Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: John Leslie
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Wyot |
Mr Flintstone wrote:
[quote]
A clear statute of limitations could be worth exploring. I recognise this is unlikely to happen though - my belief is that each political party attempts to outdo the other in terms of being seen to be "tough" on crime.
Yes statute of limitations are rare in common law countries; we are no outlier there. It is an interesting subject from both arguments. With regard to this site particularly in getting a balance between the significant body of evidence showing that victims of sexual abuse are slower in coming forward than for other crimes (for fairly obvious reasons, I would have thought) and protecting the innocent from malicious allegations.
But as you say, any debate - and this one in particular - will be so politicised in the UK - it would hardly be worth having. |
|
Mr Flintstone |
I think a crime if committed should carry an indefinite risk of future prosecution, if the crime is still current to the statute book. To argue otherwise would be to argue for the abolition of criminal justice.
A clear statute of limitations could be worth exploring. I recognise this is unlikely to happen though - my belief is that each political party attempts to outdo the other in terms of being seen to be "tough" on crime. |
|
hedda |
I met him in Oz at a Jackie Collin's book launch and whipped out my Box Brownie to snap the pair together (I sort of knew his name but none of his history).
The poor man was startled, suspicious and even a bit frightened.
someone later told me his history. I felt so sorry for the poor man,
some really evil people out there. |
|
Wyot |
Mr Flintstone wrote:
I don't think the truth of the case really matters. There is a broader question: Do we want to live in a society where a minor behavioural transgression carries a indefinite future risk of police prosecution? I'd argue not but this is effectively what we have now.
I think a crime if committed should carry an indefinite risk of future prosecution, if the crime is still current to the statute book. To argue otherwise would be to argue for the abolition of criminal justice.
The real question I think you pose is: should grabbing a woman's breasts without her consent be seen as a crime, or as you have it a "minor behavioural transgression".
This is to make no comment on why this is coming out now so many years later/celeb/money etc etc which other people cover on here very fully and with far more insight than I could muster. |
|
Mr Flintstone |
I don't think the truth of the case really matters. There is a broader question: Do we want to live in a society where a minor behavioural transgression carries a indefinite future risk of police prosecution? I'd argue not but this is effectively what we have now. |
|
|
|
