Skip to comments.
Hundreds of molest cases face review after Supreme Court ruling; two molestation defendants freed
Associated Press ^
| 06-30-03
Posted on 06/30/2003 7:02:16 PM PDT by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:42:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
California judges ordered two molestation defendants freed Monday as authorities sought to determine how many cases may be voided by the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of a law that allowed prosecution of decades-old sex abuse allegations.
The ruling was denounced by people who have accused priests of crimes, while prosecutors emphasized that the fallout from the high court's decision will extend far beyond the high-profile clergy sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Roman Catholic church.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: expostfacto; released; scotus; scotuslist; statuteoflimitations
1
posted on
06/30/2003 7:02:17 PM PDT
by
Brian S
To: Brian S
Looks like we need longer statutes of limitations. Write your congressman and/or your state legislator.
2
posted on
06/30/2003 7:04:46 PM PDT
by
squidly
To: Brian S
Looks like we need longer statutes of limitations. Write your congressman and/or your state legislator.
3
posted on
06/30/2003 7:04:47 PM PDT
by
squidly
To: Brian S
Throwing people in jail based on someone's 30 year-old "recovered memory" just isn't a good idea.
4
posted on
06/30/2003 7:05:01 PM PDT
by
ambrose
To: ambrose
After all the abuse we saw in those day care cases, I have to agree.
Incidently, Janet Reno made her name prosecuting bogus, day-care, child molestation cases.
5
posted on
06/30/2003 7:09:14 PM PDT
by
dead
To: squidly
I agree we need longer statute of limitations.
To: dead
Shouldn't there be a special place in hell reserved for lawyers who prosecute in such bogus cases?
7
posted on
06/30/2003 7:14:38 PM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Lurking since 2000.)
To: Brian S
I read somewhere on freerepublic that one guy affected by this ruling was 72 and prosecuted for a crime he did 50 years ago.
8
posted on
06/30/2003 7:18:20 PM PDT
by
microgood
(They will all die......most of them.)
To: Brian S
There are reasons for statutes of limitations, although sometimes there may be reasons to revise them. But the main point is that it's against the most basic principles of justice to revise a law retroactively. That's what the Florida Supreme Court tried to do in the Gore chad case.
9
posted on
06/30/2003 7:39:20 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Cicero
The Supreme Court once ruled the Clintonista tax increase elements that were retroactive were OK.
10
posted on
06/30/2003 7:49:35 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: Brian S
Decision came out the same day as
Lawrence. Makes you wonder.
You also have to wonder how many homosexual molestation cases there are out there like Limon, where the perps would now be free if they had been guilty of heterosexual molestation.
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
Comment #15 Removed by Moderator
Anybody know what the statute of limitations is for CA?
I would hope at least 10 years. If you have a child that was molested at 5, it isn't unheard of that they don't get over the fear/quilt of telling until they are in their teens...or later.
16
posted on
07/01/2003 7:39:30 AM PDT
by
Brian S
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson