Pennsylvania State Rep. Mark Rozzi (who graduated from Muhlenberg High School several years before I did) has spent much of his time since his election in November 2012 advocating for reform of the state's child sex crimes laws. Rozzi himself was the victim of child sexual abuse by a priest at the age of 13.
However, reform efforts have been blocked, as this article indicates, by groups representing the Catholic Church and its insurance companies. According to the article, "[v]ictims say it’s clear that money talked in the Capitol last week because Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati’s words were too familiar to be coincidental." The article then quotes Scarnati, Matt Haverstick (a Philadelphia lawyer representing the Harrisburg diocese and Greensburg diocese), and Sam Marshall (CEO of the Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania), all who voice concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed reforms, specifically those involving retroactive changes that would re-open previously lapsed statutes of limitation for civil lawsuits and even criminal charges.
The article points to state campaign finance records and suggests that insurance industry contributions to Scarnati and Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman are part of a insurance industry effort to sway the votes of legislators. That's a fair concern.
But what is also true is that at least some of the contemplated measures in the proposed reforms of the state's child sex crimes laws are in fact likely to be unconstitutional. As this article explains:
The bill, which has moved to the state Senate for final consideration, would specifically reform the state's statute of limitations laws.Currently, survivors of child sex crimes have until age 30 to file a civil claim and until age 50 to file criminal charges against their abusers. Legislation to reform the law, which has been pushed to the Senate for final consideration, would give victims until age 50 time to file lawsuits and eliminate the statute of limitation entirely for criminal prosecutions.He has also included an amendment to the bill that would create a two-year "window to justice," during which those survivors for whom the civil window has already closed could file a retroactive civil claim.
Retroactive changes to statute of limitations laws should set off constitutional alarm bells. Depending upon how it is enacted, the elimination of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions would almost certainly run afoul of the Supreme Court's ruling in Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), which held that "a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution."
And while the U.S. Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause only applies to criminal laws, Pennsylvania's state constitution has a remedies clause that prevents retroactive changes to both civil and criminal statutes of limitations. Regarding this legislation, most experts agree the changes would be unconstitutional (although at least some would disagree). Some have suggested that in the face of uncertain constitutionality, the legislature should pass the law and let the courts decide:
Sen. John C. Rafferty...said it was incumbent on the committee to consider the legislation before it. He said should issues of constitutionality arise, it was best left up to "people in black robes."
But I'm not sure this is right, either. The legislature (and the governor) play important roles in determining the constitutionality of proposed legislation. Deferring constitutionally questionable legislation to the courts is an abdication of responsibility by elected officials.
Reform of the state's child sex crimes laws is an important issue. It is also a highly-charged, emotional one. Finding a solution requires compromise between those who seek justice for victims of child sexual abuse and the restrictions set forth by the U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania state constitution.
