Ok, could someone explain this one to me? Several so-called liberals and liberal sites have posted articles cheering on (I think) California for proposing to eliminate statute of limitations for rape.
Isn't the liberal position that there should be statute of limitations for crimes, because it is counterproductive and inhumane to penalise people for crimes they committed, say, 30 or 40 years ago? I thought that it has been widely accepted in modern societies that the only exceptions to this rule are crimes against humanity and war crimes.
:huh:
Your thoughts of what is widely accepted elsewhere are often wrong. Is that enough explanation?
:unsure: Is that really the argument for having a statute of limitations on rape?
I am sure I could be convinced otherwise by a compelling argument, but I don't currently see a reason to have a statute of limitations on something like rape.
Quote from: Zanza on June 22, 2016, 12:13:16 AM
Your thoughts of what is widely accepted elsewhere are often wrong. Is that enough explanation?
At least German people seem to agree with me. These are the rules from the German penal code:
Quote(2) Serious criminal offenses under Section 220a (genocide) and Section 211 (murder) are not subject to a statute of limitations.
(3) To the extent that prosecution is subject to a statute of limitations, the period of limitation shall be:
1. thirty years in the case of acts punishable by imprisonment for life;
2. twenty years in the case of acts punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than ten years;
3. ten years in the case of acts punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than five years but not more than 10 years;
4. five years in the case of acts punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year but not more than five years;
5. three years in the case of other acts.
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 12:05:19 AM
I thought that it has been widely accepted in modern societies that the only exceptions to this rule are crimes against humanity and war crimes.
There is no statute of limitations on any serious (i.e. indictable) offence in Canada, including sexual assault.
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2016, 12:19:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 12:05:19 AM
I thought that it has been widely accepted in modern societies that the only exceptions to this rule are crimes against humanity and war crimes.
There is no statute of limitations on any serious (i.e. indictable) offence in Canada, including sexual assault.
Wow, Canada is more of a totalitarian hellhole than I thought.
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2016, 12:19:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 12:05:19 AM
I thought that it has been widely accepted in modern societies that the only exceptions to this rule are crimes against humanity and war crimes.
There is no statute of limitations on any serious (i.e. indictable) offence in Canada, including sexual assault.
Wow, Canada is more of a totalitarian hellhole than I thought.
Surprise, surprise, Marty doesn't think rape is a serious offense.
It takes a long time to build a case against those tricksy Muslim rapists.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2016, 12:29:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 12:19:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2016, 12:19:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 12:05:19 AM
I thought that it has been widely accepted in modern societies that the only exceptions to this rule are crimes against humanity and war crimes.
There is no statute of limitations on any serious (i.e. indictable) offence in Canada, including sexual assault.
Wow, Canada is more of a totalitarian hellhole than I thought.
Surprise, surprise, Marty doesn't think rape is a serious offense.
Unless it was a Muslim perp.
Anyway, this is actually a new low for him.
Yep. No statute of limitations on rape or other serious sexual crimes in the UK. Hence some of the recent prosecutions for historic sexual abuse.
I don't see why there should be either.
The statute of limitations for rape in Spain is 12 years, although the clock doesn't start until the victim is a legal adult, if he/she was a minor.
Personally I think it's awfully low. In general our statuses of limitations are way too short for most offences, and I am hardly a "lock them up and throw away the key" tough on crime posturer.
Quote from: celedhring on June 22, 2016, 02:23:05 AM
The statute of limitations for rape in Spain is 12 years, although the clock doesn't start until the victim is a legal adult, if he/she was a minor.
Personally I think it's awfully low. In general our statuses of limitations are way too short for most offences, and I am hardly a "lock them up and throw away the key" tough on crime poser.
Quote from: celedhring on June 22, 2016, 02:23:05 AM
The statute of limitations for rape in Spain is 12 years, although the clock doesn't start until the victim is a legal adult, if he/she was a minor.
Personally I think it's awfully low. In general our statuses of limitations are way too short for most offences, and I am hardly a "lock them up and throw away the key" tough on crime posturer.
I do think it should be between 20 and 30 years but I don't think ti shouldn't exist. Generally, the German system that I quoted above seems to be similar to what my expectation would be (I am surprised, though, that there is no statute of limitation for murder - I am wondering, though, what crimes, other than genocide and murder, carry the life imprisonment penalty in Germany).
Murder has 20 in Spain. Genocide and terrorism don't prescribe.
Quote from: celedhring on June 22, 2016, 02:39:21 AM
Murder has 20 in Spain. Genocide and terrorism don't prescribe.
Yeah I know but the German code I quoted says that genocide and murder are excluded and then says that for other crimes carrying the life sentence, it's 30 years. So it makes you wonder what these other crimes are (unless it's just an empty category).
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 02:41:05 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 22, 2016, 02:39:21 AM
Murder has 20 in Spain. Genocide and terrorism don't prescribe.
Yeah I know but the German code I quoted says that genocide and murder are excluded and then says that for other crimes carrying the life sentence, it's 30 years. So it makes you wonder what these other crimes are (unless it's just an empty category).
Treason, crimes against humanity, warcrimes, preparing a war of aggression, building a WMD for imminent use. Also potentially various other crimes (arson, blackmail, robbery, human trafficking...) if they result in one or more deaths.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on June 22, 2016, 03:45:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 02:41:05 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 22, 2016, 02:39:21 AM
Murder has 20 in Spain. Genocide and terrorism don't prescribe.
Yeah I know but the German code I quoted says that genocide and murder are excluded and then says that for other crimes carrying the life sentence, it's 30 years. So it makes you wonder what these other crimes are (unless it's just an empty category).
Treason, crimes against humanity, warcrimes, preparing a war of aggression, building a WMD for imminent use. Also potentially various other crimes (arson, blackmail, robbery, human trafficking...) if they result in one or more deaths.
And in this context also sexual assault or rape that result in death.
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 12:17:51 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 22, 2016, 12:13:16 AM
Your thoughts of what is widely accepted elsewhere are often wrong. Is that enough explanation?
At least German people seem to agree with me.
Yes and I personally agree with you. But as demonstrated in this thread other liberal societies have adopted other regulations, so "widely accepted" does not seem to apply to your and my stance on statute of limitations. I can think of arguments in favor of our laws, but also in favor of e.g. no statute of limitations as in Canada and don't think it is a fundamental question of personal liberty. If we accept that our society needs to punish people for crimes the exact details are up for discussion.
Personally, I like the notion that murderers and rapists have to go through their lives worrying if their past misdeeds will eventually catch up with them.
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 04:29:38 AM
Personally, I like the notion that murderers and rapists have to go through their lives worrying if their past misdeeds will eventually catch up with them.
Fucking college transcripts. I mean, who cares, right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2016, 06:31:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 04:29:38 AM
Personally, I like the notion that murderers and rapists have to go through their lives worrying if their past misdeeds will eventually catch up with them.
Fucking college transcripts. I mean, who cares, right?
I do recall as a child being worried about what my permanent file said about me. But then like cursive handwriting, it was something of no actual importance. -_-
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 04:29:38 AM
Personally, I like the notion that murderers and rapists have to go through their lives worrying if their past misdeeds will eventually catch up with them.
That's fine but it's not a liberal position.
Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2016, 07:18:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 04:29:38 AM
Personally, I like the notion that murderers and rapists have to go through their lives worrying if their past misdeeds will eventually catch up with them.
That's fine but it's not a liberal position.
Are you having some issue with how liberal is used as a term? You can be considered liberal in America and still want people to pay for their crimes even if they managed to avoid detection for several decades.
Yeah I don't see how it's liberal or not. My view is statute of limitations should probably only cover crimes against property or that are non-serious against a person.
Can 'we' have Timmay make a concerted effort to post a few more inane threads? :P
Well I don't have any problem with violent crimes not having statutes of limitations. But then I am a bloodthirsty Texan.
Especially rape. People get Stockholm syndromy as fuck over that crime. Getting people to even press charges is almost impossible, as opposed to if they were robbed or whatever. Sometimes it may take a few decades for the wheels to start turning.
Yep and especially when there's a power differential that means the victim won't be heard/believed, eg. Priests in a Catholic country, prominent entertainment figures etc.
I'm looking forward to following Marti's efforts tlas he does something about this whole Qatar rape-rape thingy.
Good luck, Marti. We're all rooting for you.
There is a significant concern with not having limitations, particularly in sexual assault cases, and it is this.
One of the purposes of limitations in criminal cases is to protect accused persons from having to answer accusations where, due to the passage of time, evidence that could contradict the accusations against them has been not collected, lost or forgotten.
In sexual assault cases, often the only evidence of guilt is the accusation itself, unless the police are consulted and a "rape kit" is collected. The evidence that tends to corroborate or contradict that accusation may well be lost with the passage of time (for example, an accused person may well have an alibi which places them at another location during the alleged attack - but twenty years later, will they or anyone else remember where they were on a specific day?).
The issue is whether the injustice imposed by this ought to weigh against the injustice of allowing possible criminals to go free if their victims fail to come forward after a certain number of years.
Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2016, 10:54:01 AM
In sexual assault cases, often the only evidence of guilt is the accusation itself, unless the police are consulted and a "rape kit" is collected. The evidence that tends to corroborate or contradict that accusation may well be lost with the passage of time (for example, an accused person may well have an alibi which places them at another location during the alleged attack - but twenty years later, will they or anyone else remember where they were on a specific day?).
Aren't those often sexual assault cases that then fail though?
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2016, 10:54:01 AM
In sexual assault cases, often the only evidence of guilt is the accusation itself, unless the police are consulted and a "rape kit" is collected. The evidence that tends to corroborate or contradict that accusation may well be lost with the passage of time (for example, an accused person may well have an alibi which places them at another location during the alleged attack - but twenty years later, will they or anyone else remember where they were on a specific day?).
Aren't those often sexual assault cases that then fail though?
Certainly, it can be difficult to successfully prosecute a sexual assault case that is very old and in which the only evidence is an accuser's account.
This is an additional reason not to being such cases: they put everyone through the expense and difficulty of a trial, for a small chance of success. The argument will be that those judicial and prosecutorial resources would be better spent elsewhere.
The problem is that if all you have is an accusation and a denial, a jury is likely to be swayed by questionably relevant factors, such as their opinion of the accused and the accuser. While the chances of conviction are overall low, the chances of any particular conviction that does occur being incorrect are overall high.
Quote from: mongers on June 22, 2016, 08:20:59 AM
Can 'we' have Timmay make a concerted effort to post a few more inane threads? :P
No need. You are doing fine. :P
What if a Canadian buries the cure for cancer together with a dead hooker? Wouldn't society gain from him daring to come forward after a few decades?
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2016, 12:17:52 PM
What if a Canadian buries the cure for cancer together with a dead hooker? Wouldn't society gain from him daring to come forward after a few decades?
Well he could discreetly dig it out, no?
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2016, 12:17:52 PM
What if a Canadian buries the cure for cancer together with a dead hooker? Wouldn't society gain from him daring to come forward after a few decades?
Well he could discreetly dig it out, no?
And risk Machiavellian gaol if he's seen?
In a country where prosecutorial power is highly politicized or discretion is routinely abused criminal SoLs serve a "liberal" function of checking the potential abuse of bringing bogus charges based on concocted events in the distant past. Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2016, 12:17:52 PM
What if a Canadian buries the cure for cancer together with a dead hooker? Wouldn't society gain from him daring to come forward after a few decades?
Well he could discreetly dig it out, no?
Digging up dead things you have buried is more of a Scandinavian habit.
http://www.ingebretsens.com/culture/traditions/eating-fish-the-scandinavian-way
Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2016, 11:09:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 22, 2016, 10:54:01 AM
In sexual assault cases, often the only evidence of guilt is the accusation itself, unless the police are consulted and a "rape kit" is collected. The evidence that tends to corroborate or contradict that accusation may well be lost with the passage of time (for example, an accused person may well have an alibi which places them at another location during the alleged attack - but twenty years later, will they or anyone else remember where they were on a specific day?).
Aren't those often sexual assault cases that then fail though?
Certainly, it can be difficult to successfully prosecute a sexual assault case that is very old and in which the only evidence is an accuser's account.
This is an additional reason not to being such cases: they put everyone through the expense and difficulty of a trial, for a small chance of success. The argument will be that those judicial and prosecutorial resources would be better spent elsewhere.
The problem is that if all you have is an accusation and a denial, a jury is likely to be swayed by questionably relevant factors, such as their opinion of the accused and the accuser. While the chances of conviction are overall low, the chances of any particular conviction that does occur being incorrect are overall high.
This is true, but it doesn't take very long before a rape becomes hard to prosecute. I'm not sure if it's best if the statute of limitation is only a year or so.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 12:21:49 PM
Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.
Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2016, 12:28:50 PM
This is true, but it doesn't take very long before a rape becomes hard to prosecute. I'm not sure if it's best if the statute of limitation is only a year or so.
That's why I say that the best explanation for having a more traditional SoL period is the intersection of two concerns:
(1) old cases are hard to prosecute and so may waste judicial resources; and
(2) old cases are hard for defendants to defend with evidence, and so risk unjust convictions among that percentage of cases in which a conviction is in fact achieved.
The second reason isn't likely to be any different in time-line from crimes generally - loss of alibis etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 12:21:49 PM
In a country where prosecutorial power is highly politicized or discretion is routinely abused criminal SoLs serve a "liberal" function of checking the potential abuse of bringing bogus charges based on concocted events in the distant past. Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.
Yeah, our very short SoLs exist as a reaction to show trials with trumped up charges held under Franco.
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 12:21:49 PM
Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.
Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?
Not usually but it can be "cover" for a prosecutor being pressured by victims or family to push hard on an otherwise stale case.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 03:47:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 12:21:49 PM
Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.
Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?
Not usually but it can be "cover" for a prosecutor being pressured by victims or family to push hard on an otherwise stale case.
But at the cost of making it impossible to prosecute a case where it is not stale, there is clearly a crime, and a valid prosecution could be (and should be) achieved.
I don't think making it easy for a prosecutor to refuse to pursue a case he doesn't want to pursue for legitimate reasons is a compelling reason to make it impossible for him to pursue a case that can and should be pursued.
Seems to me that rather than a law that says you CANNOT prosecute some cases after some period of time, there should be guidelines that say that some cases probably should not be pursued after some period of time, with a varying bar based on the crime, evidence, and amount of time.
I don't really see what actual benefit there is to a strict SoL.
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2016, 08:17:45 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 03:47:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 12:21:49 PM
Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.
Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?
Not usually but it can be "cover" for a prosecutor being pressured by victims or family to push hard on an otherwise stale case.
But at the cost of making it impossible to prosecute a case where it is not stale, there is clearly a crime, and a valid prosecution could be (and should be) achieved.
I don't think making it easy for a prosecutor to refuse to pursue a case he doesn't want to pursue for legitimate reasons is a compelling reason to make it impossible for him to pursue a case that can and should be pursued.
Seems to me that rather than a law that says you CANNOT prosecute some cases after some period of time, there should be guidelines that say that some cases probably should not be pursued after some period of time, with a varying bar based on the crime, evidence, and amount of time.
I don't really see what actual benefit there is to a strict SoL.
The same benefit as with any bright-line rule: certainty, convenience, cost, avoidance of the problems that arise with individual judgment such as bias.
Same as with age restrictions on certain activities. No reason why they could not be discretionary: have some official decide when a person is mature enough to vote, drink, drive a car, or have sex with - people, after all, mature at different rates.
The problem then is that you have to create a process to replace the simple accrual of time, and that costs resources that could be, allegedly, better spent elsewhere, all to solve a problem that is pretty minor: the injustice of some mature teen being unable to drive or vote when his or her less-mature, but slightly older, cohorts can. Not to mention the problem that someone will undoubtedly allege that the official tasked with judging maturity is biased in favouring X over Y.
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2016, 08:40:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2016, 08:17:45 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 03:47:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2016, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 12:21:49 PM
Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.
Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?
Not usually but it can be "cover" for a prosecutor being pressured by victims or family to push hard on an otherwise stale case.
But at the cost of making it impossible to prosecute a case where it is not stale, there is clearly a crime, and a valid prosecution could be (and should be) achieved.
I don't think making it easy for a prosecutor to refuse to pursue a case he doesn't want to pursue for legitimate reasons is a compelling reason to make it impossible for him to pursue a case that can and should be pursued.
Seems to me that rather than a law that says you CANNOT prosecute some cases after some period of time, there should be guidelines that say that some cases probably should not be pursued after some period of time, with a varying bar based on the crime, evidence, and amount of time.
I don't really see what actual benefit there is to a strict SoL.
The same benefit as with any bright-line rule: certainty, convenience, cost, avoidance of the problems that arise with individual judgment such as bias.
Same as with age restrictions on certain activities. No reason why they could not be discretionary: have some official decide when a person is mature enough to vote, drink, drive a car, or have sex with - people, after all, mature at different rates.
The problem then is that you have to create a process to replace the simple accrual of time, and that costs resources that could be, allegedly, better spent elsewhere, all to solve a problem that is pretty minor: the injustice of some mature teen being unable to drive or vote when his or her less-mature, but slightly older, cohorts can. Not to mention the problem that someone will undoubtedly allege that the official tasked with judging maturity is biased in favouring X over Y.
That is a good argument in structure, but you cannot just apply it as a matter of course to specific sitations.
Indeed, I think it is reasonable to say that such replacement of judgement with simple rules is based on the expected ability to exercise good judgement of the actors involved, and the scale at which it would be demanded. It is not reasonable to expect that there be a pool of competent individuals to judge whether some wide range of potential drivers across age ranges are capable of getting a license (at least more so than we already do, since in fact age is not a sole determinant of ability to drive, you also have to pass a couple tests, have your eyes checkes, etc., etc).
Given that there does in fact already exist a pool of professional, well trained experts who evaluate as a matter of course when and how to pursue prosecutions, and we presume they do so in a reasonable unbiased, competent manner, I don't see why we need some arbitrary rule in place to *remove* that ability to make expert judgements based on time since the supposed crime. They can, and should, include the factor of the passage of time in their evaluation, and in many cases, a sufficient passing of time would in fact make a case effectively impossible to prosecute. Absent a SoL, my expectation would be that 98% of crimes that would not be able to be prosecuted under a SoL would still be unable to be prosecuted.
The only benefit I can see to a SoL is that it would prevent a prosecutor not operating in good faith from bringing a case against someone after some period of time. But if we presume that we have dishonest prosecutors bringing malicious cases, I don't see why we should think it prudent to check them only in the case of them doing so on old cases. Being maliciously prosecuted for an old case doesn't seem to me to be especially egregious compared to being maliciously prosecuted for a not old case.