CALIFORNIA
Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests
POSTED BY BARBARA DORRIS ON JULY 30, 2013
It boggles my mind, but it’s clear that some value the reputations of a few adults over the safety of many kids. This includes many who oppose reforming the child predator’s best pal – the statute of limitations.
UCLA professor Stephen Bainbridge seems to be one such misguided individual. But instead of trotting out the usual stale arguments, Bainbridge has come up with a few new, and bizarre claims about why SOL is allegedly so terrible and why, he opposes California’s SB 131, a measure we support.
Here are a couple of Bainbridge’s odd notions.
1. Bainbridge writes “As time goes by, the likelihood increases that an offender has reformed, making punishment less necessary.
Really Professor? Where’s the data? I suspect you may be right about car jackers and pick pockets (who rely on their physical strength and speed to succeed). But I also suspect you’re dead wrong about child molesters (who rely on their experience and cunning to succeed). Many child sex offenders “improve” with age, learning better how to painstakingly spot and carefully groom and slowly molest kids. And I’ve seen no proof that somehow, the passage of time magically cures a compulsive, serial child predator.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.