Discussion for article #240478
It’s amazing how our normally docile investigative reporters can finally understand their function when sex is involved.
Rape and drugged sex and women who were shamed for daring to accuse Dr. Huxtable of these crimes are arts and entertainment? I don’t think so.
Poisoning the civil juror pool?
Someone care to explain to me how, in our justice system, there is a statute of limitations for a sex crime(s) like this? It just seems…terribly…creepily bizarre.
There are good reasons for statutes of limitations on crimes. Generally, only murder is exempt, but even that’s pretty tough to justify.
Evidence is lost. Evidence is contaminated. Exculpatory evidence gets discarded (no, I do not keep my ATM receipts for 20 years, and I’ll wager the bank doesn’t keep the records that long either, so I can no longer prove that I was in another city when the crime was committed). Witnesses start “remembering” things that never happened. In short, the more time that elapses between an alleged crime and the trial, the more likely it is that justice will be miscarried.
Granted, that runs against the grain. We think that no one should be let off the hook, just because a certain number of years have elapsed. But the risk of convicting innocent people goes way, way up otherwise.
Not that A&E is being exploitive or anything.