Ancient abuse claims - Should people be able to sue over ancient wrongs?

Article in this morning's Journal News (Westchester-Rockland) Decades-old sex-abuse claim against assistant coach puts focus on Nyack schools. Excerpt:

The guy died in 2006. That's 18 years ago. A lawsuit was filed against his assistant coach, Peter Recla, under the Child Victims Act. It basically allows cases with respect to which the Statue of Limitations expired to be filed. Mind you, no one is accusing Siegriest of doing anything wrong. It was for not policing his assistant. And also, the original statue of limitations gave a period of time after the victim achieved majority, I forget whether it's 18 or 21, to file a suit. Allowing ancient allegations to be dredged up is unjust. The defendant may literally have no way of defending him- or herself, since witnesses, likely other students, have long dispersed from the area. Memories fade. This is part of the trend to entropy, both in the law and other areas.

 

I think they should be able to sue, but I think it should be hard to win a case that long after as the proof level is so hard after so much time

as far as changing a statute of limitations, seems that should only affect cases after the change

 

Sure, let them sue. However the accused should be able to gain restitution for legal fees and lost time in the extremely likely case that the suit fails. I understand the purpose behind America's 'can sue for anything' culture, but there needs to be some incentive against frivolous suits as well.

 

Anybody can sue anyone for anything, whether the case has merit or not. "Loser pays all expenses for both parties." should be the rule. So, if you want to file suit against me for something someone else did 18 years ago, GO FOR IT. When you lose, you will pay me for my time, lost wages, my legal counsel, all court costs, etc... and I will then counter-sue you for defamation.

 

How does this case qualify as "ancient"?

 

There are usually statutes of limitations on sexual abuse to an adult, but not usually for children. A child does not have the wherewithal to deal with it the way an adult does. It may be hidden for years. I don't think child sexual abuse should have a statute of limitations.

 

But really that should be a criminal case, not a civil one.

 

New York has always tolled the statute of limitations for minors. The first section of CPLR 208, quoted below (public domain so no copyright), has always been in effect. The Child Abuse Act is the second section:

I think CPLR 208, which applies in New York, is eminently fair. I think the second section is not at all fair. How is a person accused going to defend themselves against an action concerning events that happened over thirty years ago?

 

Actually, he allegedly did wrong. Although he died, he was responsible for all the actions by his assistants. Whether he knew about the abuses remains to be seen. If he knew, he is just as culpable as someone who stood there next to the person who fired the shot to commit homicide or the person who was in the car that allowed the homicide suspect to get away. Same principle. But again, it really depends on facts and circumstances which is why I voted other.

 

More than that. I think the loser, if the one who brought suit, should be responsible for all of or thr portion they sued for.

 

especially the rich suing people just to harass them, so many abuse the courts

one case could be a fluke, many cases show a trend

 

The Prosecution has to prove guilt on the part of the accused, that's in the Bill of Rights. Those are all problems for the accuser. Remember this as elements of the tyrannical Left attack our constitutional rights. They are ALL very important.

 

Dude died almost two decades back. No one wants to believe that some one they hired is a pedophile or in this case a pederast not that that is a lot better.

 

But what constitutes acceptable proof after 30 years? There is no DNA, it is just down to he said he said in this case. How do you know that a half a dozen dudes didn't get together and decide to try a deep pockets lawsuit against the school? Because that's who is going to be shelling out. Not the estate of the dead guy or his ex assistant the school because ultimately they are also responsible and they are the only ones with any real money.

 

Two decades is not ancient history

 

Close enough

 

Basically the only thing would be a slip up by the sexual abuser at that point really, unless there was video or a rape kit

 

Theres a reason the law has statute of limitations and we have to look no farther than trumps new york abuse conviction to understand why.

Reparation movements are another good proof of why we have time limits on righting wrongs.

 

Ah, the lawyer's conundrum. The problem is that the accuser has the benefit of his word, and the chance to have lined up his witnesses. He can spring at will. The accused, in particular if he is innocent, will be taken by surprise and will not have such an advantage. I will give you an example.

My dad died on January 5th, 1973 in the wee hours of the morning. The day before, January 4th, I was waiting for the bus with the eventual aggressor,“Ken,” and a then close friend,“Bob.” Ken heard me telling Bob that my father would likely not last through the weekend. Bob had actually seen my father a few weeks earlier, when he was visibly sick. Ken ambled over and said “it serves your father right for smoking.” In theory, I could have sued him for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Of course I would not do that but I can.

I'm still occasionally in touch with Bob. If I decided to mount such a lawsuit, I would have a major advantage because Bob could be my witness, and Ken would not remember who else was there. Nor for that matter do I. Further, Ken would have been taken by surprise, and would have no way of rounding up witnesses. In addition, Ken, who was not particularly intelligent, would never remember the incident because saying things like that was second nature to him. I have it clearly etched in my mind because my father died not less than 10 year hours after.

I'm not defending Ken, but how my being able to bring a one-sided lawsuit be just?

The problem is that when the accused isn't an abuser, defending themselves from ancient accusations is difficult or impossible. They will sometimes lose their jobs and families over things that they never did. As far as people (even children) that don't report abuse,reporting needs to be built into the culture. Sometimes there are consequences.

People sometimes have to risk losing their position on the "casting couch" as a price of protecting themselves from abuse.

 

That was my question.
Ancient would be for suffering of past generations — not something that happened in one’s lifetime.

Statutes of limitations should not exist for such serious crimes.

 

When asking these questions, I think it's important to be very clear about exactly why a suit is being brought and against whom. In this case, it appears that suit wasn't brought against the alleged abuser (which I doubt would be possible via a civil suit anyway) but against the school authorities, presumably for failing in their legal duty of care over the student, and that case was settled via their insurers. I'd suggest there are strong arguments for that kind of case in principle, since that possibility will encourage organisations to pay for the appropriate measures to meet their obligations. That said, the general issues with the American civil court system still apply in practice, with massive playouts heavily filtered through expensive lawyers.

Well, that would still be something wrong. Regardless, he doesn't appear to be directly related to the civil suit, with all of the activity involving his name coming via petitions, campaigns and decisions by the school board.

Well again, that depends on what the focus of the civil suit actually is. If, for example, it is about definitions and implementation of policies, there could well be documentation covering the relevant facts. It is certainly true that with anything, the longer ago alleged events took place, that more difficult it can be to establish all of the facts, but I don't think that in itself is sufficient reason to have some unconditional cut-off, but the pressure should be largely on the accusers to make definition claims and provide sufficient evidence to support them.

 

A lot of Catholic priests would have gotten off Scot free if there was a statute of limitations

 

Most of them actually did. In fact the only thing they lost was a job they should not have had in the first place the Catholic church however lost millions.

 

My daughter was drugged, kidnapped, raped, sodomized and severely beaten by two animals. She did not want to get the cops involved. When she finally told me I did not understand that, but I think I do now. In any case, those two were serial rapists and had many victims before and after my daughter.

She has made peace with what happened. When I learned what happened I asked her if she wanted me to take care of it. She said no, that she had learned to live with it and didn't want it all dredged up again. She didn't want anyone else hurt, not even the two animals, and certainly not any family.

As a family we are mainly at peace with this, and even if given the option, would not pursue those two animals. Daughter is fine, no lasting issues and she's a happy productive member of society with a husband and a beautiful daughter.

Because of our experience tt is difficult to understand Carrol's obsession with Trump, the reparation thing, or giving victims the option to go after their attackers so many years after the alleged crime(s).

There's a reason for a statute of limitations and negating it does not bring justice. It only extends the pain of the original crime.

 

When I read the thread title I thought this would be about slavery reparations.

If the person was wronged, I think they should be allowed to sue. I don't agree with limitation periods. Those mostly unburden the courts and don't do much for justice.