LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Please note that as of March 30th 2017 Dominic will be inactive as an attorney
Law enforcement and the judicial system must share the responsibility
for not recognizing the magnitude of the sexual abuse by priests and religious
in their community.
In over forty-four years as a criminal trial lawyer, I have represented
a number of the Catholic clergy and religious (men and women of the diocesan
and religious orders) with legal problems. The great percentage of offenses
were alcohol related. There were also a few cases involving theft and
embezzlement. All of the above mentioned charges were not sexual situations.
Less than thirty percent of the total cases had sexual ramifications,
and two-thirds of those involved consenting female adults known to the
accused by reason of their social or church-related contacts. A small
minority was accused of sexual contact with minors between the ages of
twelve and eighteen. There was one instance of actual pedophilia and in
that situation the accused left the priesthood immediately.
I am not aware of any judgment against a Catholic diocese in the United
States prior to 1973, for sexual misconduct of the clergy or religious.
Since then insurance companies and the church have paid out more than
1.5 billion dollars to settle claims against those accused of negligence
and sexual conduct. We have been forced to realize the serious nature
of this problem. Many experts handling these matters agree that the minor
seminary was a breeding ground for these practices. Immature young boys
entered the seminary at ages 12 to 14. Experts analyzing this situation
state this was an extremely unhealthy environment for these young men,
creating much same sex activity.
In 95 percent of the cases in which I represented the clergy or religious
with a civil or criminal complaint, the matter was settled without notoriety
and with no notification by civil authorities to the appropriate religious
superiors or bishops. In order to fully appreciate the importance of this
fact, it is essential to understand the manner in which criminal cases
were handled.
In the early 1960s, when attorneys first began representing the clergy
and religious with criminal or civil difficulties, complaints were usually
made to police officers, who many times treated the offense with mitigation
and either charged the accused with a lesser offense or found that there
was insufficient evidence to proceed. In some instances the parents of
the victims chose not to have their child testify and therefore a formal
complaint was never filed.
In those cases where a criminal offense was charged, many times the ultimate
plea did not reflect the acts as set forth in the police report. Though
a police report could charge an offense with sexual contact, the accused
might enter a plea for an offense such as assault or battery without sexual
implications. There were many good reasons why the court and prosecutor
might permit such a plea. There might, for example, be insufficient evidence
to prove the initial charge. In most criminal cases the prosecuting attorney
evaluated his probabilities of obtaining a conviction with his available
evidence. In many cases in the interest of justice, plea-bargaining would
be more acceptable than the plea to a sexually registerable offence. The
prosecutor and judge may have decided, based on psychological or psychiatric
evaluations, that the accused was neither mentally disordered nor a menace
to society, and that therapy and counseling were more appropriate interventions
than incarceration.
Only in notorious cases, would the bishop or superior likely become aware
of the involvement of the accused. Without knowledge of the incident or
a complaint to the bishop or superior, as well as the protection of attorney/client
privilege, there would be few instances where they could become aware
of the reported nature of the offense.
In defense of the bishops who are today being charged with misconduct
in the placement of clergy or religious who were accused of sexual misconduct,
in most instances the accused were never convicted of a sexual offense
or determined to be sex-offenders. Understandably, in those cases that
came to their attention, bishops were reluctant to judge and punish an
individual based solely on hearsay or accusations that never resulted
in the conviction of a criminal offense. This does not relieve the bishops
of their responsibility to use prudence in their interpretation of facts
presented to them in evaluating the severity of the offenses. There is
no question that mistakes have been made by law enforcement, the judicial
system and the bishops.
In California, since 1950, most individuals convicted of a sexual offense,
misdemeanor or felony, are required to register with the State as a sex
offender. I am personally only aware of few instances where the clergy
or religious have been required to register as sex offenders and in those
cases they were either incarcerated, left the priesthood or religious
order.
As indicated above, prior to 1973, there were few, if any, charges made
against a United States Catholic diocese for sexual misconduct of the
clergy or religious. Because today we are a very litigious society desiring
monetary satisfaction, clients are making claims of alleged sexual misconduct
by the clergy or religious which took place many years ago. Presently
there are well-funded organizations that encourage plaintiffs to come
forth with such claims of misconduct. These claims against the clergy
are often frivolous and without merit. The bishops, in their desire to
respond to the need of the victims, have voluntarily paid many of these
claims prior to any legal determination of guilt. The bishops are generally
outraged at the complaints and, even though unproven by law, they would
rather assist the claimants in the hopes that this would help reconcile
the wrongdoing, if any.
I do not attempt here to mitigate the fact that minors have been molested
or that there has been misconduct on the part of some of the clergy or
religious. Out of the approximately 50,000 clergy and religious in the
United States, I would consider less than one percent have been involved
in any sexual misconduct. Admittedly some bishops could have done more
in the evaluation of the complaints, unfounded or not. But the present
overwhelming notoriety of the misconduct of a few should not deter us
from supporting the vast number of devoted and hardworking clergy and
religious throughout the country.
In a spirit of reconciliation, let us not overlook the victims, but on
the other hand let us objectively evaluate the conduct of our bishops,
understanding that law enforcement and the judicial system are also accountable
to some degree.
Please note that as of March 30th 2017 Dominic will be inactive as an attorney
D. J. Sposeto, Attorney
296 Mockingbird Circle
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
Phone 707-537-8449 - Fax 707-537-8448
[RETURN]
