Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why shouldn't they have to report it in a timely manner? Seems like their devastation would be alleviated instead of living with it for several years. It's BS for these women to be coming forward after so many years especially when it ruins the alleged sexual predator's life and career. Not that they don't deserve it if they are actually guilty but it's hard to prove or disprove after so many years. But come on, this is pure nonsense! What happened to the statute of limitations?
Do you really believe this? And you wonder why a majority of women don't support conservatives.
Just ask Ms. Ford. Do you think her devestation has been alleviated now that she's come forward? Or, like a lot of women, is she experiencing death threats, accusations that she's lying, blamed for her own situation, etc. etc.
I can't support a time limit kind of law on reporting a sexual crime. I can support those convicted of filing a false report receive the jail sentence of the individual they tried to harm.
Reporting requirement laws can certainly address those specific situations. As I have stated previously in this thread, the gun reporting law for instance, contains language that the period of reporting starts at the time the owner could reasonably have known, or should have reasonably known , of the theft.
So applying that kind of qualification to a law for sex assault reporting would resolve the example of the unconscious victim that you raised.
Certainly legislators are capable of determining how the law would be implemented in a way that is both fair, and reasonable, and still protects victims, as well as the accused.
It isn't much to ask.
That these things can be levied decades later is clearly unreasonable, and not fair, and not in the interests of justice.
I think most people are probably familiar with this saying from the Civil Rights era:
"Justice delayed, is justice denied."
having a gun stolen is hardly anywhere near equivalent to being raped.
If my gun were stolen I would be angry and frankly a little worried about future legalities. If I were raped I would be emotionally devastated, traumatized, scared ****less, physically traumatized, have feelings of shame, guilt and dread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot
Certainly legislators are capable of determining how the law would be implemented in a way that is both fair, and reasonable, and still protects victims, as well as the accused.
Oh yeah, that will work. Women who are already devastated will have to report it immediately or it doesn't count. What a stupid idea.
While I think the OP's limit of 5 days is ridiculous, they do have a point. Sure a person (man, woman, child) can be traumatized and need to come to grips with what has happened to them. They might also need some counseling from their parents, friends, priest, professional councilor, etc.
That of course takes time and they need to be able to cope with reporting it and everything that will follow.
With that said, the longer a person waits, the less likely evidence and witnesses can be gathered to properly prosecute the person. Additionally, peoples memories fade or morph what actually happened to the point of not being useful in court.
Regardless, there does need to be some means to prevent allegations that are decades old from disrupting a persons life, as there very well can be mis-identification (now more commonly proved with DNA tests).
Plus since society treats rapists, pedophiles and molesters with disgust (rightly so for those who are guilty), being falsely accused of such things can ruin a persons reputation, career and even the rest of their life.
This thread of course is timely because of the Kavanaugh nomination, and the circus it turned into. I have a lot of interest in the scotus and have watched many of the hearings to get an idea of what the judicial philosophy is of the nominee. Most tend to be boring, especially when some of the judges refuse to answer questions, but that became a newer and more commonly used practice During the Ginsburg hearing.
I have watched with dismay how the Democrats have savaged Judge Bork and Judge Thomas. I had hoped (since many of that crop of senators are no longer there) this behavior was a thing of the past, but this hearing started with undignified behavior that was clearly pre planned and organized to disrupt, delay, and destroy this nominee. It was a low point for our "deliberative body" in our government, and sadly EVERY single Democrat has gone along with it.
They do not even pretend to be fair, as they had their minds made up that any Trump nominee will be opposed no matter how qualified they are. Their job is not to oppose a judge based on their judicial philosophy (i.e. ideology), but to advice and consent if the judge will be faithful to our constitutional principles.
The irony of course is that the Republicans are more likely to vote for a (D) potus nominee regardless of whether they will be an activist or not. They knew Ginsburg would be a liberal activist, yet the vote was 93-6 in her favor.
Why?
Simple, because she was qualified, and she refused to answer questions about most things that were asked of her.
The American public, at least those who watched and care about how their government functions, were given a spectacle that should open their eyes to what the modern day Democrats have become. These were not kooky House members that can get elected from small districts, and by extension be unhinged examples of a small district. Instead these are US Senators who represent their entire state.
So they are expected to be more dignified, experienced, mature, etc.
Instead, they (and their radical freaks in the audience) behaved worse than I have ever seen in previous
hearings, and hopefully have altered voters to how far they are willing to go beyond what decency calls for.
But age has to factor into this...for children under 18 there needs to be given more time and opportunity.
For adults though, I'd agree...something like 3 months should be the requirement for "penetration" cases and 30 days for "forcible touching" accusations.
To protect the accused, there is no way that a "forcible touching" accusation be allowed to be prosecuted 35 years after the alleged event.
But age has to factor into this...for children under 18 there needs to be given more time and opportunity.
For adults though, I'd agree...something like 3 months should be the requirement for "penetration" cases and 30 days for "forcible touching" accusations.
To protect the accused, there is no way that a "forcible touching" accusation be allowed to be prosecuted 35 years after the alleged event.
Has there been a case of forcible touching that has been prosecuted 35 years later?
Why shouldn't they have to report it in a timely manner? Seems like their devastation would be alleviated instead of living with it for several years.
What are you talking about? Going to the police doesn't,change what happened. It is still a horrible event that they have to live with for the rest of their life. It doesn't go away because the police are involved, and it doesn't just go away for several years.
This 76 year old woman was sexually assualted in the second grade, so was 7-8 years old. Does it sound like her pain and devastation was alleviated after only "several years"? It is pain that she still lives with almost 70 years later, and will continue to live with for the rest of her life.
Listen to sone of the other women who called into C-SPAN yesterday.
It's BS for these women to be coming forward after so many years especially when it ruins the alleged sexual predator's life and career.
Don't want your life and career ruined? Don't assault people.
[quote ]Not that they don't deserve it if they are actually guilty but it's hard to prove or disprove after so many years. [/quote]
It's hard to prove even after 5 minutes. Rape is hard to prove anytime, as it's all a he said/she said. She says she is raped, he says it was consensual. There usually are not witnesses to say otherwise. Yes a rape kit can be done, but what does that prove? Unless it was extremely violent, and the woman was hurt... So for rape to be easier to prove, not only does the person have to be sexually assaulted, but physically assualted as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
