Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
There have been discussions here on the possibility that the statute of limitations for sex crimes will possibly be greatly lengthened or even eliminated. Several states have laws in the works to make it much easier for the "victim" of a crime to accuse and have someone eventually arrested years----maybe decades----after the incident.
Here is a good example why this is a terrible idea if justice is the aim of our criminal justice system.
This guy was convicted in 2012 of a murder which took place in 1957. Fifty five years passed from the time of the murder and the date of his conviction.
Think about that----that was over a half century ago. How in the hell does anyone think that any conviction after that length of time could be reliable??
In looking at the case, all the evidence was so old----and some had been lost and some missing----that nobody really knows what happened. How could they??
Props go to the DA who, unlike most DAs, took steps to see that justice was finally achieved for this unlucky 75 year old man.
" The prosecutor also filed a lengthy report with the court, saying it was his ethical duty to take another look at the case, which was prosecuted by his predecessor, Clay Campbell."
And we have this from the article-----"" Cold cases are particularly difficult to prosecute because evidence is often lost or destroyed, memories fade and witnesses die. And so doubt has lingered over the evidence used to convict McCullough -- and whether it was strong enough. No physical evidence ties him to the crime.""
No physical evidence----not one speck of physical evidence---- yet a man is convicted of a crime which happened over a half a century ago. This case should be a "poster child" for why we need a reasonable statute of limitations on crimes.
Truth, justice, and the American way.
rewdiazepam
Here is a good example why this is a terrible idea if justice is the aim of our criminal justice system.
This guy was convicted in 2012 of a murder which took place in 1957. Fifty five years passed from the time of the murder and the date of his conviction.
Think about that----that was over a half century ago. How in the hell does anyone think that any conviction after that length of time could be reliable??
In looking at the case, all the evidence was so old----and some had been lost and some missing----that nobody really knows what happened. How could they??
Props go to the DA who, unlike most DAs, took steps to see that justice was finally achieved for this unlucky 75 year old man.
" The prosecutor also filed a lengthy report with the court, saying it was his ethical duty to take another look at the case, which was prosecuted by his predecessor, Clay Campbell."
And we have this from the article-----"" Cold cases are particularly difficult to prosecute because evidence is often lost or destroyed, memories fade and witnesses die. And so doubt has lingered over the evidence used to convict McCullough -- and whether it was strong enough. No physical evidence ties him to the crime.""
No physical evidence----not one speck of physical evidence---- yet a man is convicted of a crime which happened over a half a century ago. This case should be a "poster child" for why we need a reasonable statute of limitations on crimes.
Truth, justice, and the American way.
rewdiazepam
http://tinyurl.com/hxzc8mw
rewdiazepam
When 'my significant other" got out of prison, his drivers license had expired and they said there was a hold on it. When he called back to NYstate, the woman said they had transferred all their traffic info to computers and the hold was there for failure to have car insurance 30 years prior. She deleted the hold and he was exonerated...but there was apparently no statute of limitations on those infractions either.
Having said that, when I said "concrete", I meant DNA evidence, NOT the since discredited fiber evidence and bite mark evidence. The law should read "DNA" evidence; if it does not, DAs will start pushing the envelope and start defining "iffy" evidence as physical evidence.
I have seen many convictions overturned on DNA evidence where the only evidence in the original case was hair fiber or bite mark evidence. Of course, prosecutors at the time proclaimed hair or clothing fiber evidence or bite mark evidence as "over 90% reliable" when in fact it was not.
You cannot give these prosecutors any room to fudge. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Specify in the law that the only evidence which can be used in these very old cases is DNA evidence.
rewdiazepam
As we all know most sexual abuse is done in the home, there will not be physical evidence to prove anything at any time. Does that mean that you think no one should be charged unless there is physical evidence?
In some cases, the consensual situation you mention would not be a problem as a lot of sex crimes are where victims have not reached the age of consent anyway. So, in these cases, if there was DNA and the victim was under the AOC, then they could proceed. And in these cases, the state would win and the guy would most likely be convicted.
In old cases----and much of this depends how old the case is----if there is DNA and the defendant says the sex was consensual, then it is up to the DA to prove it was rape.
No, after 20, 30, or 40 years I don't think anyone should be charged unless there is DNA evidence. Here is why----after that length of time, I don't think any conviction without DNA evidence would be reliable. If any conviction is not reliable, why allow the DA to charge the accused?
See, the DAs play this little game. Even if they are not sure if they have enough evidence to convict, some will try to get the case in front of a jury and HOPE they can talk the jury into a conviction------and the sad part is that many times they CAN. They are betting the jury will believe them in closing arguments---without very much evidence----and that the bias against the defendant on trial for a sex crime will garner them a conviction. A lot of sex crime convictions at trial are like that and it is wrong.
Some uneducated jurors are much more likely to believe the police and someone in authority, so they will be swayed even with little evidence. Some jurors take one look at a defendant and think, "He must be guilty of something or he they would not have arrested him."
In my case, my attorney did a good job and there was no physical evidence. Only the word of the child, but I was convicted. A couple of years later my sister confronted one of the jurors and the juror said, "Well, there was really no evidence either way, but we just felt so sorry for the little girl---who was bawling most of the tiem--- and we did not want to take the chance of letting a child molester go free."
Don't ever underestimate the power a prosecutor has over a naive jury or what goes on in a juror's mind.
rewdiazepam