Earlier this year at the Wisconsin legislature, Ron Johnson spoke on behalf of the Wisconsin Catholic Diocese. The Topic of debate would seem to be over pedophile priests and the church that employs them. Ron Johnson is arguing that while the persecutor of the crime should be punished, the church that is responsible for them should not be in harm’s way. Thus, the church cannot be sued by the victim for any reason, unless the church knowingly ignores a complaint. This debate comes from their local Church whom had been transferring a pedophile priest several times but never questioning why he was needed to relocate 14 times in the past 14 years. Johnson’s testimony was video recorded and acknowledged by a few national newspapers, and online articles.

Johnson’s reasons/premises for his conclusion are as followed:

1.) Lawsuits would create more economic havoc

2.) People who own private organizations servicing children would be at risk

3.) The long, emotionally draining, and costly lawsuits don’t guarantee compensation for the victims.

4.) Other Children from the organization would no longer benefit

5.) Volunteers and those who give charity for these programs would be less likely to contribute.

6.) Organizations that realize they are at risk are less likely to report crimes.

C: Victims should not be allowed to sue the “employer” of the perpetrator of the crime.

I believe, after reviewing the entire argument that his argument is in moderate condition. Johnson’s premises support his conclusion. And while his argument is well worded, He commits the fallacy of hasty generalization at the end when he uses the small subset of people in such organizations that he knows personally to be good-natured people; however, this is not representative of all people involved in organizations over the US. Johnson adds this comment to try appeal to pity. He makes them seem like every-day people, who if sued under this law, would say they had no idea what was going on, but are now out of a job and being sued. Without that last comment at the end, Johnson has a very good and valid argument. While his argument is unpopular because it goes against popular demands, he presents it well and sticks to the facts rather than emotions. With Johnson’s facts, the audience can clearly see that most church’s or organizations are victims. He illustrates this for us by pointing out all the added victims that would suffer along with the child and the parents. Organizations shouldn’t need to fail unless they commit a crime. More bad would result than good. His premises do a good job of showing that. His argument also does a good job of not pointing out the church or organization’s responsibility in hiring and employing people, and especially how the church protects them. There are few that do knowingly transfer a pedophile priest like the Wisconsin case. In those cases, legal action should be dealt. However, Johnson cleverly doesn’t describe such cases. He sticks with the idea that all organizations are victims. While it's seen as a bad point-of-view, it is a good argument.