Lynch- abc news
The Will Lynch trial is over, and the verdict reached by the jury was not guilty on any charges at all. The jury of his 12 peers concluded Will Lynchs trial with a verdict they deemed was proper. But let’s not call it “Vigilante Justice”, and we shouldn’t say we condone violence to correct violence.
That said, the California law statutes concerning child sexual abuse are a failure. Will Lynch was prosecuted for hitting the accused unconscionable child rapist Fr. Lindner, but the prosecutors, and the failed “pedophile-friendly” justice system in Santa Clara County – was totally useless to prosecute the accused agregious sex offender, Fr. Jerold Lindner.
Maybe the California lawmakers will wake out of a stupor now. This landmark case has earned nationwide attention. But the inescapable underlying issue that is unofficially and plausibly being redirected is the antiquated “statute of limitations” on child sex abuse cases.
To quote activist and former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt:
“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both”.
This proclamation was tantamount to the principle matter of contention in this trial by Lynch, but obviously not the legal and focal intent of the District Attorney. The District attorneys office should learn from this trial, and make it a priority to help change the law, instead of complaining that victims of rape should not seek vindication.
Although the DAs office is content with doing absolutely nothing at all to vindicate the child rape victims of Lindner, this conduct does not serve justice, nor does it protect children who are still exposed to Lindner. That notion is absurd, and it is also an indication of lop-sided thinking, and lop-sided justice. But obviously, the jury didn’t agree with the way the law protected the serial rapist priest; and the jury must have been offended that the prosecutor went guns-a-blaring against a man that was raped at 7 years old by that unconscionable cleric.
Will Lynch, now 44, was accused of assaulting the priest that the DA admittedly stated in court molested seven year old Will, and his four year old brother. Fr. Lindner is also accused of raping at least a dozen other children as well. The Jesuit Catholic Order has paid several million dollars in sex abuse settlements for the civil claims filed against Lindner; and Lindner has never been prosecuted – the result of an inadequate and flawed statute of limitations for criminal prosecution.
The current statute states in essence that a child victim of sexual abuse has only 7 years from the date of the victims 18th birthday to file charges for prosecution. This antiquated limit is obsolescent; modern psychology and medicine have rendered the statute deleterious for several reasons.
The primary reason for the much needed correction in the statute is the fact that most children do not know that they have a clock ticking from the date they are molested to file criminal charges. Additionally, it is a known fact that most victims do not come forward with accounts of abuse for well over a decade; the result of shame, guilt, self loathing, embarrassment, and confusion, to identify just a small sample of reasons.
Another significant indicator of the deficiency of the archaic statute is the delayed psychological side effects of child rape; the realization and response time to seek justice for the culminating damage typically occurs decades later as well. The effects of child sexual abuse for many victims frequently parallels the effects of asbestos exposure; the accumulative toxic psychological poison can emerge far into the individuals future lifetime.
Analyzing the pain and frustration of a child rape victim who witnesses the accused pedophile perpetrator bask in a luxurious resort; while the predator has been allowed continued access to children without supervision, is haunting to say the least. This supposition may have triggered the incident that resulted in the reaction and crisis that is the result and legal focus of the Lynch case.
Most clergy pedophiles and other sex abusers have escaped criminal prosecution as a result of the statute of limitations; and this fact should be a daunting wake up call to lawmakers to correct the defective time limit for seeking justice. The existence of the present law and statute eerily suggest a pedophile friendly legislature that is suspiciously not in favor of child abuse victims; a system that needs further investigation as to its validity.
At the very least, if lawmakers continue to maintain the inadequate statute, parents and activists for child protection should consider educating children themselves as to the imperative time limit constraints to seek justice for sex abuse crimes. Perhaps it is time to boldly suggest that schools should teach awareness about child abuse statute limits as part of the sex education program.
In conclusion, vigilante justice, and/or violence does not correct child sex abuse statutes – but the laws have certainly failed, and abused children are the losers. It is imperative that the statute of limitations for child abuse be eliminated completely – or radically reformed to meet 21st century psychologically dictated standards.