A:
When, years back and year over year, you've been repeatedly sexually abused by that priest, when you've suffered long-term related depression, tried suicide numbers of times, and have been given $650,000 by that priest's hush-minded guilty Church in a deal that, long ago, was supposed to shut you up.
Despite William Lynch's court admission, a California jury last week found him not guilty of any crime in the 2010 thrashing of Father Jerry Lindner in retaliation for years of molestation.
While prosecutors called Mr. Lynch's pounding of his former priest in a Jesuit retirement home a vigilante's act, jurors saw past that. They appear to have acknowledged that taking law into one's own fists, while not an optimal legal model, there may be circumstances in which payback, even hard to the face of an older man may be, if not an unblemished exercise in Justice, understandable.
What no one jury can do, of course, is to exact punishment in full measure on the so many men who have, on the institution that has, continually subborned the behavior of the tens of thousands of Father Lindners. That jury may well have acted as it did because the Church, complicit with too many secular authorities, largely skirts by with only scratches to its outsized corporate ego, only dents to its budget, and only minimal damage to its global secular and religious power, too often a power used to excuse harm to the weakest among us.
"What you do to the least of us
you do to me."
-- First-Century Galilean Rabbi as reported in Gsp. Matt. 25:40
-----
Rev. Lindner (in '74) and Mr. Lynch (today)


Salon.com
Comments
As for the question of jury nullification, I'm confused. It's my recollection that the concept is usually illustrated by the trial of John Peter Zenger, who published some outrageous stories about the Crown, was "obviously" guilty as charged, but was found not guilty by a jury nonetheless. My understanding, if that's what it is, goes way back to my own trial, in which five of us anti-war folk actually confessed during our trial that we tried to steal draft board records, which was of course illegal, but that we did it to save lives. Therefore, a greater good was served and we should be found not guilty. JP Zenger was our legal beacon. I've always thought him a hero for that reason, but I've seen the concept of jury nullification dismissed in the few cases where it's come up. Perhaps it was used to excuse KKKers at some point?
I'd be interested in your perspective, since my interest is personal & anecdotal & not very well researched.
I am, as I think you see, making a distinction betw understanding what this jury did and nullification as a regular tool.
R
Nullification for a crime that can never be erased?
I am going to vomit.
When I look at that man,I feel sick.
The least that should have been done in this case is to castrate him,NOW,so he feels on his own body the shame and humiliation.
~Rated~
No. The man on trial was not the former priest. The man on trial was the man who hd been repeatedly molested as a boy by the (now elderly) priest.
Even though the former rape-victim, the man who hit the priest was the man on trial (for beating him all these years later after the sexual abuse), the jury would not say he was guilty of a crime even though the man admitted to beating the priest.
The young men should grabbed the priest at the part where it hurt most.
2.) How did the priest have the nerve to bring charges, if it would lead to the exposure of his misdeeds?
There may be solid answers to those questions, and I would like to hear them.
As for the jury, I imagine that the reasoning was that the assailant shouldn't be punished by the law if the priest never was.
We know large %s of abuse victims do stay mum.
Ths county DA brought charges. I have no idea whether or not the priest tried to dissuade the DA from doing that.
Lezlie
I also don't believe being a priest should protect a person, certainly not from accountability for his crimes. The person who asked about the younger man not having come forward at the time of the original crime seems not to understand the insulation from accountability priests gained from their exalted position in the community. That's something that has to end and if there is any good to come out of this plague of child predation, ending that kind protection - not insisting that age and position alone grant one all the benefits of respect - may well be it.
Considering the torture this young man went through,in order to free himself of a life long trauma,this might have been the only way to confront this pedophile child abuser and drag him out of his secure hiding place,exposing him to gleaming limelight.
That is exactly what he deserved,and for the young man:
Sometimes you have to give the assault right back to the source as a fair chance to free yourself from the oppression.