El Cid Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 With the media sex cases in the news, just wondered if there was a limit to when crimes need to be reported. I dont have a good memory and would find defending myself against something that happened years ago almost imposible. Do speeding fines have a time limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I know the US has something called the Statute Of Limitations, where a crime can't be prosecuted after "X" amount of time. Apparently the UK doesn't have such a law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 I know the US has something called the Statute Of Limitations, where a crime can't be prosecuted after "X" amount of time. Apparently the UK doesn't have such a law. From wiki - Common law legal systems usually have a statute, for example, limiting the time for prosecution of a debt or designated as misdemeanors to two years after the event occurred. Under such a statute, if a person is discovered to have committed a misdemeanor three years later, they cannot be prosecuted, even if enough evidence is available to meet the standard of proof. Perhaps if the UK had such a law, things might be very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 With the media sex cases in the news, just wondered if there was a limit to when crimes need to be reported. I dont have a good memory and would find defending myself against something that happened years ago almost imposible. Do speeding fines have a time limit? IMO there shouldn't be a limit..some crimes don't get reported not because they don't want to, but are afraid to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Nah, they just get harder to prove...so either the CPS decide not to prosecute or they're found not guilty in court. Which I think is fair enough really, if you're a woman waiting 40 years to come out of the woodwork with an allegation then naturally it's going to be harder to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 It just ends up as a load of muck tossing and one persons word against another. Unless the accused admits to the crime then with no physical evidence it's very unlikely anything will come of it. One Corrie star has already been exonerated, guess we will see how the next trial go's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I don't know how they can even prove this crime existed in the first place. They get accused and then it is trial by media. Most of it will be false claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I don't know how they can even prove this crime existed in the first place. They get accused and then it is trial by media. Most of it will be false claims. I personally disagree with the whole trial by media thing we have these days. Why are the accused not give anonymity like the accusers? Where is innocent until proven guilty? I understand some say, unless these peoples names are made public other victims would not come forward but what if the accuser is known for making claims like this to other celebs? How will other people come forward to identify a possible fake claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Why is the table not turned on the accuser, why are they not sued for deformation, loss of earning and stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Why is the table not turned on the accuser, why are they not sued for deformation, loss of earning and stuff? I suppose the defendant who is found not guilty is not supported by the CPS in the way the false rape accuser is and so cannot afford to sue. That and deformation would be a civil case, not a legal case. Personally, if a person makes a false rape claim that is later proven to be false, they should serve the punishment the defendant would have been forced to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.