• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Matt Gaetz reported to be leaving the House

To me that would mean that the prosecutor should decide not to bring the case, if they didn't have a case. If the evidence is solid, the case can be made, and they can get a conviction then any crime should be chargeable.
A prosecutor may have a case if the accused's witnesses from 20 years ago can no longer remember important details, have died, or can't be located. That puts the accused at a great disadvantage. The statute of limitations is there to protect the people.
 
A prosecutor may have a case if the accused's witnesses from 20 years ago can no longer remember important details, have died, or can't be located. That puts the accused at a great disadvantage. The statute of limitations is there to protect the people.

If that witness is no longer a viable witness and there is no physical evidence to corroborate the charges then the prosecutor should no longer try that case. They don't have a solid case. The jury should also find the defendant innocent given there wouldn't be any evidence to support charges outside of a single witness.

I have no stats to back this up but I don't think many prosecutors could win cases if the only evidence they had is a single witness. If they had nothing else that would be an EXTREMELY hard case to win.

It also all depends on what you mean by "protect people". If new technology comes about that tests DNA with less DNA available, and that proves a rape from 20 years ago happened, but the statute has run out, who is being protected there? That's a real thing that happens considering when DNA came out the statute had run out on several cases, but that evidence isn't a witness. It's scientific, physical evidence.
 
If that witness is no longer a viable witness and there is no physical evidence to corroborate the charges then the prosecutor should no longer try that case. They don't have a solid case. The jury should also find the defendant innocent given there wouldn't be any evidence to support charges outside of a single witness.

I have no stats to back this up but I don't think many prosecutors could win cases if the only evidence they had is a single witness. If they had nothing else that would be an EXTREMELY hard case to win.

It also all depends on what you mean by "protect people". If new technology comes about that tests DNA with less DNA available, and that proves a rape from 20 years ago happened, but the statute has run out, who is being protected there? That's a real thing that happens considering when DNA came out the statute had run out on several cases, but that evidence isn't a witness. It's scientific, physical evidence.
You use a lot of "shoulds" and "should nots".

I'm not going to argue whether statutes of limitation are right or not. The question was 'why do they exist' which is what I answered.
 
Last edited:
A prosecutor may have a case if the accused's witnesses from 20 years ago can no longer remember important details, have died, or can't be located. That puts the accused at a great disadvantage. The statute of limitations is there to protect the people.
I think it's also just a matter of practicality, there are only so many resources to spend on investigation and prosecution.
 
You use a lot of "shoulds" and "should nots".

I'm not going to argue whether statutes of limitation are right or not. The question was 'why do they exist' which is what I answered.

*shrug* I won't argue with it either. I think the "why do they exist" is odd and I'd like to see it changed, but it is what it is. It certainly won't change now.
I think it's also just a matter of practicality, there are only so many resources to spend on investigation and prosecution.

Plenty of cold case units out there that work specifically on murders. With the expansion of resources through technology I don't see it as being a huge issue, but again, it is what it is. For people that have been convicted and have absolutely no ability to get a mistake they made 20 years ago off their record, it sucks to see violent criminals skate because the evidence or case didn't get brought until 4 years and 15 days and the statute was 4 years. To me, if you do a crime and there's evidence to prosecute then you should be prosecuted.
 
A prosecutor may have a case if the accused's witnesses from 20 years ago can no longer remember important details, have died, or can't be located. That puts the accused at a great disadvantage. The statute of limitations is there to protect the people.
But you don’t have it for some crimes.
 
But you don’t have it for some crimes.
Because some crimes are too heinous. For a good explanation of why these statutes exist:
Although their specifics may vary from one jurisdiction to another, the underlying purpose remains consistent: to strike a balance between the need for justice and fairness while protecting defendants from stale claims and the erosion of evidence over time. In this comprehensive overview, we will explore 24 crucial reasons why statutes of limitation exist and their significance in the modern legal landscape.
 
Remember when Galaxy Brain said

"Matt Gaetz has 3 critical assets that are needed for the AG role: a big brain, a spine of steel and an axe to grind. He is the Judge Dredd America needs to clean up a corrupt system and put powerful bad actors in prison. Gaetz will be our Hammer of Justice."

How's that going Elon?
 
Remember when Galaxy Brain said

"Matt Gaetz has 3 critical assets that are needed for the AG role: a big brain, a spine of steel and an axe to grind. He is the Judge Dredd America needs to clean up a corrupt system and put powerful bad actors in prison. Gaetz will be our Hammer of Justice."

How's that going Elon?
Elon is a classic example of an intelligent idiot.
 
Remember when Galaxy Brain said

"Matt Gaetz has 3 critical assets that are needed for the AG role: a big brain, a spine of steel and an axe to grind. He is the Judge Dredd America needs to clean up a corrupt system and put powerful bad actors in prison. Gaetz will be our Hammer of Justice."

How's that going Elon?
Like one of Elon's failed rockets - spectacular flameout into the ground.
 
His first cable show has not impressed anybody, including his fellow conservatives.
He might well not make it as a right wing commentor, even they have to bring in an audience.
 
Hasn't it already pretty much been released?
Almost of the report was leaked before they decided to release it..whcih is why anybody who follows DC politics could have told you whant woud have happened.]What is interesting is that the leakers might have included a number of Republicans; almost all other GOPers int he house hated Gaetz's guts.
 
Almost of the report was leaked before they decided to release it..whcih is why anybody who follows DC politics could have told you whant woud have happened.]What is interesting is that the leakers might have included a number of Republicans; almost all other GOPers int he house hated Gaetz's guts.
He's not the only Rsole there, just the first one to be ditched.
 
Hey! Beavis and Butthead was a ratings win when it first came ou.....oh you mean his new stuff.
B and B were funny though.
I love the line that they did in the end credits for the final show"
"We would like to thank all the really smart people who helped to make Beavis and Butheas so stupid".
 
Back
Top Bottom