Posted on 09/22/2007 5:02:37 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
I like it when the bad guys get caught.
Me too but what purpose is there to a statute of limitations if the statute is so easily circumvented?
As do I.....I do not think there should be a statute of limitations on violent crimes such as rape....
Anybody know what the purpose of a statue of limitations is?
I agree. The guy is a scumbag, but I think he has a pretty valid argument that the statute of limitations bars the prosecution of this crime, especially if it applies to cases prior to an enactment of the new law.
Yeah, doesn't everyone?
Thank God science and the people who administer it are flawless.
They are flawless, aren't they? And unbiased?
Why is it ever any surprise that people like this go on to commit other (and usually worse) crimes?
I’m completely against invading the privacy of Law Abiding Citizens, but am I wrong to see nothing but good in basically “tagging” criminals in hopes of making them pay in the future for all past crimes as well?
I’m glad this woman finally got justice, but this kind of rubs me the wrong way...DNA is not infallible, which any lawyer worth his salt could prove...and I sure wouldn’t want to be accused of a crime over BOGUS DNA evidence! (The Duke LaCrosse/Nifong case comes immediately to mind.)
If they’re taking it all of one cloth, say the perp already has other similar crimes and is bad enough to be in the system in the first place...but what if Mother Government decides that tagging us all (say due to a drunk and disorderly arrest or for a traffic ticket) is “for the better good?”
Kinda torn on this one, as I am on a lot of issues of this sort.
See my Post #8. Within minutes, LOL!
If she had a gun, it would have only been attempted rape, and they would have had the perp seven years ago.
The Duke case is different than this one. In the Duke case, the prosecution hid the fact that there was DNA from 3-4 men not associated with the LAX team in the underwear of the ‘victim’.
Aside from that, I agree with most of your post.
Correction. 13 years ago.
You mean like this?
UK judge says all citizens and visitors should have samples in DNA database
slopes can be slippery
The potential for abuse is astonishing. And it's the sort of thing no one will care about until it happens to them. And by the time enough people have experienced it...
This wiki article probably covers it. Look at the second section, Rationale.
Imagine if you were accused of a crime and the people who could alibi you were now dead or had no recollection of the time in question.
My understanding is that there is a limit to how long you can expect to have accurate eye witness testimony. The more time passes, the less able to find witnesses for prosecution or defense, the less likely it is for the accused to have any possibility to defend themselves, and the more likely for some innocent person to get railroaded.
Now that we have the technology, or appear to have, to store accurate evidence that theoretically identifies a single individual, the statute of limitations does not mean the same thing exactly.
And, there would be no need for a black box that says your guilty after the fact.
Founders-spinning-in-their-graves alert.
I think the only people who love liberty enough to sacrifice for it any more are 1st generation immigrants.
My guess would be that the woman who got raped (and all the future women who would get raped by this guy) don’t give a damn about all the soul searching over legal niceties.
Finally, that lady will get justice.
Also many crimes have the sentencing greatly increased or changed from state to federal statues.
A guy gets convicted of a crime he commits in 1985 from DNA evidence in 2007, do you sentence him under 1985 guidelines or new much tougher guidelines?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.