Should there be statutes of limitations? *Update*

i.e. a specified time limit, after the alleged commission of a crime, during which the accuser(s) must file a claim against the accuser, beyond which time period legal proceedings can no longer commence?

I’m not completely sure what I think, but I lean strongly towards believing they ought to exist.

On the one hand, we as Christians do believe that morality is absolute, that some things are right and some things are wrong, and that crimes ought to be punished by earthly magistrates, period; that such is a big part of what governments are for.

But… I am equally convinced that justice ought to occur in a timely manner, and that if a party is wronged, they ought to act quickly upon it, so that justice can be done sooner, and prevent the delay of administering such justice; and that legislation that has the effect of encouraging action to be taken at an earlier date is wise and prudent. If someone is truly victimized, seeing those who victimized them brought to justice earlier, rather than later, is surely better for victims, waiting until a future date. Why would one want to wait, anyway?

I am also concerned, with the higher rates of false accusations of sexual assault men face these days compared to in yesteryear, of a greater opportunity for injustice to occur, in terms of false accusations, precisely because of a lack of statutes of limitations on such, and here’s why I have such fears: there is usually less evidence as time goes on. Physical scars can and may heal; DNA evidence can deteriorate with time, etc. And so I’m convinced that with the physical evidence decaying, that, as with ‘human rights tribunals’ (i.e. inhuman wrongs kangaroo courts), in which the tradition of English common law (‘innocent until proven guilty’) is more or less overturned in favour of a French civil law type scenario (‘guilty until proven innocent’), where one has to try to prove that one is not ‘racist’, ‘prejudiced’, etc., that more weight may be given to simply the accusations themselves, and less to any possible evidence for them, and thus the defendant may be less well able to defend himself, in such a climate.

Some jurisdictions will punish abused mothers who stay with men who abuse both them and their children, reasoning that while a woman in an abusive relationship may have a choice to stay in the relationship with the abuser, as a mother she has a higher duty to protect her children from harm, and that insofar as she fails in that regard, while she may be a victim of domestic abuse herself she is nevertheless an accessory to the abuse they suffer, because she fails to protect them from it, even though she could, by leaving the abuser.

I think this is fair, and similarly, I think that encouraging crime victims to believe that they are not merely victims but remain moral agents, with moral obligations to pursue justice sooner rather than later, is also fair – and probably fairer both for them and those they accuse than putting it off till many years later.

*Update: from deti, in the comments:

This is relevant:  California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown just signed a bill to end the statute of limitations for rape in that state.   That means a prosecution for rape or sexual assault may be brought at any time.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/california-eyeing-cosby-ends-statute-of-limitations-for-rape/ar-BBwKSdu?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

Relevant indeed, bro!

 

Laptops in police cruisers: why?

I’m not ordinarily in the habit of looking inside police cruisers, but as I was waiting to cross the street at an intersection, one pulled up in front of me at the corner, front windows down, and I noticed a laptop computer mounted in the centre of the console, next to the steering wheel, facing the driver seat. I thought, “Interesting; they will stop and fine someone they catch texting while driving (and rightly so, IMO), but that’s okay? What do they need to look up so quickly that they can’t radio someone back at Dispatch look up for them, instead?”

And wouldn’t that be faster anyway, not needing to pull over to do it themselves?

Just wondering.

 

Most bestiality is legal, declares Canada’s Supreme Court

Incredible.

Sex acts with animals are legal in Canada, so long as there is no penetration involved, according to a surprise ruling issued by the Supreme Court.

The determination stemmed from a case involving a British Columbia man convicted of 13 counts sexually assaulting his stepdaughters – including one count of bestiality. But the man, identified only as “DLW”, was acquitted of the bestiality count with the new ruling.

DLW’s attorneys argued that bestiality linked to “buggery” – or sodomy – with animals beginning with an 1892 criminal code. Bestiality was first used in a 1955 code, but still was not defined to encompass every sex act with animals.

“Although bestiality was often subsumed in terms such as sodomy or buggery, penetration was the essence – ‘the defining act’ – of the offence,” the court said.

Thus, the court ruled by a 7–1 majority that bestiality required penetration.

“There is no hint in any of the parliamentary record that any substantive change to the elements of the offence of bestiality was intended,” the ruling reads.

According to court record DLW smeared peanut butter on the genitals of his victims and had the family dog lick it off while he videotaped the act.

Let’s hope and pray that Parliament passes a law closing this legal loophole.

 

Russian writer says war dead should have vote

G.K. Chesterton noted how tradition acts as a ‘democracy of the dead’ (Orthodoxy, Chapter 4, “The Ethics of Elfland.”):

Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.

Seems some Russian writer has taken this all too literally, given his suggestion:

A controversial Russian academic has proposed giving the vote to the millions who died in the Second World War, so that they can “continue to influence the development of the country”.

Alexander Ageyev told a conference by the powerful Orthodox Church on ‘Faith and Deeds in a Time of Crisis’ that the idea is “worth considering”, the local Fontanka news site reports. Mr Ageyev is director of the Institute for Economic Strategies, an affiliate of the official Academy of Sciences, and so his comments have attracted considerable media attention – not least about the logistics of how the dead would cast their votes.

The proposal has some topicality. For the second year running a march through Red Square by the Immortal Regiment – descendants of the war dead, bearing portraits of the ancestors – has been a prominent feature of the official 9 May celebration of the end of the conflict, with President Putin himself taking part. Professor Ageyev told Fontanka that the dead should have a say, “given that they were directly involved in the country’s salvation”, and even wrote an article in his Institute’s journal attributing hopes for the “resurrection of Russia” to the Immortal Regiment phenomenon.

As for practicalities, he suggested that their descendants could cast proxy votes for the fallen. Amid the predicable jokes about zombies, Gogol’s satirical novel Dead Souls, about stuffing property registers with deceased serfs, readily occurs to social media users. Some wonder why Professor Ageyev doesn’t consider votes for the “victims of Stalin’s prison camps”, while others ask whether “no taxation without representation” should also apply to the dead.

 

God bless Mississippi!

Mississippi Gov. Signs Religious Freedom Law Protecting Right to Decline Part in Same-Sex Ceremonies

 

One reason ostensibly pro-life Republican presidents haven’t been able to do anything about abortion

(In addition to the fact that the party establishment is solidly pro-abortion, that is.)

Their pro-abortion wives:

As Ronald Reagan prepared to deliver the 1987 State of the Union address, his wife, Nancy, reportedly told his advisers, “I don’t give a damn about the pro-lifers,” and demanded that any mention of abortion be removed from the speech. Nancy, who rarely intervened in political matters, got her way, and the speech focused on international affairs, education, and ongoing congressional wrangling over the budget process.

President Reagan, of course, was a vocal abortion opponent; indeed, he was probably the most pro-life president the United States has ever had. But Nancy supported abortion. Although she mostly kept mum in public while first lady, she has since said on several occasions that while she is personally pro-life, “I believe in a woman’s choice.” She has also been an outspoken proponent of embryonic stem cell research.

[…]

It would be refreshing to have a Republican presidential nominee—and a president—whose spouse holds deeply pro-life views. Both George H.W. Bush’s wife, Barbara, and George W. Bush’s wife, Laura, support abortion, although they mostly kept their views to themselves during their husbands’ presidencies.

One exception occurred when President George H.W. Bush ran for reelection in 1992. That year, Republicans had written a very strong pro-life platform that Barbara Bush undercut, telling the media she thought the issue had no place in the platform.

She said abortion was “a personal thing” and that “the personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, platforms and conventions.” Barbara’s comments came at a bad time for her husband, who was having trouble retaining conservative support then.

Laura Bush stayed silent about abortion during her husband’s presidency. But many suspected she disagreed with her husband’s pro-life views. This was later confirmed in her memoir, “Spoken From the Heart,” in which she wrote, “While cherishing life, I have always believed that abortion is a private decision, and there, no one can walk in anyone else’s shoes.”

And so, hen-pecked, ostensibly ‘pro-life’ presidents have followed their wives’ lead, and done nothing substantive to end abortion while in office, just lip-service, nothing more, really…

The same is true of various Republican candidates in recent years:

Similarly, in 2008, Cindy McCain told Katie Couric that while she is pro-life she supports exceptions for rape and incest and didn’t believe Roe v Wade should be overturned.

1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole’s wife, Elizabeth, was known as a pro-life senator. But she supported federal funding of abortion in certain cases and said abortion should not be a litmus test for judicial appointments.

Then there’s the last prospective Republican first lady, Ann Romney. Alhough pro-life, she seemed uncomfortable talking about the dignity of human life. There were also questions about her having donated $150 to Planned Parenthood in 1994, back when Mitt himself supported abortion.

Now, the author of the piece, Gary Bauer (former presidential candidate, well-known so-con and Zionist lobbyist), is excited because the wives of Rubio and Cruz are pro-lifers. I guess that is indeed a pleasant change. But knowing how pro-choice the party establishment is, and how Republicans have done squat to change things when they’ve had both the presidency and the House, I doubt that will matter much, assuming that either Rubio or Cruz even win the nomination.

Anyway, getting back to the presidents whose wives disagreed fundamentally with them on the issue, does anyone honestly believe that any contemporary American president whose wife is pro-abortion is going to be able to stand up to her and enact measures she would disagree with? None these days have the balls to do so.

 

Norway Officials Place Children Seized From Parents Over ‘Christian Indoctrination’ Up for Adoption

Dismaying…

Officials in Norway have moved to place five children that were seized from their parents on charges that included “Christian radicalization and indoctrination” up for adoption, reports state. As previously reported, on Nov. 16 and 17, Norway’s child welfare services, the Barnevernet, seized Marius and Ruth Bodnariu’s two daughters, two sons and their baby, Ezekiel.