Diligent police work, or a horrifying witch hunt?

[DwayneEMTP]

Here's some hypotheticals for you. This unidentified woman watches the same man kill her younger sister. She is severely traumatized and it takes years for her brain development to catch up to what happened. She finally comes to a place where she feels like she is old enough/strong enough/people will believe her and she comes forward to confront her accuser. Since there is no statute of limitation on murder, do we just dismiss the case because "any evidence" that "could have existed" is now probably gone? Or do we try our damndest to figure out what really happened?

Of course we investigate. But there is a reason that murder has no such statute. Not only is it more horrendous than many others, in my opinion, but the evidence often survives.

As far as this case goes, it seems that the incidents were reported four years ago, which would be 5 years after the original incidents occurred... so how does that fit into the nice little box of statute of limitations?

I think very nicely. I’m guessing that the investigation started on the child’s word alone, at least it’s difficult for me to imagine another way for it to have begun. As you say, molesters, rapists, serial offenders are not one victim victimizers. And you don’t victimize children without being around children, so finding other possible victims should not be terribly difficult once a molester is identified without running ads in newspapers and with television news organizations.

I shudder to think that anyone would advocate that simply because "it's been a long time" that someone be allowed to escape investigation for harm that they have done to a child.

I’m not at all suggesting that he’s not investigated pending the validation of this child’s story, though I’m finding it near impossible to believe that such validation is possible after years of counselor pollution of her memories. These stories make good news and tend to get DAs reelected.

What I am suggesting is that it’s near impossible to prove that he’s guilty at this point, unless he happens to have a happy face tattoo’d on his penis that the child happens to remember. But much more important to me is that he’s almost completely unable to defend himself against such charges nine years later. So yeah, given the option of letting a sex offender walk or putting an innocent man in prison for a long time as well as branding him as a sexual predator for life, we MUST choose to protect the innocent man. And I swear to God I’m going to come out guns blazing on the first person that seriously uses the “have to break a few eggs to make an omlet” idiocy as an intelligent argument.

Putting his name in the paper has ruined his life to a much further degree if he is innocent than any other action involved with this case. I think these sort of things should be investigated quietly, with no mention of anyone's name, until they are proven guilty

I could also make the argument, though would have to think about it further to do so with conviction, that from this point forward they should expend all of the state’s resources to prove him innocent. He has been destroyed. They claimed he damaged a life, now they’ve destroyed one in return. If the punishment must fit the crime, then he’s been punished. They perhaps should feel obligated, in the name of justice, to restore his good name if he’s been falsely accused, don’t you think?

Dwayne

[Richard B the EMT]

There are certain crimes that are canceled by the Statutes of Limitations. Sexually related crimes seem to be one of them, murder is not.

How else could TV shows like "Cold Case" have material, solving murders from 1945, by surviving folks now in their 80s?

Obviously, I don't know anything other than what I have read here on the case under discussion in this string. However, how many times have we read or heard of real cases where someone had been jailed for years, until a new trial found the truth, the "convict" released, and in the press conference on the release, said wording to the effect of, "Where do I go to get my good name restored, and get the years behind bars back as the good law abiding citizen I was then, and am now?"

[Just Plain Ruff]

Even given my possibly flawed reason for their existance? How long do you think? I'm 45. Should I know be able to convict my grandfather, who bathed me as a child, of molestation as, now that I think of it he really seemed to wash me for longer than seemed necessary? And how does he defend himself agains such a charge?

And what evidence have you used to decide that he does in fact have a "sorry ass?" Your responses of late belong more in the "how we confuse our feelings with knowledge" thread than in a logical debate.

I'm calling to you here buddy...Time to suck it up, step away from the foo foo feel good threads and get back on your analytical horse. I know you can, I've seen you do it often...

Dwayne

Dwayne, here's my response

if the child is unable to participate in his case is that the correct thing to let this guy go? I am all for statutes of limitations but with children it's a different story. You have a child so traumatized by victimization that it may take years to fully come out. Should the guy get away with it simply because the child is too young to help out in his case? I don't know.

I also do not know if they statutes are extended for kids but I read somewhere that they were. I could more than likely be mistaken.

If the statute runs out and there is no leeway then by all means the guy doesn't get charged.

I think that for child molestation that the statutes should be extended but then again that's just me.

Dwayne, why you pickin on me? whine whine whine. But I digress - I'm trying to be a kinder more gentler me.

But in the end, only this guy and the child knows what happened in the room and we will never know what happened.

Is this is witch hunt? I'd bet if it was your child you'd have a different point of view but maybe not.

If the statutes have indeed run out, then let him go. It may happen again and then we can go down this road again. but in the scheme of things, how does this particular case really affect your life? This particular case affects my family and family life with maybe 1% effect. I choose to worry about things that are in my span of control.

You can find hundreds of these examples in the paper and on the news and there's not a damn thing any of us can do about them. I choose to fight the battles that are on my doorstep not a thousand miles away.

[Thad]

I still believe in the legal axiom of "It is better that ten guilty men should go free than for one innocent man to be convicted." It goes hand in hand with the assumption that ALL men are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. As far as this guy having to prove his innocence, it "SHOULD" be a moot point. The Prosecutors have to prove his guilt.

[Just Plain Ruff]

I still believe in the legal axiom of "It is better that ten guilty men should go free than for one innocent man to be convicted." It goes hand in hand with the assumption that ALL men are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. As far as this guy having to prove his innocence, it "SHOULD" be a moot point. The Prosecutors have to prove his guilt.

Unfortunately this guy is already guilty to most people after his name has been published in the paper. The bad deal with this is that no matter innocent or guilty the public has alredy made up their mind when it comes to child molestation. You are guilty until proven innocent. That's the deal in our society yet we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. I have one friend who was accused of this type of crime by his ex-wife. He was run through the ringer of public opinion and in the end he was found not guilty by the jury but he can never work in EMS again unless he goes to alaska or somewhere a thousand miles away from where he is now. Just the accusation of this crime and you are on an uphill battle to clear your name.

It's a double edged sword. Both ends result in negative consequences.