Quote (SanduLungu @ Aug 17 2021 09:46am)
I don't doubt what you are saying one bit, I've seen many of your diablo 2 posts, you know what you're saying or you just don't talk in case you don't.
my point was that from my pov, some crimes should never prescribe. crimes against children (such as in this alleged case), rape and murder.
The more serious the crime the more important the due process. If a government can use accusations of crimes with harsh penalties like crimes against children, rape and murder to lock people up, then stripping away civil liberties and protections under the law in the guise of more zealously prosecuting offenders, results in innocent people being locked up for a very long time. Its why when someone is accused of say, murdering a guy by kneeling on his neck with so little pressure it didn't even leave a mark, the government should be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that was the actual cause of death and not say the lethal dose of fentanyl he ingested after having a history of near-lethal overdoses using the same drugs. Just to give one nonspecific example of the seriousness of a crime weighted against the due process of the accused.
But back to the original point- how are people like Bob Dylan or Brett Kavanaugh supposed to refute accusations made without evidence from half a century ago? There's a reason we have statutes of limitations in criminal law, and civil law only gets away without them because its basically the autistic red headed stepchild of the judicial system