Statute of limitations

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, mistermack said:

Delusion, in your case. 😉

Are you ever going to answer a quetsion? 

[mistermack]

20 hours ago, mistermack said:

my question is, how would that help them?

You would have to ask them. 

For myself, I would feel better if I took revenge. The feeling that I had been abused, and the abuser got clean away with it, would definitely be a drag on my mental well-being. I've never been abused, but I have extracted revenge for other things in my past, and I can assure you, I feel better for it to this day.

That's just me, but I know I'm not unique in that way.  You can argue that revenge is senseless, that it doesn't achieve anything. It doesn't change the facts. It's human nature and that isn't going to change any time soon.

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, mistermack said:

For myself, I would feel better if I took revenge. The feeling that I had been abused, and the abuser got clean away with it, would definitely be a drag on my mental well-being. I've never been abused,

Then you don't understand, but still you post!!!

With nothing more substantial than, I like the idea of revenge because it felt good when Clint Eastwood shot the "bad guy".

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

With nothing more substantial than, I like the idea of revenge because it felt good when Clint Eastwood shot the "bad guy"

I'm trying to post about the real world and real people. You seem to be dreaming of a world where everyone follows your wise advice. If we had that, you wouldn't need laws or prisons. Clint Eastwood films were huge box office. You've illustrated my point. Even in movies, people get satisfaction from revenge. It's a basic human instinct. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

I'm trying to post about the real world and real people. You seem to be dreaming of a world where everyone follows your wise advice. If we had that, you wouldn't need laws or prisons. Clint Eastwood films were huge box office. You've illustrated my point. Even in movies, people get satisfaction from revenge. It's a basic human instinct. 

Like I said you don't understand, I was abused by my mother not severely, but enough to hate her for a period of time, enough time for me to say some horrible things to her, that only added to my pain (thinking how hurtfull those words were), that hate, I later learned was missplaced because her story was worse than mine.

My friend Steve, who's mother and father were Rose and Fred, portrayed a similar story, and she cut one of his fingures off...

[mistermack]

It's bound to be different when it's family. Although it doesn't stop some people taking revenge.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt  

One that always makes me laugh is a friend who fell out with his girlfriend big time over some slight, and dumped her, but he also peed in the nearly full bottle of Pepsi in the fridge when he left. He's a sad man, but the thought of her drinking his pee definitely makes him feel better every time her name is mentioned. 

Of course, it's wise never to upset the waiter if you are eating out, for the same reason. It happens all the time. People are like that.

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

Just a gentle reminder that the topic are statute of limitations. I suggest to frame the discussion within the framework of a justice or legal system rather than the fulfillment of desires and/or revenge fantasies. If that notion is to be further discussed we may want to split the topic.

 

[swansont]

On 10/14/2019 at 12:30 PM, mistermack said:

No, she'd get an equerry to ask him. And he would tell his butler to get it. 

 

What made me think about statutes of limitation, was the case of the Golden State Killer. The numbers are absolutely horrific. 120 plus burglaries, 50 plus rapes, and at least 13 murders dating back to 1974 - 86. They were really sadistic crimes too, with the rapist targeting couples, and forcing the husband to balance crockery on their backs, under threat of death, while he raped the wives. 

He can't be prosecuted for the rapes, they weren't serious enough, so they came under the statute of limitations.

One should note that this is no longer the law in California, but it can't be applied to past cases. And I would not agree it's not that they "weren't serious enough." I don't think that such a determination is made. A crime is either subject to the statute of limitations or it isn't. You can argue that rape, in general, was not taken seriously enough, but that's not how you phrased it.

 

On 10/14/2019 at 12:30 PM, mistermack said:

They now have a suspect, and good dna evidence, and he will probably die or stay in jail for ever, for the murders, but it does illustrate the point. If he had never killed anyone, they wouldn't be able to do a thing about the rapes and violent burglaries that he committed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_State_Killer   

How is a burglary "violent"? There are, by definition, no other people involved when someone commits a burglary. IOW, it's a property crime. But if you start breaking things it's vandalism, not burglary.

When it involves people, it's robbery.

On 10/15/2019 at 11:58 AM, mistermack said:

You seem to be under the illusion that people only do things that help them. In the real world, that doesn't apply. People often do things because they feel like it. And after being the victim of a serious crime, most people want to see the criminal suffer. And the more serious the crime, the more suffering they want to see. 

Any actual evidence that this is true, and that it is a consequence of (or affected by) the statute of limitations?

 

On 10/15/2019 at 11:58 AM, mistermack said:

The justice system is there to get between the victim and the perpetrator, and deliver some form of justice that is enough in most cases to prevent people applying their own. Among other things, but it's a big element of it.

Back in the days when justice was less reliable, you used to get lynchings, when not just the victim, but a big chunk of society would meet out their own justice. That's what happens when organised justice is lacking.

Again, evidence? That big chunk of society got involved in this vigilantism, and that it was widepread?

[mistermack]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can argue that rape, in general, was not taken seriously enough, but that's not how you phrased it.

I thought that WAS clear from my post, which was meant to sound mildly sarcastic. Sorry you missed it. 

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

When it involves people, it's robbery.

Fair enough. I consider my nits well and truly picked. 

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Again, evidence? That big chunk of society got involved in this vigilantism, and that it was widepread?

 "Lynchings are common in many contemporary societies, particularly in countries with high crime rates such as Brazil, Guatemala and South Africa."    Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching   

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

!

Moderator Note

Just a gentle reminder that the topic are statute of limitations. I suggest to frame the discussion within the framework of a justice or legal system rather than the fulfillment of desires and/or revenge fantasies. If that notion is to be further discussed we may want to split the topic.

 

I think that's fair enough. I do feel that the chance of people taking the law into their own hands IS an argument for scrapping limitations, but that's about it. The wisdom or not of doing that deserves it's own thread, if anybody wants it. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by mistermack

[jajrussel]

On 10/13/2019 at 7:12 PM, mistermack said:

I don't really see the ethical reason for having a statute of limitations. Especially now that people are living longer lives. To some extent, it could make sense in some cases to prevent miscarriages of justice, when memories of witnesses get more unreliable over time.

But today, with modern forensics, it's possible to solve a lot of serious cases without relying on the weakness of human memory. DNA is a prime example, but fibre evidence, ballistics and even photographic evidence have the potential to be reliable evidence way into the future. Plus stuff that hasn't been thought of yet. 

It's not beyond the wit of a decent judge, to direct a jury so that unreliable factors like memory are treated with the appropriate caution given extended time having passed. So I think it's right and desirable to scrap statutes of limitations that allow the guilty to go free, just because they got away with it for a long time. Obviously I'm talking about serious crimes, not civil or trivial cases. I don't think you get any less guilty, with each passing year.

Isn’t there a possibility of an assumption here that people can not change? Even when a person is caught is processed and punished he or she will face prosecution the rest of their lives. It may not be legal prosecution, but some might see it as ethical prosecution. A thief is a thief is a thief etc...

or a thief, etc. It need not be just a thief. It could be something worse, or less.

a business gains an unfair advantage through unethical means. Thousands of lives are ruined. Thousands of lives gain through employment. People die, children  are born. Great grandchildren of the victims are taught that they should be, then are, entitled. In the present people are told that If they companies are responsible for the past action they will go out of business thousands will be the new victims of the original unethical act. 😊 When is it ever ethical to let go?  It isn’t, but sometimes we should. Unethical business practices are not murder. But tell that to the people on the receiving end... It causes countries to lash out in anger. It can be argued that the only thing done to them, has been done to control a problem that was their grandfathers doing. A problem that was murder, not necessarily committed by an actual family member, but DNA shows that they were closely related, so limiting their growth seems only fair, maybe even ethical?  Note the question mark...

in the meantime someone who drove a car, or kept a key for some General who was guilty of war crimes lives in mortal fear 40, to 50 years later because  as a young adult they were swept up in the mania of a crowd.

 It might then be argued that no serious crime was committed by the driver/ key holder, but then it would be argued that if that position was taken it would belittle the original lives lost.

these kind of questions are rarely concluded by an individual short of murder, yet when the question is concluded be the crowd with the result being murder many people simply write it off to group hysteria, yet it was murder. Maybe worse. I fear pain and trauma. I don’t want to live with it, but I have also learned over time that time heals all memories. Until someone brings them up again. And they will...

Now, as in I didn’t always think this way, murder seems a serious crime not to be forgotten. All other crimes though morally serious should at some point have a statute of limitations. I could probably find some scriptural reference, but I don’t mean forgiven, I mean forgotten. As a child I didn’t steal the chocolate bar, but I did steal the dime, actually it wasn’t a dime it was a Japanese coin that I as a child associated as a dime. The clerk kept trying to tell me he couldn’t take the coin, which I was having difficulty understanding. Then of all the luck Pop made his presence known. I survived, but it is where my fear of pain and trauma came from.

looking at the sunset knowing poetically that the sun will go down, and that the few years left will seem as no more than a day the events of that day seem inconsequential now, Yet it affected many years.

what we decide to do will have long term effects on everyone they need not have even been there. It becomes a mater of semantics. Something that is not really seen as immoral  anymore becomes a matter or ethics, because someone thinks it should be viewed  in some negative light without regard to the present views of society, because, well it is just wrong that it happened or is happening and no one is doing anything to stop it, or even acknowledge it.

with regard to criminality we demand undeniable proofs. Then in the absence of provable guilt we switch to civil law claiming that due process is only due in criminal matters and since civil processes are not criminal processes it s perfectly ethical, since no one would even want to argue that the tactic is also possibly immoral. At the same time they would argue that effecting the economics  of a country to control the population for the sins of the countries fathers is not only ethical but warranted At some point it becomes all economics. Change might eventually  be seen to be morally warranted, but then it becomes a matter of economics. A sudden change of such magnitude might effect the overall economic stability of the area. The fear of God becomes first and foremost in the thoughts of all evolved to be possibly effected. Even those who lack a belief in God will grasp at straws to protect their existing bank accounts. Then there are the gamblers who will gain through even the threat of economic instability. 
 

We live in a world that seems rife with unethical practice. In the meantime Venice is sinking, ice caps are melting we are destroying our planet thru pollution. Killing off whole species.

Sorry didn’t mean to ramble on😊, I’ve had way too much time to think lately. It’s a good question. I wonder though who is guilty? Who has gone free? I know what you think about it, but what is the foundation? Not looking for a tell all of stirred up memories. It’s just that the world seems to be going mad at the moment and I am wondering if I or we have, or have had anything to do with what to me seems crowd mania. Is there a reason.Do we have to have a reason for feeling the way we do?Maybe not , but if reasoning will help then maybe people should talk.

 

Edited November 18, 2019 by jajrussel

[dimreepr]

50 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Isn’t there a possibility of an assumption here that people can not change? Even when a person is caught is processed and punished he or she will face prosecution the rest of their lives. It may not be legal prosecution, but some might see it as ethical prosecution. A thief is a thief is a thief etc...

that’s a different situation... And It doesn’t show why mistermack is wrong...

[jajrussel]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

that’s a different situation... And It doesn’t show why mistermack is wrong...

I’m not trying to show anyone as wrong so apparently , according to your own statement, it’s all good...  was showing mistermac wrong  the point of the OP?

On 10/15/2019 at 10:48 AM, dimreepr said:

Natures "statute of limitations"...

I can not agree with this statement anymore as in I think it is perfectly accurate, but once someone argued against me saying that nature was incapable  of doing anything. So, if memory serves I am a little puzzled , because  I think it was you who made the statement. If I am wrong my apologies in advance. If I am right then we’ll, I am a firm believer that some statutes of limitation should exist for the sake of enlightenment. I either case I agree...

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

was showing mistermac wrong  the point of the OP?

no, why ask?

20 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

I’m not trying to show anyone as wrong so apparently , according to your own statement, it’s all good...

what is?

[jajrussel]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

no, why ask?

what is?

I don’t know... which  is why I asked  the OP? 😂🤣😂... I wasn’t clear?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, jajrussel said:

I don’t know... which  is why I asked  the OP? 😂🤣😂... I wasn’t clear?

you could read the thread... 

[jajrussel]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

you could read the thread... 

Okay... Thank you...

On 10/15/2019 at 2:39 PM, mistermack said:

Delusion, in your case. 😉

I found this ... Is this the post you would like for me to prove wrong? 😇

[jajrussel]

On 10/14/2019 at 12:30 PM, mistermack said:

No, she'd get an equerry to ask him. And he would tell his butler to get it. 

 

What made me think about statutes of limitation, was the case of the Golden State Killer. The numbers are absolutely horrific. 120 plus burglaries, 50 plus rapes, and at least 13 murders dating back to 1974 - 86. They were really sadistic crimes too, with the rapist targeting couples, and forcing the husband to balance crockery on their backs, under threat of death, while he raped the wives. 

He can't be prosecuted for the rapes, they weren't serious enough, so they came under the statute of limitations.

They now have a suspect, and good dna evidence, and he will probably die or stay in jail for ever, for the murders, but it does illustrate the point. If he had never killed anyone, they wouldn't be able to do a thing about the rapes and violent burglaries that he committed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_State_Killer   

Actually if these facts are correct i amin full agreement with mistermack there should  be no statute of limitations. I’m guessing that part of it is opinion assumed on why only the Murders were pursued for conviction perhaps it was because no statute of limitations on murder allowed for no meddling on a defense lawyers part? Just guessing that the lawyer might want to grasp at what ever straw available hoping to convince a jury that if there is no difference in the Severity of the crimes then then maybe at least one juror would feel that the maximum penalty for murder should be less. Then muck up the conviction because opinion twisted by gifted Rhetoric is easily swayed in these times. 
so I would agree that there should be no statute of limitations in any of these crimes and would find it hard to believe that there actually are across the board maybe a few. I would guess that a journalist took artistic liberty to to inflame public opinion. But if true, the laws are in serious need  of review. 
but then consider how long the trail might take and the fact that today it only takes one error made by the prosecution to have the guy turned lose to revisit society again... mistermack is not wrong in having an opinion. 
my opinion is that there is no need to prove every single crime to end a trial if one single conviction has the desired outcome. After all  it is not double jeopardy if each murder is a different case requiring a another trial. I would question the prosecution if they stacked the murders hoping for maximum conviction, when doing so that might run the risk of Double Jeopardy If they screw up and lose everything in a single toss of the dice. I’m guessing that anyone thinking that any commiter of the so called lessor crimes will be sorely disappointed if they think a statute of limitations will be applied to them...

Edited November 18, 2019 by jajrussel
I didn’t agree with the virtual keyboard’s choice of words

[dimreepr]

On 11/18/2019 at 1:47 PM, jajrussel said:

I found this ... Is this the post you would like for me to prove wrong? 😇

I love a strawman...

On 11/18/2019 at 3:59 PM, jajrussel said:

After all  it is not double jeopardy if each murder is a different case requiring a another trial.

how is that different from a statute of limitations?

On 11/18/2019 at 3:59 PM, jajrussel said:

I’m guessing that anyone thinking that any commiter of the so called lessor crimes will be sorely disappointed if they think a statute of limitations will be applied to them...

the point is, a trial costs, so if they think a commiter of lessor crimes, after a statute of law, be on trial they should pay.

On 11/18/2019 at 3:59 PM, jajrussel said:

mistermack is not wrong in having an opinion.

But his opinion is...

 

[jajrussel]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

how is that different from a statute of limitations?

My understanding is that if you stack murder cases and the defendant is found not guilty, then you find evidence that proves the defendant  did in fact do one or more of the murders. The defense attorney will argue double jeopardy should the prosecution pursue trial for the murders they have new evidence for. Is my understanding wrong?

 Now I would like to repeat your question how is that different from a statute of limitations? To me it would seem completely different other than the possible outcome of no retrial On the other hand if my understanding is correct they could legally press for trial of any murder not pursued in the original trial. 
 

Now, i am not sure exactly what a strawman is. 
I’m not sure if it is Innocence, naivety, or that i simply lack the experience one would have to have to know what a straw-man  is so I will have to Google it.   😇

[iNow]

It's a pretty common logical fallacy where you misrepresent the position of someone else then argue against that misrepresentation instead of their actual position. You either don't understand the position of the other person well enough to argue against it or you're intentionally misrepresenting them to claim some sort of victory you didn't earn.

[jajrussel]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

It's a pretty common logical fallacy where you misrepresent the position of someone else then argue against that misrepresentation instead of their actual position. You either don't understand the position of the other person well enough to argue against it or you're intentionally misrepresenting them to claim some sort of victory you didn't earn.

I did google it. 
I admit i do have difficulty understanding what some people mean on occasion but in the case quoted i was simply trying to be humorous when i found the opportunity, because it presented before i found what dimreeper was alluding to. I did take his advice read the whole thread then realized my mistake. Still i was puzzled as to why anyone would think that anyone participating in the thread should have to prove mistermack wrong.  Perhaps I need to read the thread again?

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But his opinion is...

Oh, I found it... 😒

[swansont]

On 11/18/2019 at 10:59 AM, jajrussel said:

  my opinion is that there is no need to prove every single crime to end a trial if one single conviction has the desired outcome. After all  it is not double jeopardy if each murder is a different case requiring a another trial.  

Consider the scenario where someone is accused of mugging another person at gunpoint, and during the crime, they shot and killed the person being mugged.

You have a murder trial — not guilty. That should preclude going back and trying them for manslaughter, or attempted murder, or any of the other lesser charges. Because then they could keep going back and having trial after trial and potentially keeping the person locked up because of how bail is handled.

They could also do this if they brought charges for robbery, and for illegal gun possession, as separate cases. An innocent person could be under the thumb of government prosecution for a really, really long time, and that's inherently unfair and abusive.  

AFAIK the limit of this is for crimes taking place in different jurisdictions. A serial killer who is e.g. accused of 10 murders in 10 different states can face 10 trials.

[jajrussel]

On 11/18/2019 at 8:25 AM, dimreepr said:

you could read the thread... 

Since it may be seen as we have Been quibbling about this post. I want to make it clear that I did not downvote it. I do not down vote posts. 
 

in this case I did upvote it to cancel out the downvote since the post was directed at me, but I have thought about it and will never do it again because Who am I to cancel out someone else’s opinion.

 I see little point in a downvote war, though honestly most people have a lot more to loose than I do, and if someone thinks I’m an ass they should just tell me so along with a reason I don’t need to Google before deciding if I should be offended. I assure that I will never respond with a downvote. I would rather face the wrath of the Moderators to whom I should apologize now since this is somewhat off topic.😇

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Consider the scenario where someone is accused of mugging another person at gunpoint, and during the crime, they shot and killed the person being mugged.

You have a murder trial — not guilty. That should preclude going back and trying them for manslaughter, or attempted murder, or any of the other lesser charges. Because then they could keep going back and having trial after trial and potentially keeping the person locked up because of how bail is handled.

They could also do this if they brought charges for robbery, and for illegal gun possession, as separate cases. An innocent person could be under the thumb of government prosecution for a really, really long time, and that's inherently unfair and abusive.  

AFAIK the limit of this is for crimes taking place in different jurisdictions. A serial killer who is e.g. accused of 10 murders in 10 different states can face 10 trials.

I would hope that a grand jury would serve the purpose of preventing this scenario as presented.

society should have the option of  a separate trial for a separate case ( my opinion)... in the case of serial killing and rape, etc.

Edited November 20, 2019 by jajrussel

[swansont]

2 hours ago, jajrussel said:

 society should have the option of  a separate trial for a separate case ( my opinion)... in the case of serial killing and rape, etc.

But if they happened at the same time it's not fair to the accused to try the cases separately.

[jajrussel]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

But if they happened at the same time it's not fair to the accused to try the cases separately.

You have set the condition as happening at the same time🙂 I realize that when someone walks through a mall with an AK 47 they tend to be popularly labeled serial killers but generally serial killers make their kills over time as did the Serial  killer mentioned in the thread.

 would i be irrational to ask in either case would it be fair to society to put the accused rights before any persons right to go about their daily life without being placed in mortal danger?

 If the accused rights depend on Absolute fairness how do we justify any act of protection done in the name of national security. 
you convict a man of a crime after the fact, but even mere suspicion should be enough to allow prevention yet the accused will always argue that their rights are being violated even after they are caught bloody handed doing murder.