Statute of limitations

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There needs to be a statute of limitations put on every crime except murder. I'm sick of having to witness the internet equivalent of the Salem witch trials. If women can't be bothered to get off their arses and report an assault IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT HAPPENS instead of 10, 15, or even 50 years later then get the hell over it and stop assaulting MY senses with your bullshit.

Oh, and when women stop throwing themselves at famous men, then perhaps famous men will stop getting an over-inflated idea of their own attractiveness, and I might have something other than contempt for their disingenuous (and often financially-motivated) whining. It's just a shame they have devalued and degraded genuine cases, rendering the whole 'historical abuse' complaint option a ridiculous farce.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Congratulations. You decided to follow my advice about posting threads.

With statutes of limitations, how long a period do you think is suitable? Why do you treat murder differently? Is it due to the crime being more serious?

PhilX

[mickthinks]

You seem to believe there is no statute of limitations in sexual assault cases, VT. You couldn't be more wrong ... http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What makes you think I'm talking about the US?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Congratulations. You decided to follow my advice about posting threads.

With statutes of limitations, how long a period do you think is suitable? Why do you treat murder differently? Is it due to the crime being more serious?

PhilX

Murders are not generally reported by the victim, and there have been many cases of murderers being caught years later because of advances in technology. With sexual assault claims that might be decades after the event, the only evidence possible is the word of the person making the claim. It's farcical when the accused's being found guilty or not guilty is based solely on nonsense like politics of the jurors, prejudices they might have, attractiveness of the defendant etc. etc.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Congratulations. You decided to follow my advice about posting threads.

With statutes of limitations, how long a period do you think is suitable? Why do you treat murder differently? Is it due to the crime being more serious?

PhilX

Murders are not generally reported by the victim, and there have been many cases of murderers being caught years later because of advances in technology. With sexual assault claims that might be decades after the event, the only evidence possible is the word of the person making the claim. It's farcical when the accused's being found guilty or not guilty is based solely on nonsense like politics of the jurors, prejudices they might have, attractiveness of the defendant etc. etc.

I think the philosophical question here would be: would eliminating the sol improve the reporting of this type of crime?

PhilX

[Impenitent]

Murders are not generally reported by the victim...

thanks for the smile

-Imp

[commonsense]

There needs to be a statute of limitations put on every crime except murder. I'm sick of having to witness the internet equivalent of the Salem witch trials. If women can't be bothered to get off their arses and report an assault IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT HAPPENS instead of 10, 15, or even 50 years later then get the hell over it and stop assaulting MY senses with your bullshit.

Oh, and when women stop throwing themselves at famous men, then perhaps famous men will stop getting an over-inflated idea of their own attractiveness, and I might have something other than contempt for their disingenuous (and often financially-motivated) whining. It's just a shame they have devalued and degraded genuine cases, rendering the whole 'historical abuse' complaint option a ridiculous farce.

These are seriously valid points, with which I am in complete agreement. The accused, in all cases, should be protected from frivolous legal action, e.g., when the alleged injury has exceeded the statute of limitations. The accused should be guilty if and only if he is proved to be guilty.

However, PTSD is one of the potential sequellae of stress induced by trauma. PTSD is relatively intractable and may well be a lifelong disorder. The more severe the disorder, the more likely the sufferer will not seek treatment.

Due to PTSD, the victim of stressful trauma may be unable to address an incident of violence immediately after it occurred, or for many years afterward if at all. So, PTSD is an injury that may well be ongoing 10, 15, 50 or more years after the trauma occurred.

With this chronology in mind, the accuser should not be penalized for coming forward belatedly, if indeed she is suffering from PTSD as a result of the event. I would have it that there should be no statute of limitations for murder or any crime that results in bona fide PTSD in the alleged victim.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That is what I mean about genuine cases being degraded by those who abuse the system. You can't have a law for some and not others; that's not how the legal system works. Who is going to decide what is 'genuine' and what isn't? I fail to see how a supposed 'inappropriate hug' from a famous person is going to cause someone to still be 'severely traumatised' forty years later (I'm not making that up) and justify completely destroying the life of a person, not to mention the lives of his family.
If we are going to charge people with historical 'crimes' that were accepted and even condoned behaviour decades ago, then we should also be charging the Govts. of the time for not having laws in place that dealt with lewd conduct (which wasn't considered lewd back then).
Some countries have outlawed parental smacking of children. Does that mean adults can have their parents charged with assault for smacking them at a time when smacking was perfectly legal and accepted?

[commonsense]

Again, V, excellent post.

To clarify, I would say that the presence of actual PTSD should be determined by a magistrate or judge, based on such evidence as a medical record that documents treatment for ongoing PTSD. For those who have PTSD but no documentation, the criteria might be a psychological evaluation much the same as evaluations performed to determine mental competence to stand trial. I would not extend the PTSD option to those who do not currently (i.e. at the time of legal action) suffer from PTSD. This is a diagnosable condition. Its symptoms may include social withdrawal, inability to accept responsibilities, re-experiencing the feelings encountered during the incident, generalized anxiety and depression, among others.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I personally don't think we need a statue of limitations on sexual assault. I mean, I definitely wouldn't want a child molester to get away with his crime just because it happened 20 years ago. But there practical is one based on how hard it is to gather evidence from such a crime years later.

In my opinion what really needs to change, is this trial by public opinion, and the people trying to form statistics out of headlines to make a case that this part of 'rape culture' in the US and other western countries. We still have a presumption of innocence, blah blah blah. Based on the opinions of everyone posting in this thread, sounds like I'd just be preaching to the query. In fact most people realize this, it's just our media that overwhelmingly supports this picture.

If at least one of these men just set a serious precedent by striking back with a defamation suit, it would be equally impactful.