in July was for a federal offense of trafficking minors, civil cases filed by his victims date back to 2008.
Charlie is a member of Weiss’ HIR Temple in the Bronx.
I obviously wasn’t asking you, you’ve already given your opinion. But knowing how wrong you are in your motzei shem ra about my affiliations, im not willing to be mekabel your words without hearing what he says about it.
anonymous Jew, I keep trying to post why I think that this law will be abused and I clearly state that it is my opinion but the mods won’t let my posts through…not sure what to make of that…
Imagine a fifty year old would come to the police and tell them that forty years ago when he was ten his next door neighbor John Doe tried to poison him. John gave him a bottle of soda and he drank it. After he drank it he fell down feeling extremely ill while John taunted him saying that it was poisoned. The boy was unconscious and vomiting for hours until he gradually over several days recovered. The boy never went to a doctor or called the police or told anyone about what had happened because he was afraid of revenge from John Doe. Now that he has gotten older and summoned up the courage to turn John Doe in. John Doe, a well respected elderly family man with no prior criminal record, vehemently denies it. There is no other evidence of his guilt
Would John Doe end up convicted? Not in any fair court.
OTOH if instead of poison soda, the crime was molestation, (assuming no statute of limitations)then John Doe stands a very high chance of conviction with a sentence on par with a murderer. Why is that exactly?
smerel:
Did you watch the Kavanaugh hearings? There were several women reporting having been victims of Judge Kavanaugh. There was no evidence produced at all. The DemocRats y”sh pronounced this innocent, honorable man a rapist. Later, every single accuser was found to have fabricated the accusations for political reasons, once there was evidence to the contrary. You don’t see that reported in the MSM because they continue to wear the masquerade as honest reporters. But the believability of the victim is basically guaranteed, even when the statements are completely false. That’s the corruption of the @MeToo mentality.
There is zero amount of denial about accusations of molestation that are accepted as possibly true. There is something very wrong with that. Sometimes, an accuser needs to wait for HKB”H to manage His affairs, and we need to leave it up to Him. I shudder that the accusations will be believed simply because they are spoken. And I do hope that perpetrators get the maximum consequences possible. I am not protecting them at all. I just cannot tolerate using the justice system as a weapon. And that is what the current law invites.
smerel: Bingo! You surmised the situation very concisely, accurately and to the point.
smerel- I am not sure you are correct about any of it. If he was poisoned, someone would know and I doubt there would not have been a doctor involved. And if it was molestation, I still don’t know that you are right about it getting any more serious attention. Unfortunate but true.
As a possible answer I will tell you that historically, people don’t get molested once, there is a process of emotional abuse beforehand in the grooming of the victim, and there is rarely only one victim (unless it is a parent and his own child). People around the child will notice differences in them and their behavior, drastic changes that they all notice, without understanding what happened. And there is plenty to work with in the details of how he groomed the victim, how he got them to the place, who knew they were there etc. It is usually much more elaborate, involved and traceable than just pouring someone a drink. And often there was an adult who was told and chose to ignore it. They will be another link.
So I agree that if it was like that (someone sneaks up on a kid, molests them once and disappears into the sunset) it would probably have little chance of being brought to justice.
Hope that helps.
The high number of comments on this topic tells me that the posters who oppose the temporary suspension of the statute of limitations on six crimes against children have little faith in the yeshivas to screen out the problem- atic teachers/rabbis. I have no idea of the scope of the problem of child abuse in yeshivas, but I think it is good that the secular authorities have increased the recourse of victims to seek civil relief.
I also have no idea how many unscrupulous Jews would bring fake lawsuits – i.e., real lawsuits with fake facts – to pick up some extra bucks at the expense of the yeshivas and the teachers/rabbis who work in them. Clearly, though, many of the posters think that number is high.
huju, actually I personally wasn’t thinking about Jewish people in general (but not exluding either) making false accusations and I believe other posters didn’t only talk about Jews. Frum Jews are a very tiny minority within the US population and unscrupulously frum Jews are an even tinier minority.
huju – I wish that were the case! I don’t think these posters think that lots of people are out for money, they are just SO reactive to any thought that molesters should be outed. It’s like the anti vaxxers or hilary lovers. None of it makes sense but once they refuse to out a molester, they are willing to destroy a victim if they have to in order to protect their stance. It is truly mind boggling.
I’ll take that poison example from smerel. Someone finds out that a neighbor had been adding washer fluid to the child’s food because they had mental illness that caused them to believe the child was an amaleki. (in fact there was such a horrific story in Israel years back) The child gets very sick and a couple people notice that some frequent playdates have shown some odd symptoms as well.
When this story comes out NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON will say, “I wonder why a kid would make up a story like that”.
Why people with NO facts are obsessed with defense of these people, claiming false allegations even though that is not as common, INSISTING that the molestation is a one in 25 year thing….
I have never seen such a disregard for children by frum jews in any other realm. A true ehrlich yid should be heartbroken for the child, praying the molester, if guilty, gets help, and crying to Hashem for the klal. Firing families, burning their houses, accusing their fathers, WRITING LETTERS to the courts in the molesters defense WITHOUT knowing details, and NOTHING to support the children, NOTHING at all. It can’t be explained logically.
Those here who stomp their feet at the idea of molesters getting in trouble will usually admit they have no facts .(or they read it in the news, or spoke to the cleaninghelp, or they KNOW he is innocent because they both carpooled together. A sure sign indeed) Then tell me, what kind of a Yid with NO facts supports the molester? To the point of violence and vitriol? Why not support both of them? Or neither?
In all my hatred for the menuvalim, I accept no story as true without facts, and if I have no facts I don’t pretend to have them. Can you tell me you do the same?huju: You continue to ignore the answers you were provided to the point you keep spouting. No. All it takes is one lawsuit to bankrupt a school. You don’t need “many”, just one.
Whether the allegations of what happened 60 years ago, or 40 or 20 years ago, are true or false. Even if the administration, faculty, parent body and student body has long changed five times over since that unprovable allegation of a decades ago event. Where even the alleged perpetrator may be long deceased. Yet the big bucks can’t come from a deceased or lower middle class elderly former teacher living on retirement, so instead they try to take away the school from the innocent children today attending it.
speaking of spouting, you totally made that up. Why should anyone have to answer to stuff you pulled out of a hat.( Unless you are trying to tell us you have personal experience on how much it costs to defend a molester in court, but I would assume you just picked the most dramatic effect you could come up with. )
Syag:
You are beginning to sound like the “activists” whose agenda avoids helping the kids, treating victims, or promoting prevention. It sounds a lot more like attacking the molesters. In one sense, I agree with you. I have not a single word to protect a molester. I do not wish for their support, and I daven that Klal Yisroel should be rid of these plagues.
But then, you wrote this statement: “Then tell me, what kind of a Yid with NO facts supports the molester? ” I cannot say that there is no one that tries to support a molester. It is not just sad but tragic that there are those that do exactly that. Not me. Let them rot. But the issue at hand is the accusation that creates the virtual truth of the molester. Both halacha and secular law require guilt to be proven. The accusation asks the question, and then there is a process that is mandatory in order to arrive at an answer. But in today’s world, the very raising of the question is accepted as the answer, with NO facts to support it. I am not saying this to protect a molester. I am insisting that there be some verification that the individual is a molester before we trash him, destroy his life and that of his family. And the liberal attitudes that have sneaked their way into our community do what the activists scream – first destroy the accused person, then waste the time on the trial (since the verdict was already implemented). If that is what you are saying, then we part ways. I will not be part of the destruction heaped on an innocent person. I am not even entering the beis din versus secular court issue. The accusation must be credible with some evidentiary basis before I support the kinds of actions promoted by the activists.
And, again, the new law invites this type of injustice.
TLIK – your post is a joke.
I am not an activist and I don’t sound like one. If you read and understood what I wrote instead of assuming, you would have figured that out. I am not talking about the law, haven’t really addressed it except to say straight and clear that I have not formed an opinion on it. Is that like the activists?
I am addressing the stupidity of some of the posts who are stuck in 30 years ago calling abuse a rare occurrence and thinking the majority of these tormented people made it up and are now in it for the money.I also said I don’t support either side without knowing the facts and you seem to be bothered about the fact that I ask the same of you and your friends.
Sounds like your glasses may be foggy.
additionally- speaking of liberal attitudes, show me another issue where people spend more time, energy and violence on demanding proof of guilt of the accused adult, with no equal regard and demand for truth for the child victim than this one.
(and feel free to answer the other questions as well)Syag, as usual you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You keep saying you don’t fully understand New York’s new law and that as such you don’t have an opinion on it. Yet you keep disputing my points about NY’s new law that you know little of its finer details.
Actually not, but nice try.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.