But in a world where accusations of abuse are now cropping up like mushrooms in the mist, it's important to take a look at why this so-called technicality that more than one victims advocate has called "stupid" is vital to the integrity of our legal system.
To me, these statutes are one of the things about our legal system that keep us civilized. Imagine what would happen if a person decided, decades after the fact, to accuse a person of heinous crimes that never actually occurred. The motive could be money, it could be revenge, it could simply be the result of a misguided trip to the therapist who coaxes false memories out of a troubled mind. If our legal system allowed that person to file a lawsuit long after witnesses had died and evidence disappeared, we would be making a mockery of the phrase "due process."
It's already happened. Years ago, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was falsely accused of molesting a former altar boy, who then recanted his story only after the prelate was on his deathbed. Bernardin forgave his accuser. The legal system shouldn't be so compassionate.
More recently, Father Michael Flood was sued in a civil court by a former parishioner who accused him of abuse decades ago, and who was able to get the case to court only because the Legislature had opened a two-year window in the statute of limitations. This week, that lawsuit was dropped when the credibility of the accuser (whose name is still not being released by the media) was torn apart on cross examination.
You might say that this doesn't prove the crimes never occurred. But it does show what happens when you allow people to start throwing around accusations 20, 30 and 40 years after the alleged crimes occurred.
