Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45858
    23 Jun '17 07:07
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Actually, what you are saying is a load of nonsense. The fact that an alleged victim cannot be bothered to make a claim in a timely manner is indeed a statement on the validity of the claim. .
    Child victims may be in their forties or fifties before they are able to report
    crimes against them. You think they "couldn't be bothered"?

    Try telling them they should have made their complaint "in a timely manner".
  2. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    23 Jun '17 11:23
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Whether you like it or not. when the alleged victim fails to make a complaint in a timely manner you are trampling on the rights of the accused. This absolutely needs to be prevented and makes statutes of limitations essential. Perhaps you don't understand the need for time limitation or perhaps you don't mind trampling on defendant's rights but even ...[text shortened]... and the purpose of a law rather than use name when a person correctly points out your ignorance.
    Do you believe this should apply to all crimes? Do you believe that there should be a period of time after which a murderer should not be capable of being prosecuted due to the elapse of time?
  3. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    23 Jun '17 11:35
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Actually, what you are saying is a load of nonsense. The fact that an alleged victim cannot be bothered to make a claim in a timely manner is indeed a statement on the validity of the claim. People accused of a crime need to put up a defense. Memories fade, people die, relationships change and alleged victims shouldn't be able to wait decades to make ...[text shortened]... onditions of scenes to change, people to die and witness to die or otherwise become unavailable.
    The fact that an alleged victim cannot be bothered to make a claim in a timely manner is indeed a statement on the validity of the claim.

    That is an even bigger load of nonsense. Can you really be that ignorant?

    And even if it were true, the prosecution service, and/or court, would take it into account in deciding whether to prosecute or find the defendant guilty.

    People accused of a crime need to put up a defense.

    No they don't.

    Memories fade, people die, relationships change and alleged victims shouldn't be able to wait decades to make a case because a complainant for strategic reasons decides to wait for physical conditions of scenes to change, people to die and witness to die or otherwise become unavailable.

    All of which makes it harder for the prosecution. We have seen examples in the UK of cases being thrown out due to precisely these factors.

    However, if evidence which is utterly reliable subsequently comes to light, why would you want a child abuser to escape justice?
  4. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    23 Jun '17 11:46
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Whether you like it or not. when the alleged victim fails to make a complaint in a timely manner you are trampling on the rights of the accused. This absolutely needs to be prevented and makes statutes of limitations essential. Perhaps you don't understand the need for time limitation or perhaps you don't mind trampling on defendant's rights but even ...[text shortened]... and the purpose of a law rather than use name when a person correctly points out your ignorance.
    Whether you like it or not. when the alleged victim fails to make a complaint in a timely manner you are trampling on the rights of the accused.

    No you are not. The defendant still has the right to a fair trial. The passage of time may well have implications on whether the trial can be fair or not. If not, then it should be thrown out.

    But arbitrarily setting a deadline simply allows the guilty the chance to escape scot-free.

    This absolutely needs to be prevented and makes statutes of limitations essential.

    As I mentioned (with the exceptions D64 has highlighted), this is not the case in the UK, with no major problems as far as I can see in terms of protecting defendants rights.

    If time, of itself, rendered a trial unfair, then a UK judge would be compelled to throw it out. Yet, there are plenty of examples where someone has been prosecuted well outside some of the statutes of limitation imposed elsewhere. Presumably, therefore, all judges in the UK are morons too for not appreciating this?
  5. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    23 Jun '17 12:46
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNKPVAlp_jc

    Samantha Bee found a fun piece of legislation that has been blocked for eleven years. In New York you have to file a claim for child abuse by age 23. The Child Victims Act seeks to raise that age to 28 for criminal cases and 50 for civil cases. Does allowing victims of child abuse 5 more years to file a claim ...[text shortened]... to lobby against the Child Victims Act. Good job on acting against stereotypes, Catholic Church
    23 seems about right. That gives a victim 5 years after turning adult to come forward. Since most of these cases are fundamentally "he said - he said" and the defendant's reputation is often ruined regardless of the outcome of the trial, I think there's a strong public policy interest in ensuring that these are settled as close in time to the events as reasonably possible. Let the thing be settled when the people who were around the situation are still available to testify. I'm not saying it's reasonable to expect a 10 year old to come forward in all cases, but a 21 year old? I think that's reasonable.

    50 is just plain ridiculous. Do you really want middle aged adults suddenly coming forward and saying "I was molested in 1974" and filing massive lawsuits to get some nuisance money?

    Someone else brought up murder. That's different. Because murder is the most serious possible crime and because, by its nature, the victim cannot come forward, I'm okay with there being no statute of limitations on murder.
  6. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55802
    23 Jun '17 12:46
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    [b]Whether you like it or not. when the alleged victim fails to make a complaint in a timely manner you are trampling on the rights of the accused.

    No you are not. The defendant still has the right to a fair trial. The passage of time may well have implications on whether the trial can be fair or not. If not, then it should be thrown out.

    ...[text shortened]... lsewhere. Presumably, therefore, all judges in the UK are morons too for not appreciating this?[/b]
    I'll stand by what I said on all issues.
    1. The alleged victim has an obligation to quickly make a complaint. It allows police to investigate, potential witnesses of either the event or that the event could not have occurred as alleged to come forward.
    2. The utterly reliable evidence is garbage. A defendant over time remembers less and less (especially if no such event ever occurred) and the alleged victim can present any information (true or not knowing the defendant has little ability to refute evidence or even answer basic questions. The defendant may not even remember where they lived twenty years ago, they may not know your work schedule, they certainly won't remember where they went that night or who you were with. The defendant simply cannot say anything about it all. A crying victim who could not be bothered to informed authorities timely makes all sort of accusations. Exactly how can a defense be presented -- especially if it comes down to a he said said she said situation?
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    23 Jun '17 12:56
    Originally posted by sh76
    23 seems about right. That gives a victim 5 years after turning adult to come forward. Since most of these cases are fundamentally "he said - he said" and the defendant's reputation is often ruined regardless of the outcome of the trial, I think there's a strong public policy interest in ensuring that these are settled as close in time to the events as reasonab ...[text shortened]... , the victim cannot come forward, I'm okay with there being no statute of limitations on murder.
    Abolish the possibility of settling lawsuits through financial settlements.

    Problem solved.
  8. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    23 Jun '17 13:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Abolish the possibility of settling lawsuits through financial settlements.

    Problem solved.
    Seems completely unworkable and ill-advised to me.

    Just a few of the myriads of reasons:

    1. The settlement negotiations would simply take place before the suit is filed when the plaintiff threatens to sue.
    2. Court dockets wouldn't be able to handle that kind of stress.
    3. It would be almost impossible to enforce since the plaintiff could simply drop the lawsuit in response to an unofficial agreement or unofficial payment. Do you want the government snooping around people's bank accounts to make sure they didn't unofficially settle cases?
    4. Settlements, by and large, can be a good thing, rather than dragging out the appeals process for years.
    5. Pending actions could still be dismissed outright as tradeoffs for non-financial consideration, such as the waiving of other claims.
  9. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    23 Jun '17 13:481 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    23 seems about right. That gives a victim 5 years after turning adult to come forward. Since most of these cases are fundamentally "he said - he said" and the defendant's reputation is often ruined regardless of the outcome of the trial, I think there's a strong public policy interest in ensuring that these are settled as close in time to the events as reasonab ...[text shortened]... , the victim cannot come forward, I'm okay with there being no statute of limitations on murder.
    I was referring to criminal actions, rather than civil.

    But your arguments, it seems to me, argue in favour of having a much better system for ensuring that futile cases are not brought to court. Not simply abandoning cases that could be brought.

    I still see no reason why a person who has committed a crime, and there is evidence sufficient to secure a prosecution, should be protected in this way just due to the mere passage of time.

    I don't see why murder being more serious is relevant. Being repeatedly raped as a child is also pretty serious. Time affects the possibility of defense witnesses being alive to testify in murder cases as well, so that does not seem to justify different treatment of itself. And you could have conclusive evidence in a child abuse case which is discovered later.
  10. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    23 Jun '17 13:52
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I'll stand by what I said on all issues.
    1. The alleged victim has an obligation to quickly make a complaint. It allows police to investigate, potential witnesses of either the event or that the event could not have occurred as alleged to come forward.
    2. The utterly reliable evidence is garbage. A defendant over time remembers less and less (esp ...[text shortened]... can a defense be presented -- especially if it comes down to a he said said she said situation?
    If it was simply a case of 'he said, she said' then the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test would have no realistic chance of being met and, under UK practice, the case would never get to court.

    So no problem.
  11. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    23 Jun '17 14:03
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I'll stand by what I said on all issues.
    A crying victim who could not be bothered to informed authorities timely makes all sort of accusations.
    Do you really think rape victims fail to come forward because they can't be bothered, or are you just trying to shock people by pretending to be so ignorant?
  12. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    23 Jun '17 14:10
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    If it was simply a case of 'he said, she said' then the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test would have no realistic chance of being met and, under UK practice, the case would never get to court.

    So no problem.
    I can't speak for the UK, but in the US, he said/she said cases go to juries all the time.
  13. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    23 Jun '17 14:11
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I'll stand by what I said on all issues.
    Exactly how can a defense be presented -- especially if it comes down to a he said said she said situation?
    Very easily.

    If that is indeed the only evidence, your defense lawyer says it is a 'he said, she said' case, and the court throws it out. Or preferably it is never brought to court.

    Simple.
  14. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    23 Jun '17 14:12
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    I was referring to criminal actions, rather than civil.

    But your arguments, it seems to me, argue in favour of having a much better system for ensuring that futile cases are not brought to court. Not simply abandoning cases that could be brought.

    I still see no reason why a person who has committed a crime, and there is evidence sufficient to se ...[text shortened]... itself. And you could have conclusive evidence in a child abuse case which is discovered later.
    Your argument sounds good in a vacuum, but when a victim comes forward with no hard corroborating evidence but with psychologist reports that s/he was likely abused and some peripheral circumstantial evidence such as alone time with the accused and maybe some gifts received from the accused, judging futility becomes extremely difficult. Prosecutors are under tremendous political pressure to bring these types of cases to trial and you never know what a jury will do.
  15. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    23 Jun '17 14:19
    Originally posted by sh76
    I can't speak for the UK, but in the US, he said/she said cases go to juries all the time.
    I can't comment on that, but that seems like a deficiency in the US system which is not best resolved by arbitrarily putting a shelf-life on a prosecution.
Back to Top