General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStatute of limitations.
It seems to help the perverts get away with their crimes?
stat·ute of lim·i·ta·tions
ˈstaCHo͞ot əv ˌliməˈtāSHənz/
nounLaw
noun: statute of limitations; plural noun: statutes of limitations
a statute prescribing a period of limitation for the bringing of certain kinds of legal action.
Sanity Claws
(21,822 posts)T-rump and his co-conspirators are engaged in an ongoing conspiracy and ongoing obstruction.
Statute of limitations will not help those guys.
unblock
(51,973 posts)we see the downside in that if a crime is subject to a statute of limitations, a criminal can escape justice if they can keep the crime a secret for long enough.
what we don't see is the downside to not having a statue of limitations, which effectively prevents such things as prosecutorial abuse by dangling a prosecution over someone's head for years or even decades. an innocent defendant may also no longer have access to witnesses or evidence that might clear them of the charges. a prosecutor could wait until alibi witnesses die off and then bring charges.
it's always possible to discuss reasonable adjustments, e.g., what number of years for particular crimes is appropriate, but in general it seems to be that statutes of limitations are on balance a good thing.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)They can molest the alter boys, and by the time the alter boys grow up and figure out what happened, the priests get off scot free.
unblock
(51,973 posts)there needs to be a balance. you don't want people escaping justice; on the other hand, if there is to be a trial, it has to allow for the reasonable presentation of evidence by the accused.
the horror we don't see is an innocent person prosecuted for a crime that allegedly took place decades ago. i can't imagine how i would defend myself against an accusation of something i supposedly did 30 years ago, in a different state, now that i've lost track of potential witnesses, alibis, and any physical evidence is long gone. never mind that i'd have no idea how to answer a question like "where were you on this particular date some 30 years ago....
of course, it's already an injustice that a guilty person can escape prosecution for decades in the first place. the real solution is not to extend the statute of limitations, but to create an environment where victims of abuse and molestation and so on can easily and safely report such crimes in real time.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)the catholic church would move him to another parish in a new York minuet.
unblock
(51,973 posts)That sort of thing is not tolerated.
Igel
(35,191 posts)The rain falls on the just and the unjust.
That's not a reason to curse the rain.
The old canard in American is to aver that it's better to let 99 guilty men go in order to protect one innocent person. I personally think that would be a mistake because the 99 guilty would make life hell for the non-prison population, but it gets to a valid point: At what point do you justify hurting the innocent to make sure every guilty person is punished?
Many would rather see 99 innocent people suffer to punish the one person they don't like. After the prerequisite trial for that one disliked person, of course.
I concur completely. And as to this particular situation, i found this
The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).
An individual's "withdrawal" from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. "Withdrawal" from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).
Since they are still at it, the clock is not even running yet.