I thought it was in Germany, which from the news I've been reading apparently do have this on their books, much like the French.Originally Posted by Saracen
In Germany you can (or rather could) be charged for failure to help someone who was in need of medical aid or been abused.
The question is who is the person(s) responsible for allowing the abuse to continue, it seams from the letter quite obvious that Benny was complicit in this?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
stop freaking out, all of you. The pope HAS responded constructively, here
One can never stop saying Thank You
format (14-04-2010)
I for one am surprised that in a country with 3000+ pieces of new legislation seemingly designed to make any individual a criminal, that he isn't be guilty of something (I know I probably am!). This is the same country where we made a criminal out of an individual having sex with a bike in the privacy of a locked hostel room, if our legal system can make that one stick then I can't see why the pope is somehow immune.
Our government loves 'sending a message', would be nice to see them send a message we could all agree on and tell the pope that if he steps foot in the country he will be investigated at a minimum. At least that way it would save us the cost of his state visit which I for one am outraged about paying for.
HEXUS FOLDING TEAM It's EASY
Can you spell out what you're accusing him of doing personally that you want him to be arrested for? I'm not really understanding the full details.
Oh it certainly looks like he was complicit in furious Church butt-covering, but the issue I was responding to was whether it was criminal or not here. For all the reasons I listed, I think it's not clear that it was, though it yet might prove to be so.
Did he have a hand, to a greater or less extent, is facilitating the abuse continuing? It sure looks like it. Was that criminal, in order to justify an arrest if he comes here? I don't know, but I've got doubts.
Also, being criminally guilty for not acting to prevent something happening again is different from not reporting something that happened before, and could set a dangerous precedent. We probably all know people that have done criminal things, be it only speeding, drink-driving or, potentially, .... downloading copyright protected files illegally. We want to be careful about opening that door.
Also, it may be illegal in Germany, but for the reasons outlined above, that doesn't necessarily mean he could be arrested here. Unless someone knows better??
But .... "innocent until proven guilty", and all the bothersome little details like that.
He's not guilty of anything until he's been convicted. And, to be arrested, there needs to be a legally valid grounds for the arrest, or it's false arrest and, in a case like this, would probably not only result in a lawsuit but an international incident.
Therefore, does adequate evidence to justify an arrest for an offence which is an arrestable offence under UK law exist? If it does, he should should be arrested if he comes here. But does it? I rather doubt it.
I think its also different to knowing something was happening and doing nothing, which i've been told is illegal even in the UK when it comes to child abuse, I remember been told I'm legally obliged to report anything we where told when I was working with children and on summer schools, apparently it was often the first time children had been away from their abuser. However I wouldn't put it past the lady who briefed us to confuse moral obligation with legal obligation.
But it is definitely illegal to cover it up and put someone in a position of trust time after time?
However looking through all the different news stories I'd have to say it looks like that only legal bit dawkins & co are claiming is that the pope doesn't have immunity.
Finding a balanced news source on this is quite hard, it seams to be polarizing those who are church before children, and those who are going a bit grauniad, emotions first, with a select sprinkling of facts.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
It may well be illegal in the UK, if you're "working with" children. Remember I said that one of the exceptions was those in a position of authority? It would apply to prison officers aware of assaults on inmates, or to police officers aware of assaults on those in their custody. I don't know, but it may very well be that if you're in some position of responsibility over kids, as I assume may well have been the case if you're "working with" them, then it may be the case there too. But, Ratzinger (as I understand it) wasn't in a position of authority over kids. He was in a remote church office, responsible for the priests, not the kids. That would, I grant, certainly imply a moral responsibility if his actions kept a priest in place and in a position to re-offend, but I think it;s far from clear that it was a responsibility of a type that led to a criminal liability, and especially, one here.
Even with that, the way I read it is that they're claiming that that case can be made, that it can be argued, rather than that it categorically is true that he doesn't.
And it's a fairly important technicality.
I think the most relevant laws refer back to duty of care and criminal negligence. To allow someone with whom you have a duty of care over to suffer harm can result in criminal negligence charge. Hence when you are directly responsible for children, and they report abuse, you are bound by this duty to act on their behalf and to ensure their safety.
None of this applies directly to the Pope however, it'd be a hell of a stretch to charge him with a duty of care for all the worshipers that attend a Catholic Church, even the Bishops directly above the priests aren't technically responsible as the duty falls to the local priest who has the day to day contact.
(\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
(='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
(")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")
This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!
But this wasn't while he was Pope rather in a previous job so what were his responsibilities at that time?
But .... "innocent until proven guilty", and all the bothersome little details like that.
He's not guilty of anything until he's been convicted. And, to be arrested, there needs to be a legally valid grounds for the arrest, or it's false arrest and, in a case like this, would probably not only result in a lawsuit but an international incident.
Therefore, does adequate evidence to justify an arrest for an offence which is an arrestable offence under UK law exist? If it does, he should should be arrested if he comes here. But does it? I rather doubt it.
Well, I quite agree with you. I hate the idea that everybody is a criminal as I think I have said on here before however I think in this case how exactly are we supposed to know if there is enough evidence unless our authorities investigate?
HEXUS FOLDING TEAM It's EASY
Do we know they aren't?
I have no great liking for either the Poop or the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in general. I reckon some of what certainly appears to be their teaching, especially in relation to AIDS in Africa etc is an utter disgrace, and probably ought to be considered a crime against humanity.
My only reservations are about what appear to be calls for a knee-jerk reaction to arrest the Poop if he comes here. It looks rather self-serving, and more about publicity than any serious expectation it'll ever happen. So ... investigate, by all means. Whether the powers that be have the gonads to actually do it is another matter, but (assuming the argument about diplomatic immunity not existing is correct) he ought to be treated exactly as anyone else would be :-
- if grounds to investigate exist, then investigate
- if that leads to adequate evidence of him committing an offence we can arrest him for, then arrest him.
- if arrested, try him and what will be will be.
But, much as I might wish it did, I can't see so far that grounds for arresting him exist. Unfortunately.
Do priest have to complete disclosure forms?
~'Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence--those are the three pillars of Western prosperity'~ Aldous Huxley
Does he live in the woods?
The pope has already successfully argued that as the senior ambassador of the sovereign state of the Vatican he is entitled to diplomatic immunity from prosecution.
When he helped cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas, he was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover it up. His claim of diplomatic immunitywas upheld, so he is really unlikely to be ever arrested or charged ever again.
Even so, it's really difficult to argue that what he did in proffering arguments about the vatican's duties pertaining to sexual abuse constitutes a crime. He was asked about the generalities, not specific cases, and delivered a general opinion. Admittedly it was an ouitrageous one, but I doubt that submitting it was illegal.
(Thanks Evilmunky)
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
