Long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them. – Halsbury’s Laws of England
As children, we were told that serious infractions might go on our “permanent record”, which certainly sounds ominous to a misbehaving ten-year-old. But despite being the subject of jokes by generations of comedians, there really was no such thing until some alliance of sociopaths decided it was a good idea to put armed thugs in grammar schools to arrest children too young to spell the word “arrest” for offenses that when I was a lass might’ve been punished by writing lines, staying after school or (at worst) having one’s parents called by the principal. Oh, there might be a formal disciplinary record in the principal’s office of that school, and in more recent times it might even be shared with other schools in the same district or diocese. But all that was required to escape its baneful shadow was a move to a different town, and in any case its effects would have no influence after graduation.
Until recently, the adult world was rather like that as well; cops and other lawmen were constrained both by borders and by time, and one might escape their clutches either by crossing into another country or by staying out of trouble long enough to exceed the statute of limitations. The latter is one of the most noble, sane ideas ever conceived by rulers, ranking not far behind presumption of innocence; such statutes are intended to encourage those with just complaints to report them in a timely manner, while evidence might still be found and witnesses might still have strong memories of the events in question. In the English common law tradition, the only crime which usually has no statute of limitations is murder, because A) the effects are both severe and permanent; and B) because “murder victims can’t report the crime committed against them, and hence have no control over when it is discovered.” Another good argument for such statutes is the same one I’ve used to argue that it’s better a thousand criminals go free than one innocent person be wrongfully imprisoned: if a true criminal is unrepentant, he will provide the state with numerous opportunities to catch him again, and if he regrets his crime and lives an exemplary life afterward, what would be the point of punishing him when one of the supposed purposes of the “corrections system” (its Orwellian name in many countries) is reform? If a person who is truly guilty of a crime spends the entire period of a statute of limitations living an exemplary life, society is far better served than it would’ve been by bearing the considerable social and economic expense of trial and lengthy incarceration, resulting in an unemployable outcast who often has little choice but to commit other crimes to support himself (and, if he has children, inflicting damage on them as well).
And yet in recent years, we’ve seen the schoolchild’s “permanent record” nightmare become a reality. Computerized records can be shared internationally, making it far more difficult to escape the clutches of vengeful “authorities” whether the charges they allege are just or not. Even after sentences are served, those upon whom they were inflicted are burdened with lifelong consequences as impossible to escape as a brand on the forehead; they may be forever denied jobs and excluded from social institutions, and if their crimes were supposedly “sexual” (a loose distinction indeed in the US, considering that even public urination can fall under its umbra) they may be consigned to pariah status forever, unable even to live among their fellow humans. Anti-sex hysteria has become so severe that California is now trying to do away with the statute of limitations for rape; given the difficulty of proving even recent rape accusations, this will help absolutely nobody.
All it will do is allow a stain to be thrown on people’s reputations long after any evidence is gone. And lest you think this isn’t that big a deal, consider the case of Nate Parker, who was tried and exonerated 17 years ago, and yet is being called a “rapist” in the national media because some “feminists” can’t stand the fact that a woman’s unproven accusation wasn’t enough to completely destroy his life forever, and now he’s become an acclaimed filmmaker.
Do you really want to live in a world where everyone must suffer the consequences of every mistake, act of desperation, bad decision, foolish choice and even false accusation forever, without any hope of escape no matter how blameless his life is after that? Because I don’t. I’ve been raped, several times, and you know what? I DON’T FUCKING THINK THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON RAPE SHOULD BE REPEALED. Nor do I think every man accused of the crime should instantly be presumed guilty, nor that the shadow of one accusation should follow him forever no matter what he does (multiple accusations spanning years or decades are a different matter, to be discussed another day). Not only is this vile and unjust; not only does it increase the power of the carceral state; it also sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Men aren’t the only ones who can be accused of rape, and rape isn’t the only “sex crime”; what if some sociopathic politician decides to out-California California by removing the statute of limitations on all sex crimes (which, as we have seen, can include prostitution, “sexting”, teen sex and pissing by a dumpster)? Once a precedent is established there is no stopping power-mad lunatics from taking that and running with it. The dismantling of laws that protect individuals from tyranny needs to be stopped at the beginning if it’s going to be stopped at all, and when it’s you being arrested for something somebody claims you did sometime during the Reagan administration, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
I can’t even get a copy of my high school diploma.
Dear Maggie,
Here in England we have had an infamous police operation code named ‘yew tree’.
The purpose of this is to ‘investigate’ sexual offence allegations going back up to about 50 years if you please – you may well already know about it I realise.
There followed a slew of prosecutions of old men (no women) once famous, perhaps the most notable being national treasure Rolf Harris. ‘Proof’ of guilt coming largely in the form of the number of people coming out of the woodwork making unsubstantiated claims about the distant past. Perhaps he was once foolish enough as to put his hand on a girls knee – I don’t know and I don’t care.
He got 5 years, a savage sentence for a man already well into his eighties. It was apparently not possible to shew that Rolf had even been in the alleged town at the time, and the accuser could not even remember the year of the supposed event.
One to get away though was Cliff Richard, possibily because he is widely supposed to be gay, once the worst life destroying crime of all, but now almost compulsory.
It must be more than coincidence that the Director of Public Prosecutions is one Alison Saunders, a known radical feminst and man hater, miffed that she cannot yet prosecute all men has selected some high profile examples instead.
Are you sure it is the CPS who are biased based in perceived sexuality?
Rolf Harris was found guilty of 12 sexual assaults. Not “just one”, and not “just touching a young girl’s knee”. The court heard of other similar events that couldn’t be prosecuted in English courts as they occurred outside the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561
Rolf Harris applied for permission to appeal his sentence. This was declined (by a single judge, of the Court of Appeal). He then had the right to apply to a hearing of 3 Court of Appeal judges : but chose not to do so.
As far as I’m aware, Cliff Richard has never made a public statement about his sexuality. Until he does (or is caught being hypocritical about it) : it is none of my damn business.
However, some people have made the presumption he is gay.
Cliff Richard didn’t “get away with it” ; where is the proof he was guilty and “got away with it”?.
He faced a “trial by media” (the initial stages of the investigation were “leaked” to the press) and were televised.
I think the “bias based on perceived sexuality” sits better with the previous poster than it does with the CPS……
Characterizations like “unproven accusations” and “acclaimed filmmaker” only serve to cloud a person’s understanding of just how far government particularly the justice system fell under the control these sociopathically manipulative individuals decades ago. Its more than aggravating to observe a judge and court dismiss the claims of wage theft by the physician owners of your medical practice after those claims were proven by accountants for the accuser and the defense. Why should the bishopric of the Silverdale stake get away with labeling his colleague and supervisor as Hannibal Lecter and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde simply because he led an exemplary life of cataract surgeon for 9 years after the fact? Frankly openly and honestly, I would rather he or the Navy-they would have tried to rape me or in any way assault me so that the retribution and revenge would have been undeniably swift, accurate and justified to all citizen observers. Eight years and counting for rejection by potential employers in every aspect of medicine, the 6th audit by IRS in 8 years and the destruction of job prospects of the individuals who provided testimony in support of my position really aren’t “balanced” by anyone’s “acts of atonement” no matter what some judge in a system rigged by power, money and ill-gotten influence decides.
So, yeah I was assaulted both as a child and adult and I too would prefer those perceived minor insults to my physical person and psyche over near decades long destruction of my personal reputation among family friends and peers. I’ll save the impact of professional blacklisting on a person’s children for another diatribe.
“In the English common law tradition, the only crime which usually has no statute of limitations is murder” isn’t correct.
Another poster has already mentioned Operation Yewtree, where “alleged historic sexual offence” have been investigated / prosecuted.
The Crown Prosecution Service utilises a 2-fold test for if a prosecution should go ahead:
1) That there is a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution, and
2) That the prosecution is in the public interest.
Passage of time might mean either prevent a prosecution going ahead,but where witness testimony is unlikely to be seen as unreliable (1), and the crime sufficiently serious that it should still be prosecuted (2), passage of time alone won’t prevent prosecution.
In England & Wales there is no felony / misdemeanour distinction. What there is is that the most minor offences can only be tried in a Magistrate’s court (“summary offences”), and the most serious only in Crown Court (“indictable only offences”), while those in-between (“either-way” offences) the accused can elect for a Crown Court jury trial, or the Magistrates can either decline to hear a case, sending the whole trial to the Crown Court, or pass a case if (found / or a plea of) guilty to the Crown Court for setencing.
There are limitation periods for “summary only” offences : “a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.” (Although indictable offences are excluded from this as even these cases are commenced in Magistrate’s Court as an administrative procedure)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/127
I am entirely comfortable with a blanket 20-year statute of limitations,
mass-murder and whispering-in-theatres included.
The benefit of learning what happened outweighs the satisfaction of punishment.
I would set the limit at no more than 10 years for all crimes including murder. The problem with allowing longer delays is that the accused is likely to throw away records, lose contact with witnesses, and in other ways lose the ability to present a defense.
Not really any limit to laws when they don’t apply to the female majority voters. Even prostitutes won’t have records when only the men are committing a crime, and while their business is affected they don’t really need to work for money since they can get the government to support them by taxing male labor. Women and government are like malaria and mosquitoes: they amplify each other’s negative effects and can only be controlled by such drastic measures that the problem will unfortunately have to grow until it is completely intolerable.
In reply to the Rolf Harris caper.
It was a stitch up involving legal theatre right from the start.
Under “Operation Yewtree” there had already been two trials of supposed celeb “rapists” both of which had been defeated by the CPS’s attempts to try the case on what “facts” they had. Which were garbage.
A case in point : Actor William Roach had appeared in the long-running soap “Coronation Street” for 40 years. He had been boasting in print that he had had sex with more than a 1000 women in his adult life. Which is probably what flagged him as a target for demented and gold-digging females. One such woman claimed that she was raped by him on the set of “the Rovers Return” (a pub that is a centre-piece of the community in the soap) in 1968. After she was warned what a bad egg Roach was by “Mike Baldwin” another character in the show, who, in the storyline is a great rival of the character played by William Roach. The character is played by an actor called Johnny Briggs.
It was pointed out to this “witness” that actor Johnny Briggs had no contact or association with the show before 1974 when he played a bit part character for one episode and was then invited back two years later to take up the long term part of “Mike Baldwin”. He therefore did not warn her of anything in 1968. She instantly changed her story and claimed it was another character who had warned her –actor Peter Adamson (now deceased –who was in the early days of the show as character “Len Fairclough”) . Ironically Adamson was an early victim of paedo-hysteria being accused of fiddling some kids at a swimming pool (ironic in light of the real antics of the Religion of Peace studiously ignored by today’s Cultural Marxist femmi-scum). He was cleared of the charge but it doubtless did nothing to help the alcoholism that ultimately helped his demise.
In short a female loon trying to write herself into the plot of her favourite soap –and pick up some compo cash into the bargain. Screw it if her lies ruin some poor sods life.
Against this background it was obvious to femmi hate-freak Alison Saunders that Operation Yewtree was about to collapse completely. One more acquittal would see their whole caper exposed as the vile farce that it is.
Her response was to bring in the best female lawdogs the CPS has. A creature called Sasha Wass being the main one. Previously employed on extremely complex fraud cases this new crew quickly decided that facts were to take second place to legal theatre. Poor Rolf Harris was next up and he found himself in a glass box like the Beast of Kiev while various middle-aged women behind screens blubbed about the long ago horrors they claim to have suffered at his hand.
Well and good had these women had even the slightest corroboration for these tall tales. What emerged tho’ was an evidence free travesty.
A “7 year old” –50 years ago–who claimed Rolf interfered with her in front of a queue of witnesses ( none of which could be found of course) at an event at a particular community centre. Except that no trace of this event could ever be found.
Rolf Harris was a very considerable TV star in the 1960s UK. I can testify to that as I watched his shows in black and white in those distant days. If he had been invited to any local event back then it would have been of huge local interest. We had no Net back then but we had local TV radio and newspapers. There is no trace of this supposed event ever having happened in any media. The records of the community centre don’t record it. The search was made 7 years either side of the date this woman gave. Nothing–not the slightest evidence that this gig ever happened.
So not only can they not place Rolf at the scene of the “crime” they can’t even place the scene of the crime at the scene of the crime.
Another woman claims she was fiddled at 13 at a particular event. No witnesses or corroboration for the supposed attack–or that the girl was even there. However this event DID happen –except 3 years later at a completely different venue 6 miles away from where she said it happened. She would have been 16 not 13 ( that doesn’t excuse a crime IF a crime occurred). I am not inclined to trust people who claim their lives have been scarred by horrible events which they cannot forget and which still haunt them to this day–except they can’t even remember where and when these horrible events occurred.
Another of the supposed “victims” was a former mistress of Rolf’s who says their affair started when she was 13 when Rolf says she was 18. Neither side had any evidence to support these claims. The woman tried to get Rolf to pay £30000 at the end of the affair which he refused. Were she an underage “victim” why did she not go to the police then? Hell hath no fury like an anonymous chance for revenge,
The rest of the case is equally crappy. Harris is almost certainly innocent. It was obvious that the deck was stacked and the court –including the Beak (judge) had had their orders from TPTB.
Another point. After the trial the coppers –who post trial can say anything they like without having to prove it–claimed Rolf had 80000 pornographic images. No evidence for this was produced of course but it was designed to make Harris seem like a dirty old man who spent all his time pulling his pud in front of a computer screen More significantly they claimed that 37 of these images were child porn. But it was “not in the public interest to prosecute at this time”. Whenever you hear that from the British CPS you know something crooked is going on.
Even if true that is about 0.009 something of the alleged total. What kind of kiddie-fiddler has 0,009 something of his porn stash only of child porn? And even more to the point why did the coppers not use these alleged images in the court case? They would have been solid evidence in a case made of smoke and hot air.
Because it is an ancient coppers trick to find the youngest women in a porno collection ( most workers in porn are young–not kids but young–who wants to watch ruined elders having sex) and try to claim the girls are under age and thus the “suspect” will be charged with the far more damaging offence of having child porn in his possession. Why didn’t they do so with Rolf?. Because I suspect that his pictures ( and frankly –80000?–no way) were of American Internet origin and the US s2257 certs would have destroyed the coppers bogus ploy. So they just used a public statement to smear the poor sod instead.
As for Rolf not appealing–that is simple.
Most of the UK “victims” of alleged celeb paedos are found by the coppers doing what they call trawling. This means that once they have one allegation they then send out communications saying “Have YOU been a victim of this man?”. They also confirm you will be anonymous and compensation is in the offing following any conviction. A bigger ad to liars, fantasists and gold-digging female psychopaths could not be imagined. Needless to say the cops get hundreds of wannabes and cherry-pick those they think they can make fly. On the basis of facts and reason and evidence that is just about none ( which is why Cultural Marxism wants those things done away with) . On emoting and legal theatre they can and do succeed.
Rolf did not appeal because the CPS publicised that they were warming up the next 7 cases on their list for a second trial for him. Since there is little easier than getting a second conviction on some poor sod already -wrongly and unjustly–convicted for the same type of alleged crime–Rolf likely decided to leave the appeal. He is in his 80s and I imagine hopes to not die in the chokey. The fact that both the trial judge and the judge who refused him leave to appeal a travesty have caused him to realise the truth. That Marxian feminist paedo-hysteria is UK state policy and the legal fix is in.
Finally just to say that all of this nonsense is the direct result of the deliberately created Jimmy Saville paedo-panic set in motion by UK femmi-scum. The head of emotional steam for this wave of injustice has been created on purpose as was the Satanic Panic and all the other nonsense we have had to put up with over the years.
In 25 years the emotion will have drained and the “evidence” against Saville will be seen–as with the Satanic Panic–for the nonsense it is.
Hoo boy, this post really brought the scary MRAs out of the woodwork. A few quite inspiring examples proving of Maggie’s assertion that MRAs & Radfems are much the same creature, but with the opposite genitals.
I don’t disagree with the article’s main point, & the only exception to the statute of limitations on rape that I might argue for is in older cases where testable DNA evidence is located years after the fact. But other than in those rare instances, the statute of limitations for crimes other than murder seems pretty sensible to me.