Spoletta: Nowhere in my statements have I said that it is not immoral or unethical. I have said the opposite, that morally yes it is despicable and they should be prosecuted. But just because something we feel is immoral doesn't mean it is against the law. My statement was, that we as a society of general people have to get the laws changed so that children are protected. That includes raising age of consent laws in nations and even states that have staggering low ages of consent. Police and other authority can only prosecute people for actual crimes not for perceived or moral crimes. And also to remove priest-penitent privilege when it comes to sexual child abuse. Because, no matter what some people on here believes there are judges who view elder communication as privileged communication.
As an example in the Conti case. Irwin Zalkin asked Kendrick's former wife and former step-daughter if she thought it was a privileged communication. Why would Mr. Zalkin ask this question? Because it could be construed that the confession was transmitted in a priest-penitent privileged communication, which as the law allowed at that time did not have to be reported to the police.
Again just because I don't agree with everyone here that lawsuits are the best way to end this, I get trashed for my opinion. I believe that actual legislation is more beneficial than trying to fight this case after case that takes years upon years and there is no guarantee of a win. In fact even the Conti case the California Appellate court only ruled on negligence because they allowed her to go in service with Kendrick, not for anything else.