Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: New thread carrying on the discussion on justice -
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
In The Know |
JK2006 wrote:
The problem remains ITK - how does someone molested as a little child with no evidence at all get justice 30 years later?
That is why Howard changed the law - without thinking through the likely ramifications.
Its very hard to see how this could be framed in law - without taking away normal rights of the accused (and thus reducing his possible defence and making it more likely than an innocent person will be convicted).
This is not going to please some posters here - but it may be that this is something that the molested will just have to "put up with" (just as they have to "put up with" having awful parents who don't take care of them / or having been born with an incurable disease).
At the end of the day it's up to the parents to PROTECT their children - reducing the barrier for conviction (so no evidence is needed at all) does not solve a crime - it just creates a new one. |
|
In The Know |
Well said, Cat.
Obviously another area where the law has been "tammpered with" is the new 2thought crimes" which reduce any burden of guilt being put on the prosecution and assume guilt unless the accuser can prove themselves innocent. Obviously in many cases you CANNOT prove a negative - so the entire system is stacked against you.
Let's get back to BASIC law - a person is INNOCENT UNTIL proved guilty, and let the accuser carry the burden of proving the guilt. |
|
zooloo |
JK2006 wrote:
The problem remains ITK - how does someone molested as a little child with no evidence at all get justice 30 years later?
The unpalatable answer to that question is "They can't".
If there is no evidence for a crime there is no crime. Just because a particular crime is abhorrent we can't change that principle.
..in some ways I regret typing that, but it is true. |
|
The Cat |
The problem is, how does the 30+ yr old person prove that they were molested all those years ago, and why did they wait until after the huge boost in compensation rates to make their allegation? Also, how does a falsely accused person prove they did not commit some alleged crime 30 years ago, and why should they have to? It's difficult enough to prove you did not do something yesterday.
This raises the quesion of whether there should be a statute of limitations on certain crimes. |
|
JK2006 |
The problem remains ITK - how does someone molested as a little child with no evidence at all get justice 30 years later?
That is why Howard changed the law - without thinking through the likely ramifications. |
|
|
|
