This diary isn’t meant to render a judgment on Kamala Harris’s record but to address some details and misconceptions about the process of prosecuting a childhood sexual abuse case when pursing as an adult.
My knowledge on this subject comes from personal experience. In 2002, charges were filed against my abuser. I was 25 at the time. The case went to trial. It was a pretty open and shut case due to some evidence that documented the abuse. Right before judgment, a plea deal was offered: 25 years in prison. The defense mulled it over. Around this time the Supreme Court also decided a case: Stonger vs. California
In the 2003 case of Stogner vs. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to retroactively remove criminal statutes of limitations to make it easier to prosecute child sex abuse cases. The case was brought against Defendant Stogner in 1998 for child sex abuse committed between 1955 and 1973—for which the limitations period was three years.
Basically the law said that adult victims of childhood abuse had a set amount of time to bring forward charges. The majority of the charges against my abuser were rendered outside the allowed statute of limitations. Because of my age at the time, there were some charges that were still able to stick. My abuser got 10 years instead of 25. He was out in 6. I bring up this history in light of the story about Harris refusal to prosecute the Catholic Church.
Harris predecessor, Terence Hallinan, had been asking the Catholic Church to turn over documents from the last 75 years that highlighted or exposed any sexual abuse by priests. This was not a stance without controversy. Other DA felt that pursuing cases where no victim had come forward was not necessarily the best way to go. Hallinan aggressively pursued the Catholic Church for these documents.
When Harris took over in 2004, she came in AFTER the Supreme Court decision. Please remember that anything that was outside the limitation of statue was longer eligible for prosecution.
From my research the primary conflict over her record is why she didn’t pursue the Catholic Church harder. Again these were not open case brought by victims. These were documents found through the efforts of her predecessor. Unless there was recent information in the files, Harris would have not been able to file charges against anyone. A group from SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests asked for a copy of these documents in hopes to press civil charges against the Church. Her office declined to provide the documents citing victim’s privacy. The SF Weekly also pursued a copy of the documents and was also rebuffed. Harris office put out the following statement: “We’re not interested in selling out our victims to look good in the paper,”
Personally, I agree with Harris stance. When my abuser was arrested, the local newspaper found out and ran a huge front page story. That move removed any anonymity that I had. The paper breathlessly reported on the entire trial. All my siblings got phone calls from reporters. Because I lived out of town, I was spared from this.
I respect survivors to make their own judgments on when and if they want to share or criminally pursue their story. While there is a case for prosecuting repeat offenders, it must be pursued without re-victimizing prior survivors.
The next DA, Xavier Becerra, has taken a friendlier approach to the group seeking records. It should be noted that he also did not release the documents found by Hallian. But he has assisted groups looking for more information by sending letters to dioceses throughout the state seeking church documents, and his website is soliciting tips from victims and other sources.
Why was the Catholic Church not a priority during her time as a DA? I don’t know. Those are questions that she should be able to answer but I did want to provide a clear framework of the complicated web of legal issue surrounding these cases.
In good news, California recently passed SB 813. It overturned the statute of limitations of rape, forcible sodomy, and child molestation. HOWEVER this only applies to cases occurring on or after January 1, 2017.