Guest Opinion: Will Lynch Trial Is Over, Let's Not Call It 'Vigilante Justice'

Los Gatos Patch would love to publish your letters to the editor. Send your missives to sheila.sanchez@patch.com.

The jury of 12 peers concluded the trial with a verdict they deemed was proper. But let’s not call it “vigilante justice,” and we shouldn’t say we condone violence to correct violence.

With that said, I've done my duty in being politically correct.

And now for reality. The California law statutes concerning child sexual abuse are a failure. Lynch was prosecuted for hitting the accused unconscionable child rapist Father Jerold Lindner, but the failed “pedophile-friendly” justice system in Santa Clara County was totally useless to prosecute someone whom many consider a serial sex offender.

Maybe the California lawmakers will wake out of a stupor now. This landmark case has earned worldwide attention. But the inescapable underlying issue that is unofficially and plausibly being redirected is the antiquated “statute of limitations” on child sex abuse cases.

To quote activist and former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt: “Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.” This proclamation was tantamount to the principle matter of contention in this trial by Lynch, but obviously not the legal and focal intent of the District Attorney.

The District Attorney's Office should learn from this trial, and make it a priority to help change the law, instead of complaining that victims of rape should not seek vindication.

The DA's statement that: “although (they were) trying to find Lynch responsible for assaulting the priest, it was also about bringing just punishment to sex abuse crimes” is beyond ludicrous.

The DA has done absolutely nothing to bring punishment to Lindner.

Now that the DA has created this circus, what is the DA going to do about protecting children in Los Gatos from an identified serial sex offender that is free to roam the streets of Los Gatos? The answer is nothing. It was always nothing, and it will continue to be nothing.

The only thing the DA seems to be correct about is his admission that: “justice is decided by you, the jury in our county.” And the proof is in the pudding, as they say. The jury did uphold justice; something the DA has failed to do.

So as the DA continues to babble about how his office “protects the public;” living proof of the absurdity of this statement is still vacationing in luxury at the Sacred Heart Jesuit Center, and he is free and unprosecuted. So much for public safety of children provided by the DA. It's nice to know that there are 12 jurors who know the meaning of justice.

Poot July 06, 2012 at 02:35 PM
Sounds to me like the author is calling for vigilantism against his/her personal target in Los Gatos.if you ask me...
Alison July 06, 2012 at 02:41 PM
How is the author asking for vigilantism? What's totally bizarre to me is that Lindner, with his long, long history of raping children, including his niece and nephew actually had the gall to file a police report against Lynch. After all, the place where he lives lists him as a child molester. What arrogance for him to think his past abuse would not come out. What was the DA thinking by bringing this to trial? As for vigilantism, I personally don't see any harm in hitting the man who raped you at age seven and forced you to have sex with your brother. Lynch does not have a history of hitting other people. My guess is that even if the DA decides to retry Lynch on the one misdemeanor assault - which they won't- (anyone see the overwhelming polls that support the verdict for Lynch?) Lindner will never agree to show up for court again. Ever.
LoyolaAlum July 06, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Jesuits & Catholic officials must act on Lindner, SNAP says Posted By Joelle Casteix on July 06, 2012 After yesterday's Bay Area jury verdict, now attention rightfully shifts from William Lynch to the prosecutor and Catholic officials. The prosecutor should file perjury charges against Fr. Lindner. San Jose Bishop Patrick McGrath should insist that the Jesuits move Fr. Lindner out of his diocese. And the Jesuits should, at a bare minimum, put Fr. Lindner to a remote, secure, independently-run treatment center not run by the church. (He's now at a Jesuit facility in Los Gatos where the LA Times said "he is free to travel and tutor seminarians and has collected a living allowance from the order.") They should also publicly discipline and denounce him. Until Jesuit and San Jose officials take action to protect kids, we urge Catholics to donate elsewhere.
Carolyn Neal July 06, 2012 at 04:51 PM
@Poot...I have never viewed this case as a matter of condoning or decrying vigilantism. It was one man's story about his unanswered quest for justice in a very broken system. I mentioned in a previous post that I, too, was molested as a child. I did not share details as I wanted Will's story to be the one heard. When I was 14 I did what no adult would. I held a gun to the head of my abuser and told him if he ever touched me, or another child ever again, I would kill him. My abuser was killed a few years ago relieving me of the burden Will stll carried the day he went to confont Father Jerry. If I had been faced, even years later, with carrying through on my threat could I have done it? I can't say with certainty. I do hope, if I had, I woulld have a jury with as much compassion and courage as Will's.
Sandra Vaurs July 06, 2012 at 09:06 PM
Officials at the Jesuit center admit that there are four sex offenders living there. None of them have been convicted in a court of law for their offenses, and they do not show up on the Sex Offender Registry for that reason. Moving them will not help anyone; it will just shift the problem to someone else's zip code. At least we are aware of their presence and are able to try to avoid them. Would it be illegal to post their pictures and names prominently all over town?
Joey Piscitelli July 06, 2012 at 10:16 PM
I am not calling for Vigilante Justice, I am calling for any kind of justice at all from the lawmakers in the county and state, who have failed to protect children, and refuse to correct their inadequate laws. The jury did their job. Are they Vigilantes? I don't think so. The jury decided the verdict - I did not. Lindner should get out of town.
Dyan Chan July 07, 2012 at 12:30 AM
They are known sex offenders but have never been convicted and don't show up on the registry? This is sickening. Last time I checked the registry (which was many years ago), I thought it did show several people living at the Jesuit center. I don't see any now. Yes, we need to fix our laws to protect our children!!
Alison July 07, 2012 at 12:33 AM
You go, Will Lynch! You are a hero. How on EARTH did Jeff Rosen, DA at Santa Clara think that the jury wouldn't be affected by Lynch's testimony and the video describing what Lindner did to him? The DA's office was really stupid to think that the jury wouldn't feel extreme sympathy for a molestation victim. What is wrong with that office? Are they that myopic? They seem to be disconnected from human nature. Vote DA Jeff Rosen out of office.
Louis Gilfedder July 07, 2012 at 02:47 AM
If the justice system cannot take care of the problem than I say yes to vigilantly justice,enough is enough with all the excuses why we won't address this issue.Its not rocket science,do you want pedophiles roaming our streets?or do you want them locked away in jail where they belong.
Sandra Vaurs July 07, 2012 at 04:18 PM
Dyan, I know that when I checked the registry 6 months ago, it showed 3 offenders living at the Jesuit center. Now they are gone from the list. According to the Provincial up there, they aren't now on the list because they weren't convicted. One of them, Fr. Connor has died.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »