Jesus Christ. Who needs Pizzagate when you've got the Catholic Church? I can't believe anybody grants the Pope the least amount of credence or moral authority when he lets shit like this happen...
Jesus Christ. Who needs Pizzagate when you've got the Catholic Church? I can't believe anybody grants the Pope the least amount of credence or moral authority when he lets shit like this happen under Church auspices.
Can someone explain the reasoning behind the statutes of limitations in the first place? The people affected by these crimes still live with the memory of these traumas. Just because time passes...
It has also triggered debate about whether statutes of limitations should be expanded.
Can someone explain the reasoning behind the statutes of limitations in the first place? The people affected by these crimes still live with the memory of these traumas. Just because time passes doesn't mean the damage is undone. If it can be proven, without a doubt that someone committed a crime, why does time passed become a factor?
We do it to protect the innocent as well as preserve the ability to investigate and gather evidence of these crimes. You can defend yourself from say, being accused of stealing a stick of gum last...
We do it to protect the innocent as well as preserve the ability to investigate and gather evidence of these crimes. You can defend yourself from say, being accused of stealing a stick of gum last tuesday, because you can provide an alibi, but let's say someone accuses you of stealing as tick of gum 20 years ago, do you really have the ability to provide evidence in your defense any longer?
Reason has a pretty good article on the reasons why limitations are a good thing, especially when you have to consider the government can bring charges against you, not just other citizens. Of course, there is room for debate here on what crimes should have limitations and which shouldn't.
From a moral perspective, It's because people change. Just because you stole that candy bar 10 years ago from the local corner store doesn't mean you are the same person now as you were then, its...
From a moral perspective, It's because people change. Just because you stole that candy bar 10 years ago from the local corner store doesn't mean you are the same person now as you were then, its a petty crime and there is no reason to pursue it.
From a legal perspective, evidence does not remain accurate and human memory is subjective to the passage of time. Depending on the crime it is basically impossible to prove after a certain amount of time, people have moved on and the evidence no longer exists. There is no legal way to prove it, so there's really no point to actually pursue it.
That being said, most major crimes like rape or murder do not have a statute of limitations.
Yeah, that's an absolutely insane number but the real, long-term, human suffering attached to it is the real tragedy. And no matter how "cool" the new Pope is he can't undo that damage, and given...
Yeah, that's an absolutely insane number but the real, long-term, human suffering attached to it is the real tragedy. And no matter how "cool" the new Pope is he can't undo that damage, and given his lack of a clear response regarding Cardinal Pell, I even have my doubts he has done much to really curb the abuse and coverups either. This sort of abhorrent shit is why I am glad my family finally abandoned and stopped financially supporting the Catholic Church.
Jesus Christ. Who needs Pizzagate when you've got the Catholic Church? I can't believe anybody grants the Pope the least amount of credence or moral authority when he lets shit like this happen under Church auspices.
Can someone explain the reasoning behind the statutes of limitations in the first place? The people affected by these crimes still live with the memory of these traumas. Just because time passes doesn't mean the damage is undone. If it can be proven, without a doubt that someone committed a crime, why does time passed become a factor?
We do it to protect the innocent as well as preserve the ability to investigate and gather evidence of these crimes. You can defend yourself from say, being accused of stealing a stick of gum last tuesday, because you can provide an alibi, but let's say someone accuses you of stealing as tick of gum 20 years ago, do you really have the ability to provide evidence in your defense any longer?
Reason has a pretty good article on the reasons why limitations are a good thing, especially when you have to consider the government can bring charges against you, not just other citizens. Of course, there is room for debate here on what crimes should have limitations and which shouldn't.
https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/24/ending-rape-statutes-of-limitations
From a moral perspective, It's because people change. Just because you stole that candy bar 10 years ago from the local corner store doesn't mean you are the same person now as you were then, its a petty crime and there is no reason to pursue it.
From a legal perspective, evidence does not remain accurate and human memory is subjective to the passage of time. Depending on the crime it is basically impossible to prove after a certain amount of time, people have moved on and the evidence no longer exists. There is no legal way to prove it, so there's really no point to actually pursue it.
That being said, most major crimes like rape or murder do not have a statute of limitations.
Yeah, that's an absolutely insane number but the real, long-term, human suffering attached to it is the real tragedy. And no matter how "cool" the new Pope is he can't undo that damage, and given his lack of a clear response regarding Cardinal Pell, I even have my doubts he has done much to really curb the abuse and coverups either. This sort of abhorrent shit is why I am glad my family finally abandoned and stopped financially supporting the Catholic Church.