New York – There has been no shortage of child sex abuse scandals during the legislative session that is going into its final week in Albany – the Penn State case and the cover-up trial of Msgr. William Lynn in Pennsylvania and, closer to home, the abuse allegations at Syracuse University and the private Horace Mann School in New York. That makes it all the worse that lawmakers have done little to fix New York’s weak laws for protecting children from sexual predators and providing victims with justice.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Gov. Andrew Cuomo could have done a lot more to lead the way. On Friday, he appeared to reach agreement with the State Assembly and the Senate on a new measure to require coaches in sports programs at universities in New York to report child sex abuse both internally and to law enforcement officials, beginning to fill a glaring reporting gap in state law.
All the more disappointing, then, is that Mr. Cuomo has declined to get behind a more urgent and politically challenging step: expanding New York’s egregiously short statute of limitations in child sex abuse cases, which tilts the legal playing field against accountability, fairness and public safety.
Recent highly visible allegations of sex abuse are a reminder that victims can easily be many years into adulthood before they are ready psychologically and emotionally to talk about what was done to them. This is especially true when they are up against powerful institutions – like the Roman Catholic Church or Penn State – bent on keeping secrets buried.
Faced with this reality, many states have liberally extended the age for filing civil lawsuits. New Jersey is now considering completely eliminating its statute of limitations on the civil side. In Pennsylvania, the age limit for filing child sex abuse cases is 30 for civil cases and 50 for criminal cases.
In New York, Margaret Markey, a Democratic assemblywoman from Queens, has proposed a measure that would give an accuser 10 years after turning 18 to make a claim instead of the current five years. No less important, it would create a one-year window for victims to file previously barred civil claims, similar to filing windows enacted by California, Delaware and, just two months ago, by Hawaii.
Earlier versions of the Markey bill have passed the Democratic-led Assembly several times. By refusing to rise above intense lobbying by Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Orthodox Jewish officials and fight for Ms. Markey’s changes or offer a strong bill of his own, Mr. Cuomo has played it politically safe.
The final days of the session may be too late for the governor to force lawmakers in the Assembly and the Senate to take a vote on the Markey bill and let voters know where they stand. But he should try. Even if the bill should lose in the Senate, as it likely would, it would raise the issue’s visibility and set the stage for a sustained campaign to pass it next year.
New York will continue to lag in protecting children until it brings the statute of limitations into line with the reality of late uncovering of child sex abuse.
I have no quarrel with the facts here, though there is much to say for the literary license assumed by the NYT, as usual. In reality, statutes of limitations do not serve the people. They ultimately trim the caseloads in court, and they enhance the ability of the prosecutors to obtain guilty verdicts. In the cases of abuse, it is extremely frequent that the disclosure is delayed for many years, often well into adulthood. These statutes disarm the victim from prosecuting and also prevent civil suit.
As for the delay in disclosure, the accessibility of evidence and testimony is dimnished, and it becomes increasingly to prove a case as time drags on. This is no one’s fault, just how it is. It is unfair and unjust to base convictions and civil suits on memories that can have faded or been influenced by multiple other factors. Other forms of evidence are also harder to find, even when it existed long ago. This builds in limitations without statutes.
The flaw of Markey bill is that it pronounces guilt on too many innocents. The window alone convicts. The gainers here are lawyers, and the fanatics who carry their messages to the headlines of the NYT, JW, and other schmattes.
We as Jews have no right to criticize the Governor for yielding to OUR lobbying: Agudah, Ohel , etc. I have met the enemy, it is us!
Shame on Aguda for its role (hand in hand with the Goyishe Church) to protect Molesters by going against the Markey bill.
The Markey bill to extend time limits to 10 years instead of the current 5 years is actually very liberal and only a drop in the bucket as compared to stricter states which have abolished all age limitations totally – with no age limits at all.
What does Torah and Halacha say?
According to Torah and Halacha if anyone is guilty of a crime. i.e. and AVERA and likewise a civil suite – i.e. anyone having a financial claim in Beis Din, there are no Statute of Limitations in the Jewish Religion.
The entire concept of statutes of limitations is a Goyish concept and is NON-EXISTANT in Shulchan Aruch. in Halacha or anywhere in Torah, period.
Shame on Aguda for going against the Torah and protecting Molesters for theory own selfish interests to protect their own close friends whom they know are guilty and could and would be prosecuted if the Markey bill wins.
It’s real simple:
People who are guilty don’t want stricter laws that could hurt them.
Innocent people, don’t mind stricter laws against criminals.
Aguda is guilty and that’s why…
Harvey Weisenberg has supposedly signed on to Sen. Skelos bill and the bill is not moving forward on his account. Rep. Silver is no where to be seen. So much for our so called leaders.
All politicians have to sign onto the bill and so do ALL the yeshivas. and public schools!!
you need not worry folks at the end of the day we will prevail and pass the markey bill with gods help…………….those who oppose this bill have been exposed and are not in any power to stop us
I have watched this topic being discussed here over and over again – ad nauseum. For all those who keep insisting that we must go to a Rav first, all I can say is I hope it doesnt happen to your child or grandchild. As far as I’m concerned, my child would come before ANY rav. again, ANY rav – no matter how long his beard is. We, as a nation, have the world’s biggest carpet, where every disgusting thing is swept under. If its my kid, its straight to the cops, no questions asked.
Ok. There seems to be some confusion about the statute of limitations. The point of it is because over time evidence gets corrupted, memories get messed up, and things get harder to prove. In particular it is harder to prove innocence the longer it is away from the time of the incident. For example, if I dont like you and decide to get you in trouble, I claim I saw you punch someone in the face and steal his money yesterday. This would be easy for you to disprove because you can claim “I was in so and so place with so and so and not on the street at that time” or something similar. Additionally, you can probably get witnesses showing your innocence or have solid proof of where you were (store receipts, work hours, etc.). However, imagine that I do this 30 years from now, you will not remember where you were on that day at that time, and you will most likely not be able to find proof to disprove my claims. That is the basic idea. Its a difficult balance because on the one hand you dont want to protect the guilty, but on the other hand you cant have a system where you can just get anyone in trouble without them being able to defend.