Bill addresses the prosecution of child molesters

FRANKFORT – A bill that would make it easier to prosecute child molesters is
currently in the House for consideration.

The measure, known as Senate Bill 137, would allow out-of-court statements from a
child who has been sexually abused to be admissible in court, under certain
circumstances. It passed the Senate by a 29-9 vote yesterday.

The sponsor, Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Hopkinsville, emphasized the child’s
statements would not automatically be admitted at trial. He said SB 137 would set up
a mechanism for the statements to be considered. For example, there would still have
to be an evidentiary hearing.

“We should allow this evidence to be considered by courts of law for the benefit of
child victims of these heinous crimes,” Westerfield said.

He said SB 137 is needed because currently a child’s statements made out of court
are considered hearsay and inadmissible at trial. Westerfield said that means when a
teacher is told by a child that he or she has been sexually abused that statement
can’t be used as evidence at trial.

Minority Floor Leader Sen. Ray S. Jones II, D-Pikeville, voted against the measure,
in part, because he said the Kentucky Supreme Court and the state bar association
was better equipped to address the issue.

“We certainly want to help prosecute individuals who have committed these heinous
acts against children,” Jones said. “I’m just not sure it is appropriate to do it
through the mechanism we are using to change the rules of evidence.”

He said SB 137 was “ripe for abuse,” particularly in child custody cases.

Sen. Danny Carroll, R-Paducah, said as a former police officer he had worked child
sexual abuse cases where justice wasn’t served because the victim’s statements to
adults were ruled hearsay.

“It is my belief that the passage of this bill will bring justice for our kids who
are victims, especially those that are victims of sexual or physical abuse,” Carroll
said. “There are offenders, abusers of children, who are getting away with it
because there is no way for the court to consider these statements. That should
change.”

Share: Copied!

Related Posts

Loading...