Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
A man allegedly molested three decades ago by a Jesuit priest was arrested Friday on charges that he tracked down the retired cleric in his retirement home and severely beat him.
I don't think that the prosecution would want me on the jury...And yes, I know that what this man did was illegal, but ask yourself, if some guy molested you and forced you to have sex with your brother...would he still be alive today? I'm thinking that this priest got off light with just a beating. How many other children did he rape? He was never prosecuted. This rape victim needs some counseling (paid for by the rcc) and that should be the end of it.We are a land of laws but, in this case, the law protected the perp.
I'm not sure I see the problem here.
This is revolting. The fact is the thing that masks as a human being has inflicted permanent psycological damage to the people he violated. The black eye will clear, the swelling will recede. What a pity there is no hell for the likes of that to drop in to. The assault was frankly not nearly enough. People who commit henious crimes against children deserve henious punishment. A 'civilised' and humane punishmnet should not count. Sickens me to the core.
It would be hard for me to hate the priest if I somehow knew that he had himself been raped as a little boy....Could it be that the chain of effects stretches back over generations?Let us hope this event will somehow break the cascading misery to the next generation.
billybee, what makes you think this happened to the priest?
SamPerhaps because the priest was raised as a catholic and was around catholic priests too. ;)
I was unclear in my statement...sorry. What I mean is just to say that my first reaction to the video was feeling happy that the priest got his ass kicked.But then I asked my self; "would I still feel that kind of hatred towards the priest IF (just speculating) it turned out that the priest had grown into becoming an adult pedophile as a result of having been sexually abuse when he was a kid.If a dog is beated by it's master, it will bite a stranger....but we don't blame the dog, we blame the dog's master.Of course I have no idea what the priest's upbringing was like....I was just "supposing".
oh well i would've probably killed him to be honest...jury nullification should be awarded
I was thinking along similar lines. I think it will be exceedingly difficult to get a conviction.
As he wasn't prosecuted we don't know whether or not he committed any of those acts. "There's been many articles written about him" is a BS argument and we shouldn't honor it, even if not doing so protects a catholic priest.
There's more to this story. While William Lynch started out as a victim, he apparently went on to abuse his niece. Not mentioned in normal media outlets, but found in the local paper at the bottom of the article:http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_16470418?nclick_check=1
If the rcc would turn over the documents that they have on the priest's alleged molestations, then we would have a better idea of his past actions. I don't think they will do this, maybe the defense attorney can request them (good luck with that). If the rcc refuses to turn over the documents, then the jury should be made aware of it.
I disagree with most comments here.Vigilantism, no matter how justified should always be opposed. ot out of any necessary smpathy for its victim(s), but because of the break down of law and order that can ensue.I do not want to be walking down the street and be beating because someome wrongly thinks I have committed a crime.We have courts for a reason.
<span>I disagree with most comments here. Vigilantism, no matter how justified, should always be opposed. Not out of any necessary smpathy for its victim(s), but because of the break down of law and order that can ensue. I do not want to be walking down the street and be beating because someome wrongly thinks I have committed a crime. We have courts for a reason.</span>
i find it hard to have any symptahy.
I find it hard to have any sympathy.
I also am against vigilantism. In these cases though there is No other retribution. This priest effed a somewhat defenseless and trusting 7 year old boy in his ass. He knows nothing will ever be done to him inb the courts. Don't euphamise the situation.
Ivnik8orThree points.1/ We do not know if this priest did - where is the evidence - we only have this man's word. This does not mean the priest is not guilty, but let us also not assume that all charges of sex abuse are true.Martin, in an earlier post, said it well when he wrote"<span>As he wasn't prosecuted we don't know whether or not he committed any of those acts. "There's been many articles written about him" is a BS argument and we shouldn't honor it, even if not doing so protects a catholic priest."</span>2/ Keeping point 1 in mind. If we say such action is OK, then what if a friend or relative attacked the priest - would that still be acceptable? Are we saying none of these people could not make a mistake about idetntity of the perpertrator? I do not wish to see an innocent person wrongly attacked.3/ Who benefits from this act of violence? What purpose does it serve? Are we saying that as a society we want to go back to acts of corporal punishment?Vigilantism is vigilantism, you cannot with one voice say "I also am against vigilantism" and then with another say, "I support it."Vigilantism is when someone illegally (ie with out due process of law) punishes someone for actual or perceived offenses. What we have reported here is a clear act of vigilantism. Now we have reasons to have sympathy with the guy, but that does not make is act one of vigilantism .One has to look at the larger picture and not just at a particular case, no matter how compelling. Vigilantism - no matter how justifiable one may believe it is in a particular case - is always undesriable because of the break down in law and order that can result.
Alan, my original post said that the prosecution wouldn't want me on the jury.Most of us are against vigilantism, but if this case went to trial, the man doling out a beating to this priest would be able to mount a defense. His defense could only be to show evidence that the priest abused him when he was younger. There was at least one other witness (the brother and fellow victim) and perhaps some church documents proving the abuse. I'm just saying that after this evidence was produced in court, the jury could let the guy off. I would. What's a beating compared to what the victim had to go through all his life?I'm sure that you've read of women who have been abused by their husbands/boyfriends for years, and then they snap and croak the abuser...and are let off. This case is only different in that the abuse is currently not still going on (or is it?).