3 ms·

>that seems wrong, to base the law on technical limitations Why? The point is to ensure that the defendant can receive a fair trial. With video and DNA evide

>that seems wrong, to base the law on technical limitations Why? The point is to ensure that the defendant can receive a fair trial. With video and DNA evidence, shouldn't there be a longer limit than if there is only a single witness testimony?

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
I don't see it that way. What I meant however was that the application of justice in the future shouldn't be restricted because now of _apparent_ limitations in evidence collection. For example if a rape victim doesn't get a rape-kit done does that mean that after a few months you declare the rapist to have served their time whilst at-large [obviously at that point you haven't determined legally if there was a rape] if a rape-kit is done then you give them 25 years when they could be held accountable before a court? The evidence doesn't have a bearing on the purpose of holding the criminal accountable. It's always possible that a new technique could arrive to gather evidence or a new source of evidence - a hidden personal diary, say - turns up.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  >For example if a rape victim doesn't get a rape-kit done does that mean that after a few months you declare the rapist to have served their time whilst at-large No, you declare that without any concrete evidence, there is no way to have a fair trial, and thus it is a waste to pursue the case. If some new form of evidence comes up, it gets written into law about its statute of limitations, and if the cold case is now within the statute of limitations, the new form of evidence can be used (but there cannot be any witness testimony or other evidence that is considered past the statute of limitations). As it currently stands, we place far too much weight on eyewitness testimony years after the fact that results in innocent people going to prison.

3 ms·

>that seems wrong, to base the law on technical limitations Why? The point is to ensure that the defendant can receive a fair trial. With video and DNA evide

by Lawtonfogle 12y ago

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
I don't see it that way. What I meant however was that the application of justice in the future shouldn't be restricted because now of _apparent_ limitations in evidence collection. For example if a rape victim doesn't get a rape-kit done does that mean that after a few months you declare the rapist to have served their time whilst at-large [obviously at that point you haven't determined legally if there was a rape] if a rape-kit is done then you give them 25 years when they could be held accountable before a court? The evidence doesn't have a bearing on the purpose of holding the criminal accountable. It's always possible that a new technique could arrive to gather evidence or a new source of evidence - a hidden personal diary, say - turns up.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  >For example if a rape victim doesn't get a rape-kit done does that mean that after a few months you declare the rapist to have served their time whilst at-large No, you declare that without any concrete evidence, there is no way to have a fair trial, and thus it is a waste to pursue the case. If some new form of evidence comes up, it gets written into law about its statute of limitations, and if the cold case is now within the statute of limitations, the new form of evidence can be used (but there cannot be any witness testimony or other evidence that is considered past the statute of limitations). As it currently stands, we place far too much weight on eyewitness testimony years after the fact that results in innocent people going to prison.