A previous version of Markey's bill would have changed this, extending the time period for child sex abuse allegations to be brought against both public and private institutions. The present version, however, does not do so.
“The current bill would not impact public institutions, like public schools or juvenile justice facilities,” Poust pointed out. “It creates two classes of victims, depending on where the abuse occurred. That's just not good public policy.”
“Most non-familial abuse occurs in public schools, yet this bill by Assemblywoman Markey does nothing to help those victims,” he said.
“For her to say that this somehow addresses what happened at Penn State is a fallacy,” Poust pointed out. “That's a public institution. If Penn State were in New York, her bill would have no impact on it.”
This double standard was not always Markey's intention, Poust recalled.
“Back in 2009, she did amend the bill to include public institutions,” Poust recalled. “That's the way the language of the bill read through 2010. And she has now explicitly gone back to the original bill, which excludes 'publics.'”
Poust said Markey made the reversal after pressure from public sector groups.
“The state association of school superintendents, the school board association, the conference of mayors, the association of counties – all these public associations came out against the bill, and it became toxic. It didn't have a chance.”
“She has no credibility to say that this bill is in any way fair. She acknowledged in 2009 that by including the public sector it was a better bill. And now, without explanation, she has gone back to the old bill.”
But even if Markey changed this portion of her bill, the New York Catholic Conference would maintain its objection to the one-year suspension of the statute of limitations.
When California passed a similar bill in 2002, the Church paid out nearly a billion dollars in settlements.
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
In part, Poust observed, this is because “it's impossible for an institution to defend itself” against claims stretching back half a century or more.
“That's the reason statutes of limitations exist – because defense becomes impossible when evidence is lost or old and any witnesses, or the alleged abusers, may be long-dead. It leads to having to go into settlements for things that may or may not be true.”
“In California, one case went back 70 years,” he recalled. “It doesn't have to be a claim that was previously reported or known in any way, shape or form.”
“It really is an invitation for individuals to make false claims. We know the identities, at this point, of many individuals who were sex abusers. So all you have to do is say, 'Oh, he abused me too, 60 years ago.'”
The reality of past abuse, Poust said, does not eliminate the legal presumption of innocence – which loses its effectiveness against a flood of lawsuits potentially involving the distant past.
“Justice works two ways,” the Catholic conference spokesman observed. “Individuals and institutions have to have a right to defend themselves. The question is, at what point does it become impossible to defend against a claim like that?”