Biden signs bill ending the statue of limitations for child sex abuse crimes

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

LINK

Dark Brandon has signed the Protecting Children From Matt Gaetz Act of 2022 into law.

[Crumpets]

Does this impact cases retroactively or only going forward? If the former, I'd imagine there's a huge number of high-profile cases already in the pipeline.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Sounds like a great idea

[Schiff for Senate]

Good. Obviously, there may be stigma and that people are worried/fearful/uncomfortable discussing being sexually abused as a child, and perverts who perform these sick acts should not be allowed to exploit those to get away scot-free. Whenever victims of child sexual abuse want to open up about it, they should be allowed to do it, and the monster who assaulted them should face the same severe punishment (the death penalty?). Better late than never in this case, and it's never *too* late.

[Joe Republic]

Sucks to be the Catholic Church right now.


Edit: probably should have picked better phrasing than "sucks" here but oh well

[TDAS04]

But…but…someone told me Democrats were soft on crime and promoted pedophilia.

[TPIG]

Fantastic move.

[DaleCooper]

So what's the consensus here? Is it that the statute of limitations is bad in general? Or are we only getting rid of it if the accusation is heinous. If it's the former, then why not end it entirely? And if it's the latter, then I don't like the idea of taking away the rights of defendants based on how severe the accusation is.

[emailking]

So what's the consensus here? Is it that the statute of limitations is bad in general? Or are we only getting rid of it if the accusation is heinous. If it's the former, then why not end it entirely? And if it's the latter, then I don't like the idea of taking away the rights of defendants based on how severe the accusation is.

Maybe a factor is that child sex abuse victims sometimes take a long time to come forward, and knowing this may play into the criminals' decision. So it's not necessarily a matter of the government not getting its act together.

[SWE]

So what's the consensus here? Is it that the statute of limitations is bad in general? Or are we only getting rid of it if the accusation is heinous. If it's the former, then why not end it entirely? And if it's the latter, then I don't like the idea of taking away the rights of defendants based on how severe the accusation is.

I'm in the same boat where I'm not a fan of eliminating the statute of limitations in general, but it does make sense in cases of child sex crimes not just because of the severity, but because it's very common to take a very long time to catch a pedo because the victim doesn't come forward until they're an adult, for a variety of reasons.

Also this is for civil actions, not the crime, so the stakes aren't quite as high. This is to allow victims to get compensation, not to punish criminals

[DaleCooper]

So what's the consensus here? Is it that the statute of limitations is bad in general? Or are we only getting rid of it if the accusation is heinous. If it's the former, then why not end it entirely? And if it's the latter, then I don't like the idea of taking away the rights of defendants based on how severe the accusation is.

I'm in the same boat where I'm not a fan of eliminating the statute of limitations in general, but it does make sense in cases of child sex crimes not just because of the severity, but because it's very common to take a very long time to catch a pedo because the victim doesn't come forward until they're an adult, for a variety of reasons.

Also this is for civil actions, not the crime, so the stakes aren't quite as high. This is to allow victims to get compensation, not to punish criminals

I definitely get what you're saying, and I'm in favor of this for civil cases, but I generally worry about how eager people are to see certain rights get taken away just to see the bad guys held accountable.

[Schiff for Senate]

So what's the consensus here? Is it that the statute of limitations is bad in general? Or are we only getting rid of it if the accusation is heinous. If it's the former, then why not end it entirely? And if it's the latter, then I don't like the idea of taking away the rights of defendants based on how severe the accusation is.

We’re getting rid of it for crimes that leave their victims with obvious emotional scars and trauma, and surrounded by a stigma, which may result in them - very understandably - not being willing to talk about it until after the statute of limitations has run. I don’t support child sex abusers getting away scot free and their victims not getting their day of justice in court, because victims didn’t feel comfortable talking about it earlier. A statute of limitations can make sense most of the time, but in this case, it allows child sex abusers to get away with their crimes if they sufficiently traumatise/intimidate their victims into not opening up soon enough. If someone who’s sexually abused as a child is even willing to open up and speak openly about it, that’s progress. That’s good. And that should be enough for the sex abuser to face a jury for their crimes.

[Schiff for Senate]

So what's the consensus here? Is it that the statute of limitations is bad in general? Or are we only getting rid of it if the accusation is heinous. If it's the former, then why not end it entirely? And if it's the latter, then I don't like the idea of taking away the rights of defendants based on how severe the accusation is.

I'm in the same boat where I'm not a fan of eliminating the statute of limitations in general, but it does make sense in cases of child sex crimes not just because of the severity, but because it's very common to take a very long time to catch a pedo because the victim doesn't come forward until they're an adult, for a variety of reasons.

Also this is for civil actions, not the crime, so the stakes aren't quite as high. This is to allow victims to get compensation, not to punish criminals

I definitely get what you're saying, and I'm in favor of this for civil cases, but I generally worry about how eager people are to see certain rights get taken away just to see the bad guys held accountable.

I would too, but in this case, this is an A+ move. People don’t have the right to sexually abuse a child, then scare and traumatise them that they don’t step forward until it’s too late. It should NEVER be too late for those who have been sexually abused as children, who have gone through trauma and considered the stigma and felt the fear, to say what happened, and for the people who sexually abused them and traumatise them to face justice. For most other cases, I might not think this way, but there’s very obviously trauma, fear and stigma for those sexually abused as children, moreso than for victims of just about any other crime, so it’s very reasonable to treat this differently and make an exception for it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Great Move by Biden and we should go further and give these monsters the death penalty .

[Schiff for Senate]

Great Move by Biden and we should go further and give these monsters the death penalty .

Once it’s ascertained without a doubt that they’re guilty - absolutely. The death penalty was made precisely for sickos like these.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

Great Move by Biden and we should go further and give these monsters the death penalty .

Ugh, I can't fathom why anyone would support the death penalty. It literally costs more to administer the death penalty than it does to incarcerate them for life. 3%-5% of people on death row have been innocent!!! People getting executed and then being posthumously exonerated after new evidence proves they did not commit the crime is not something that happens rarely. It has happened a lot throughout American history.

[It’s so Joever]

If we are going to do death penalty it should be public.

[Hollywood]

So what's the consensus here? Is it that the statute of limitations is bad in general? Or are we only getting rid of it if the accusation is heinous. If it's the former, then why not end it entirely? And if it's the latter, then I don't like the idea of taking away the rights of defendants based on how severe the accusation is.

I'm in the same boat where I'm not a fan of eliminating the statute of limitations in general, but it does make sense in cases of child sex crimes not just because of the severity, but because it's very common to take a very long time to catch a pedo because the victim doesn't come forward until they're an adult, for a variety of reasons.

Also this is for civil actions, not the crime, so the stakes aren't quite as high. This is to allow victims to get compensation, not to punish criminals

Completely eliminating the Statute of Limitations (SOLs) for all Civil Cases of child abuse, or any claim, is absurd, particularly when the defendant is an Institution (public school, Disney World, or social media) that is alleged to have  acted negligently or recklessly for not preventing the actions of an employee or supervisor that occurs 20, 30, 40, or 50 years after the event.  The Defendant-Institution really doesn't have any way of defending themselves against a complaint that will most likely rely solely on the repressed memory of a good faith, or seemingly credible, plaintiff/witness, that can't be countered by physical evidence that was lost in time, and defense witnesses with faded memories, or may be deceased.  The new law seems to have created a serious imbalance between the defendants that will have to fend off negligence claims that have grown stale, and the victims that can now file suits against unsuspecting third parties with deep pockets that may have had very little culpability (employer not acting on a single complaint cause it couldn't be verified or tech company couldn't detect child pornography that was embedded within encrypted messages or code).  Frankly, the legislation won't have any meaningful impact when it comes to providing justice to victims, because 1) Federal and State Attorneys are not prosecuting cases, which is substantially worse due to Democrat AGs and criminal justice policies (Without Criminal Conviction that can be presented as evidence in Civil Court due to the higher burden of proof, the case becomes more difficult); 2) Trafficking, illegal pornography and abuse is clearly a systemic problem that implicates politicians, professionals, civil servants, and businessmen that have an interest in handcuffing investigations, prosecutions, and meaningful policy changes; and 3) the failure to identify, expose, and eliminate these powerful participants within these criminal conspiracies, and those that provide aid such as the mainstream media, facilitates the intimidation of the victims, investigators, prosecutors, and government officials that wish to root out child abuse and human trafficking. 

Moreover, there is already a Common Law Exception allowing child abuse victims to file a Civil Lawsuit that circumvents the SOL called the ‘Delayed Discovery Rule’, which can be applied against the intentional tortfeasor (or complicit and negligent institution) when the victim recalls a traumatic memory that causes or caused psychological or physical injury.  Usually, the negligence claim against Institutions such as public schools, camps, and child services will provide more compelling rationales for a court to apply the Delayed Discovery exception, because those institutions have higher fiduciary duties as they are essentially guardians in loco parentis.  From my years practicing law, I've found that the Delayed Discovery Rule provides balance in the trial court by protecting the defendants rights, in addition to providing an avenue for victims to litigate their claims decades after the incident.  The cases that get tossed out of trial court, or overruled by the appellate, tend to be ones where the fact pattern demonstrates that the memory and injury was no longer repressed, and/or the victim had already came forward, but did not pursue the claim until the SOL had passed.  In fact, there are many instances where the plaintiff has already testified in criminal court, and decided not to pursue civil litigation due to the defendant's lack of finances.  In one case, the plaintiff tried to sue the parents that were volunteers at the camp where the incident happened, the camp as a business, and employees, etc. 

The real problem for victims of child abuse, trafficking, and pornography is the powerful and affluent politicians, civil servants, professionals, and Corporate Executives that are connected to human trafficking of women and children, or have sexually engaged, whether knowingly or unknowingly, with sex workers/slaves that are victimized by the illegal trade.  While it wouldn't be fair for me to point the finger at Biden, Obama, and Bush, the federal, state, and private investigators in my circle claim that their investigations were hamstrung until the Trump administration made it a priority.  The number of arrests from task force operations totaled 13,000 from these operations, which spilled over into the first year of Biden's Administration (Ohio and Florida Arrests).  Epstein was finally brought down after trading humans for several decades, operations with hundreds and thousands of perpetrators were scooped up, thousands of victims were saved, and, disturbingly, thousands of world and national figures were outed, and, shockingly, the media was trying to quash the stories. It makes the Catholic Church story look like peanuts. 

[Schiff for Senate]

If we are going to do death penalty it should be public.

No. You're sounding like Cody. We are past "public hangings" or "stonings." It's barbaric, disgusting bloodlust, that solves nothing, except perhaps encouraging further violence.

Great Move by Biden and we should go further and give these monsters the death penalty .

Ugh, I can't fathom why anyone would support the death penalty. It literally costs more to administer the death penalty than it does to incarcerate them for life. 3%-5% of people on death row have been innocent!!! People getting executed and then being posthumously exonerated after new evidence proves they did not commit the crime is not something that happens rarely. It has happened a lot throughout American history.

I absolutely agree nobody innocent should be executed. Which is why, if and only if it can be proven without a doubt that they're guilty - not even a shred of a shadow a doubt - then they should be executed. If there's a chance they're innocent, leave them in jail for life.

Although, I suppose, your point still stands. How much evidence is "without a doubt?" Can we really be as sure as we need to be that the person is guilty? Can we ever be THAT sure, that there is no doubt about guilt whatsoever, that there's a zero percent chance they're innocent? And if it is a nonzero chance, then that person could be innocent, and not just government kills innocent citizens for crimes they did not commit. And if it's more expensive to administer, too...then it's more cost-efficient and more just - and reversible - to just throw them in prison (with no outside visits, no chance at parole or bail or whatever, minimal food and water) for life, and if they're revealed to be innocent...then free them, then.

Your two points - cost, and absolute certainty of guilt - are the two major arguments against the death penalty. I myself have a conflicted opinion, though since joining this forum, I've become much more sympathetic towards arguments in favour of banning the death penalty. Still don't think it should be abolished, but it should be used minimally. There are, IMO, some instances of monsters who commit terrible acts, where there is no doubt of guilt, and then they should be executed, cost be damned, because they do not deserve to live when their victims didn't get to. I'm thinking of the perpetrators of mass shootings - the ones in Uvalde and Buffalo and that Ethan Crumbly kid in Oxford, MI - where it's clear that THEY are the ones who committed the crime and killed lots of innocent people. Then, IMO, the death penalty should be used. Because there is no doubt of guilt whatsoever.

But in child sexual abuses cases, I suppose it can be much trickier to ascertain guilt beyond any doubt (not just *reasonable* doubt, but really ANY doubt - if there's no reasonable doubt, but there is still some doubt, then I suppose life in jail until/unless proven innocent is the way to go).

EDIT: in hindsight, most mass shooters kill themselves, so the death penalty isn’t necessary.

[jojoju1998]

Sucks to be the Catholic Church right now.


Edit: probably should have picked better phrasing than "sucks" here but oh well

The Catholic Church deserves the nitpicking.

That being said; at least in the US; any new priest or seminarian undergoes psycholgical testing, background checks.

[emailking]

I absolutely agree nobody innocent should be executed. Which is why, if and only if it can be proven without a doubt that they're guilty - not even a shred of a shadow a doubt - then they should be executed. If there's a chance they're innocent, leave them in jail for life.

Although, I suppose, your point still stands. How much evidence is "without a doubt?" Can we really be as sure as we need to be that the person is guilty? Can we ever be THAT sure, that there is no doubt about guilt whatsoever, that there's a zero percent chance they're innocent? And if it is a nonzero chance, then that person could be innocent, and not just government kills innocent citizens for crimes they did not commit. And if it's more expensive to administer, too...then it's more cost-efficient and more just - and reversible - to just throw them in prison (with no outside visits, no chance at parole or bail or whatever, minimal food and water) for life, and if they're revealed to be innocent...then free them, then.

It's all subjective so there can never be 0% certainty. Even if you had 0 doubt, somebody else might.

There's DNA on the victim's clothes? Well it was planted.

The defendant admitted to it? Well s/he was coerced.

The assault was actually recorded? Well it's just a deep fake.

I don't think there can ever be 0 uncertainty.

[Schiff for Senate]

I absolutely agree nobody innocent should be executed. Which is why, if and only if it can be proven without a doubt that they're guilty - not even a shred of a shadow a doubt - then they should be executed. If there's a chance they're innocent, leave them in jail for life.

Although, I suppose, your point still stands. How much evidence is "without a doubt?" Can we really be as sure as we need to be that the person is guilty? Can we ever be THAT sure, that there is no doubt about guilt whatsoever, that there's a zero percent chance they're innocent? And if it is a nonzero chance, then that person could be innocent, and not just government kills innocent citizens for crimes they did not commit. And if it's more expensive to administer, too...then it's more cost-efficient and more just - and reversible - to just throw them in prison (with no outside visits, no chance at parole or bail or whatever, minimal food and water) for life, and if they're revealed to be innocent...then free them, then.

It's all subjective so there can never be 0% certainty. Even if you had 0 doubt, somebody else might.

There's DNA on the victim's clothes? Well it was planted.

The defendant admitted to it? Well s/he was coerced.

The assault was actually recorded? Well it's just a deep fake.

I don't think there can ever be 0 uncertainty.

True, but for those who commit mass-shootings, there's zero doubt - is there?

[jamestroll]

hahaha a certain former user is probably very angry at Joe Biden right now.

[emailking]

I absolutely agree nobody innocent should be executed. Which is why, if and only if it can be proven without a doubt that they're guilty - not even a shred of a shadow a doubt - then they should be executed. If there's a chance they're innocent, leave them in jail for life.

Although, I suppose, your point still stands. How much evidence is "without a doubt?" Can we really be as sure as we need to be that the person is guilty? Can we ever be THAT sure, that there is no doubt about guilt whatsoever, that there's a zero percent chance they're innocent? And if it is a nonzero chance, then that person could be innocent, and not just government kills innocent citizens for crimes they did not commit. And if it's more expensive to administer, too...then it's more cost-efficient and more just - and reversible - to just throw them in prison (with no outside visits, no chance at parole or bail or whatever, minimal food and water) for life, and if they're revealed to be innocent...then free them, then.

It's all subjective so there can never be 0% certainty. Even if you had 0 doubt, somebody else might.

There's DNA on the victim's clothes? Well it was planted.

The defendant admitted to it? Well s/he was coerced.

The assault was actually recorded? Well it's just a deep fake.

I don't think there can ever be 0 uncertainty.

True, but for those who commit mass-shootings, there's zero doubt - is there?

No it's a secret identical twin and they switched places in the bathroom. I'm sure I'd convict in all these cases but if you asked me to assess a standard of zero doubt, something I don't think can even be realized in principle, I'd vote no.

[Schiff for Senate]

I absolutely agree nobody innocent should be executed. Which is why, if and only if it can be proven without a doubt that they're guilty - not even a shred of a shadow a doubt - then they should be executed. If there's a chance they're innocent, leave them in jail for life.

Although, I suppose, your point still stands. How much evidence is "without a doubt?" Can we really be as sure as we need to be that the person is guilty? Can we ever be THAT sure, that there is no doubt about guilt whatsoever, that there's a zero percent chance they're innocent? And if it is a nonzero chance, then that person could be innocent, and not just government kills innocent citizens for crimes they did not commit. And if it's more expensive to administer, too...then it's more cost-efficient and more just - and reversible - to just throw them in prison (with no outside visits, no chance at parole or bail or whatever, minimal food and water) for life, and if they're revealed to be innocent...then free them, then.

It's all subjective so there can never be 0% certainty. Even if you had 0 doubt, somebody else might.

There's DNA on the victim's clothes? Well it was planted.

The defendant admitted to it? Well s/he was coerced.

The assault was actually recorded? Well it's just a deep fake.

I don't think there can ever be 0 uncertainty.

True, but for those who commit mass-shootings, there's zero doubt - is there?

No it's a secret identical twin and they switched places in the bathroom. I'm sure I'd convict in all these cases but if you asked me to assess a standard of zero doubt, something I don't think can even be realized in principle, I'd vote no.

A very valid point.