Bill Cosby faces a string of
allegations of sexual assault but cannot be prosecuted in the US because
of the statute of limitations. In the UK there is no time limit in
sexual abuse and other serious cases. What explains this difference?
The
statute of limitations is effectively an expiry date for allegations of
crimes. And that expiry date varies from state to state in the US.
In recent years in the UK, there have been a number of high-profile
prosecutions of historical sexual abuse cases. Entertainer Rolf Harris
was jailed last year for offences that took place between 1968 and 1986.
Broadcaster Stuart Hall was jailed in 2013 for offences between 1967
and 1985. TV weather presenter Fred Talbot was jailed this year for
offences that took place in 1975 and 1976.
Labour peer Lord
Janner is currently facing criminal proceedings relating to 22
allegations of sexual abuse against nine children during the 1960s,
1970s and 1980s.
But in the US the law in most states is typically very different.[...]
Thirty-four states have statutes of limitations
- with time limits from three years to 30 years. Taking the example of
the offence of rape, the three bordering states of Georgia, Florida and
Alabama highlight just how uneven the law can be.
Georgia has a
limit of 15 years. Victims in Florida must bring their case within four
years. But there are no limitations at all across the state border in
Alabama.
Some states do make exemptions if a DNA match is found many years later - although even these can carry time limits.
But even if a perpetrator walks straight into a police station and confesses, there's no guarantee of prosecution.
Bart
Bareither did exactly that in Indiana last year. He confessed to raping
Jenny Wendt nine years earlier. Wendt hadn't reported the crime as she
didn't have DNA evidence to prove it and didn't trust that he'd spend a
day in prison.
And despite Bareither's confession, he won't. Indiana's statute of limitation on rape is just five years.
Since then Wendt has successfully campaigned to change the state's law - now known as "Jenny's Law" - to allow later prosecution if there's DNA evidence or a confession.
Most of Europe also imposes limitations for sexual abuse proceedings.[...]
The fundamental principle of a statute of limitations is to protect the defendants.
The
notion dates as far back as ancient Greece, explains Penney Lewis, a
law professor at King's College London. There are two main reasons
behind it, she says.
One is that there should be some finality,
so that a person can move on with their life without the constant threat
of prosecution hanging over their heads, Lewis says.
The second is about ensuring a fair trial for the defendant, she adds.
"There's
a practical matter - it becomes so much more difficult to prosecute
cases that occurred years and years ago," says Jennifer Temkin, law
professor at City University London. "Memories can fade."
Despite the UK's general lack of statutory limitations on prosecuting
historical sexual abuse cases, many were still dropped before trial,
says criminal barrister Kama Melly. [...]
Isn't their something akin to a statue of limitations in halacha. Where if the defendent escapes beis din after he was convicted but before the punishment was implemented (whether the punishment was lashes/malkos or execution/death) and beis din doesn't get him for a certain period of time, then afterwards they can no longer punish him? I don't recall if this is applicable if he escapes between conviction and punishment or if before conviction?
ReplyDeleteI would feel safer in a judicial system whereby a criminal case can be potentially brought to court regardless of the time that has passed since the crime.
ReplyDeleteA responsible judge can decide on a case-by-case basis whether evidence is reliable, or witness accuracy has been eroded since the alleged crime took place.
To have a blanket ruling that effectively wipes the slate clean after a fixed time limit does not seem in line with a sensible justice system in my view.
I have no idea what the halachic position is, it just feels safer to have people face justice for crimes committed if a court can find a defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Fortunately, our judicial system is not based on your feelings. There is concern for the rights of the accused, which overrides your feelings. In any case, if you want to feel safe, you don't place your life in the hands of judges who follow no rules but those they invent on "a case-to-case basis." That's a recipe for disaster.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/paedophile-jewish-scholar-left-victims-9634593
ReplyDelete“This case goes to show no matter when the offence took place, justice
will eventually catch up with you. We take all sexual crime reports
extremely seriously and victims will be supported by specialist officers
thorough out the investigation. If you have been a victim, please do
not suffer in silence and call police.
@kishkeyum , your sentiments give no thought to victims, only abusers. Some victims carry around with them the effects of abuse for an entire lifetime.
If you want to feel safe, you have to trust a judiciary to issue justice to abusers and criminals, and not give them impunity on an avoidable technicality.