Priest abuse: Franklin County area lawmakers wary over changing statute of limitations

The horrific allegations against more than 300 Pennsylvania priests spanning decades have revived a debate: Should the statutes of limitation be eliminated for prosecuting sexual child abuse?

Local legislators, all Republicans, have differing opinions.

A grand jury report recently described alleged sexual abuse in the Catholic Church dating back to the 1940s. The grand jury recommended eliminating the statutes of limitation for prosecutions: “No piece of legislation can predict the point at which a victim of child sex abuse will find the strength to come forward."

Under current Pennsylvania law, a victim of sexual child abuse has until he or she is 50 years old to file a criminal complaint and until he or she is 30 years old to sue for monetary damages in civil court.

Legislation that would eliminate the time limit for prosecutions and raise the lawsuit ceiling to age 50 is on the House floor. Leadership is calling for a vote.

The Senate unanimously passed the bill (Senate Bill 261) in February 2017 when Sen. John Eichelberger, R-Hollidaysburg, rose in support of the legislation.

“As a result of a grand jury report on the Altoona Johnstown Catholic Diocese, the problem of sexual abuse has become a very personal issue to many people in the communities I serve,” Eichelberger said in 2017. “I have spoken with victims of abuse and heard the unthinkable details of what happened to them as children and the scars of suffering that continue. As a member of the Committee on Judiciary last session, I worked with others to improve this legislation within the parameters of our state Constitution. Although this bill cannot fix the heinous actions of the past, it will have a tremendous impact on those actions in the future.”

More:30 Pa. priests accused of sex abuse sent to center for treatment, but some advice ignored

More:Lies and cover-ups: Catholic church in Pa. had 'playbook' to keep priest abuse secret

More:Pa. clergy abuse report details sex abuse allegations against priests who served in Franklin Co.

Some House members, however, have opposed the legislation.

Reps. Paul Schemel, R-Greencastle, and Jesse Topper, R-Bedford, voted against the bill in the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Rob Kauffman, R-Chambersburg, and Sen. Richard Alloway II, R-Chambersburg, did not respond to a reporters’ questions.

“Although I understand the desire to bring justice to those who have suffered abuse," Schemel said, "I oppose the wholesale elimination of statutes of limitation for child sexual abuse.”

Schemel, an attorney, said he would be open to adjusting the statutes of limitation, “but the evidence in support of such a change would have to be compelling.” The time limits are intended to prevent the intentional and unintentional misuse of the court system.

“The fog of time makes the testimony of witnesses considerably less accurate,” Schemel said. “Defendants have a difficult time defending themselves against accusations of offenses decades in the past, and are effectively unable to provide defenses, such as alibi witnesses, which our western system of law otherwise considers standard for justice.”

Statutes of limitation do not apply in some offenses, such as murder. Schemel said that a judge or jury can rely on physical evidence, such as a murder weapon, rather than merely the recollections of witnesses.

“To try to go back and prosecute something in the past is going to be difficult,” Topper said. “I don’t want innocent people to pay for other peoples’ mistakes.”

Topper said he voted against SB 261 because it put taxpayers on the hook for child sexual abuse in school districts. The legislation could affect Boy Scouts, churches and public entities.

State Auditor General Eugene DePasquale has called for the end of the statute of limitations.

Rep. Mark Rozzi, D-Berks, wants to take the statutes of limitation a step beyond SB 261. Rozzi, a survivor of abuse, wants to reopen the window for victims whose cases have passed the time limits. A victim could file a claim retroactively in a two-year window.  

Rozzi's proposal may raise Constitutional issues, Topper said.

“Anything that happens retroactively should give us cause as public policy makers,” Topper said.

“I do not support changing the statute of limitations retroactively,” Eichelberger said. “I supported SB 261, which provides a longer period to take action, because of the evidence provided to us during the consideration of that legislation.  We were told that many victims will not address these issues until they are older in life because of the psychological trauma they went through.  The need to extend the time moving forward is important.  However, erasing the statute of limitations retroactively destroys a basic pretext of the law.  As horrible as this issue is, we cannot undermine the entire legal system.” 

Jim Hook,  717-262-4759