https://nypost.com/2024/05/05/us-news/nyc-pol-says-law-allowing-rape-suit-against-him-was-unconstitutional-even-though-he-voted-for-the-legislation/
Apparently Kevin Parker, who worked to pass the law that allowed E Jean Carrol to sue Trump despite the fact that she was beyond he statute of limitations, has changed his mind about this law after it being used against him. It'll be interesting to see how the NY courts handle this wrinkle.
8 comments:
How typical of the modern progressive! I can just imagine if he had a blog and altered rules every time he thought he would benefit, but he'd never apply the altered rules to himself or his allies. Can you imagine such a thing?
I have to say that I believe it is sad that there is a statute of limitations on vile crimes like rape, but it's incumbent upon victims to steel themselves to level charges against their attackers ASAP. I've no doubt it's hard and a great emotion burden...assuming an actual rape took place...but we can't have these things cropping up years later and expect that they can be better prosecuted than it can when the victims step up as soon as they are free to do so. Given the likelihood of their attacker assaulting another if allowed to avoid prosecution, the service to their sisters makes it worth it. Indeed, any additional assaults on others are because they said nothing.
I'm fine with a statute of limitations for any crime. At some point, it becomes difficult to impossible to prosecute the crime after the passage of time. It's likely that very few rapists only commit one rape, and will probably end up convicted no matter what.
In this case, this law was designed solely to target Trump and it serves this idiot right that it's being used against him.
It seems as though they'll have to convict him otherwise it opens up an avenue of appeal for Trump.
"I'm fine with a statute of limitations for any crime."
Not murder, I hope. Difficult shouldn't matter. That's what cold case investigations determine. But they have their successes, too.
As regards rape, I simply prefer that victims steel themselves...hopefully with massive support from all avenues...to do what's necessary to make a conviction happen as soon as possible becaus we know there's a high probability of repeat offenses.
Murder might be the one exception. Thing's will likely change as technology improves and evidence storage becomes better as well.
That's certainly your preference. I'd prefer that women carried and just shot their rapists.
Neither of those preferences is reality and therefore kind of pointless speculation.
I prefer self-protection methods as well, but that's a separate issue. I merely spoke of what a woman does who is victimized. It's really the case for any victim of any crime. Some years ago, one of my daughters was a victim of some dude who tried to steal her purse. He failed, but was arrested. A neighbor saw it go down, and my girl chose to testify against the kid. The kid's lawyer tried to shake her up in court, she was firm about the exact words she used to express herself, denied how the lawyer tried to twist it and the kid was convicted. I think they got the kid to give up the older dude with whom he was working, though I can't say I'm recalling that part correctly. I know there was an older dude, though. In any case, the arresting cop gave my girl props for being willing to testify in the first place, and then being firm in her testimony. It wasn't a rape, but it illustrates my point...and yours, too, actually as she fought the kid off...wasn't going to be a victim.
Yeah, I think it gets to the point where the victim's memories and the evidence deteriorate to the point that it becomes almost impossible to give the accused a fair trial. Especially if witnesses are unavailable to testify.
Indeed. And this does not suggest the accused isn't guilty as hell. But given how many rape allegations are hoaxes, attempting to charge after so many years have passed is even more egregious. It wouldn't matter to me if the accused was truly guilty. That is, I don't care if one guy raped one defenseless woman fifty years ago. He's deserving of punishment. But the statute of limitations isn't to protect him, but those wrongly accused.
The statute of limitations is designed to protect anyone from being charged with a crime that cannot be proven in court. Obviously if someone committed a crime, they should be punished. Yet they should also be afforded the constitutional protections built into our system. Unlike the Dan's of the world, we should look at evidence presented in court, not blindly believe an accuser solely based on their sex.
Post a Comment