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

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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. 

"Repressed memories" are not reliable and may just be power of suggestion.  On the other hand not feeling able to speak about an event because of the trauma can be a real problem someone who has been abused may face.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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. 

"Repressed memories" are not reliable and may just be power of suggestion.  On the other hand not feeling able to speak about an event because of the trauma can be a real problem someone who has been abused may face.

Yeah, my understanding is that repressed memories of abuse are generally not credible, but very deep trauma that lasts well into adulthood is.

[Badger]

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.

We need to cut back capital punishment, not expand it, even for child molesters IMO. The SCOTUS  ruled about 40+ years ago that capital punishment should be limited to murder, and I personally have this court (or any court) revisit this.

[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.

We need to cut back capital punishment, not expand it, even for child molesters IMO. The SCOTUS  ruled about 40+ years ago that capital punishment should be limited to murder, and I personally have this court (or any court) revisit this.

Well, if that sort of thing came up in the current SCOTUS, it might be...interesting. The 3 liberals would definitely be yeas, and ACB, too, probably, since IIRC she's against the death penalty. Then just one more conservative vote (Roberts?) would be needed.