BlogShots

Jonathan Wolfman's Blog

Jonathan Wolfman

Jonathan Wolfman
Location
Maryland, Northwest of The District,
Birthday
January 26
Bio
Visit, too, please: www.talkingwriting.com www.reortergary.com (pal talk news network) www.thejewishreporter.com

JULY 13, 2012 6:50AM

Q: When May You Beat Up a Priest, Admit It, & Be Acquitted?

Rate: 13 Flag

 

 

 

    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)

 

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I cannot say I am in favor of jury nullification as any kind of usual tool...I do think, though, I may understand the jury in this case.
The jury was being humane. Too often it is the other way around. Solomon decision, I would say.
I agree, tho I may well have voted to convict and hope for a light sentence.
I'm not big on the "in a retirement home" piece, particularly if the priest had become infirm, but I get it and I get why the jury said to the defendant "you get a free pass, once." That's why we have juries. The law exists to approach justice but it doesn't always quite get there. I'm not going to argue that the priest didn't deserve it.
Kosh of course a distinction is betw what we want the law to do and what we accept from individuals. And nothing I read suggested the former active priest was infirm or physically ill.
Jon: While I'm surprised to learn of the jury's decision here -- it seems a very Hollywood ending -- I'd like to know more about the details before commenting on the case itself.

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.
Jeremiah I think you have it right and sure southern juries used it to deny justice in KKK cases.

I am, as I think you see, making a distinction betw understanding what this jury did and nullification as a regular tool.
the hell with beating him,i would have killed him.......slowly.....
R
Interesting discussion, especially with Jeremiah's input. Viscerally I'm OK with giving the bastard a knuckle sandwich, something he should have gotten decades ago when it might have done some good. As for jury nullification, I guess that's one example of why the jury option is so vital to our judiciary.
Steel and the Q is should a jury let you off....
Matt yes, that's right. Thank you!
can't say....but to me,self-defence goes far beyond just an immediate threat to ur life......not a popular view i know,but that doesn't matter......firm believer in 'two eyes for an eye'....
Steel I understand; really. :)
A dicey situation, to say the least.
The crime was committed by the priest not Mr Lynch. That bastard took that young man's life and didn't give a shit about the repercussions of his actions. /r
Jon,if I understand you right,the priest due to advenced age or illness has not been sentenced???
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~
Christine I am sure the jury felt as you do.
Heidi,

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.
Reading your text again,I understand that the young man has taken revenge for having been molested over years.
The young men should grabbed the priest at the part where it hurt most.
Heidi that is what the jury thought, too, I guess!
There are times when jury nullification delivers meager justice.
This is hard. The priest should be locked up in a prison, in the medical ward or away from the prison population. Beating him in a retirement home, however deserving, is wrong. You have to take into account the others who witnessed this beating and could have stroked out themselves. While I think jury notification should only be used in extreme cases, this may be one. But if this starts a free-for-all on killing or beating priests, I disagree with it. They should be put away for life somewhere, not tortured as they did their victims.
jmac yes; that's the point of my final paragraph.
Scanner yes; one can understand the jury's behavior w.o necessaily \, had one been on that jury, to vote as it did.
1.) Why didn't the young man tattle on the priest back when all this was happening?

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.
Arthur that may have been the jury's thinking.

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.
Wow - this sounds like a John Grisham tale. It would make an interesting screenplay...
I'm a little uncomfortable with this outcome. I understand it. The priest had some kind of punishment coming to him. The playing field was just as uneven in both situations, so defenselessness is off the table. It's just the idea of a younger, strapping man beating an elderly man in a nursing home -- I can't get my mind around that. I'm glad I wasn't on that jury.

Lezlie
Lezlie not a nursing home, a Jesuit retirement home, but yes, I take your point.
I, too, think this is at least part of the value of the jury of peers - or ordinary people.

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.
He was lucky. Most juries would've found him guilty of simple assault. I've seen some cases where jury notes are passed to judges and prosecutors after its findings because they [jurors] realize not all the facts were presented during the trial.
Less than 2% of criminal cases go to trial. Aside from felonies, most misdemeanors are plea bargained. If a plea bargain isn't offered or accepted, trial by judge or jury is scheduled and before the trial date, the DAs do not provide jurors with exculpable evidence.
Ctrd thanks and I agree w you as to how priests have ben coccooned.
Scanner:
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.
Congratulations,Mr Lynch:You fought the devil and won the battle.
I support the victims efforts at finding justice and I support the jury's decision in this case. There is more to come if there is courage.