Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't claim to have the answer, but surely we can do better than a statute of limitations on murder.
No I think statute of limitations is important even on murder. For the reason I gave above. Nobody can properly defend themselves against a crime that happened so long ago. It will just lead to even more innocent people in prison then we have now.
Plus if somebody commits a brutal crime when they are 25, and they are convicted of it when they are 75, that is not really justice. That person got away with the crime. Okay they will die in prison but they lived the prime of their life free without any punishment. And people change in 50 years. Lots of people commit crimes when they are young, but then go on to live productive lives. It doesn't make a lot of sense to punish them at that point in their life.
People have to accept the fact that some crimes will always go unpunished. It seems like that is a problem for many people to accept.
No I think statute of limitations is important even on murder. For the reason I gave above. Nobody can properly defend themselves against a crime that happened so long ago. It will just lead to even more innocent people in prison then we have now.
Plus if somebody commits a brutal crime when they are 25, and they are convicted of it when they are 75, that is not really justice. That person got away with the crime. Okay they will die in prison but they lived the prime of their life free without any punishment. And people change in 50 years. Lots of people commit crimes when they are young, but then go on to live productive lives. It doesn't make a lot of sense to punish them at that point in their life.
People have to accept the fact that some crimes will always go unpunished. It seems like that is a problem for many people to accept.
The only way they go unpunished is.. You die first.
I get where you're coming from. But the knife cuts both ways. While payroll records don't exist to show that the person was at work that day.. they don't exist to show that they WERE NOT at work that day, either.
Remember that our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence. Defense is in the catbirds' seat at the start of every trial.
It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly.. I'm apt to believe someone who says "I had sex with her about 5 hours before she was killed, but I didn't do it."
*IF* they said that 50 years ago. If they didn't come forward and say "hey.. We were an item" back in the day.. Really makes someone look guilty. Now, if they weren't a suspect at all.. I can buy the excuse that they weren't going to insert themselves in the situation. But, if they were? And they didn't mention that at the time?
Now.. Here's one.. I'm just curious is we fall in the same area on this situation. someone being charged with murder or manslaughter or whatever well after the fact. Just as an example.. When Jim Brady died a few years back, there was talk of trying Hinckley for murder (perhaps manslaughter, not sure).. He was shot in 1981, he died in 2014. to me.. Screw off. that's 33 years later. Who knows after that time.. If Hinckley hadn't shot him, he might have wound up dying in 1984 in a car accident for all we know.
South Carolina has a law that says you can't go after someone for causing a death if the original act occurred more than three years before death. So.. Let's say the Brady shooting happened here and was a state charge. If he is alive in 1985.. By law, Hinckley couldn't be tried for his death.
There's actually a case now.. Guy shook his baby and left her.. damaged.. Back in 2010, I think. He was sent to prison and is still there, I believe. She died about a week ago. Prosecutors made a statement, basically crying that they couldn't charge him with her death.. Sorry. I feel for the family, but, they charged him for the injury, it's been more than three years.. I.. agree that they shouldn't be able to go back and charge him with her death.
The only way they go unpunished is.. You die first.
I get where you're coming from. But the knife cuts both ways. While payroll records don't exist to show that the person was at work that day.. they don't exist to show that they WERE NOT at work that day, either.
Remember that our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence. Defense is in the catbirds' seat at the start of every trial.
It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly.. I'm apt to believe someone who says "I had sex with her about 5 hours before she was killed, but I didn't do it."
*IF* they said that 50 years ago. If they didn't come forward and say "hey.. We were an item" back in the day.. Really makes someone look guilty. Now, if they weren't a suspect at all.. I can buy the excuse that they weren't going to insert themselves in the situation. But, if they were? And they didn't mention that at the time?
Now.. Here's one.. I'm just curious is we fall in the same area on this situation. someone being charged with murder or manslaughter or whatever well after the fact. Just as an example.. When Jim Brady died a few years back, there was talk of trying Hinckley for murder (perhaps manslaughter, not sure).. He was shot in 1981, he died in 2014. to me.. Screw off. that's 33 years later. Who knows after that time.. If Hinckley hadn't shot him, he might have wound up dying in 1984 in a car accident for all we know.
South Carolina has a law that says you can't go after someone for causing a death if the original act occurred more than three years before death. So.. Let's say the Brady shooting happened here and was a state charge. If he is alive in 1985.. By law, Hinckley couldn't be tried for his death.
There's actually a case now.. Guy shook his baby and left her.. damaged.. Back in 2010, I think. He was sent to prison and is still there, I believe. She died about a week ago. Prosecutors made a statement, basically crying that they couldn't charge him with her death.. Sorry. I feel for the family, but, they charged him for the injury, it's been more than three years.. I.. agree that they shouldn't be able to go back and charge him with her death.
Yeah, the problem is that with DNA evidence the presumption of innocence goes out the window. DNA says you murdered somebody 50 years ago, then you murdered them. Has anybody ever been linked by DNA to a 50 year old crime and then been found not guilty? Not to the best of my knowledge. I believe the conviction rate is 100%.
I was recently watching the trial of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the armorer from the Rust film set who was just found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. I couldn't count the number of times in that trial that I heard witnesses say, I can't remember, that was three years ago. Witnesses have a hard time remembering something from 3 years ago, how can they be expected to remember something from 50 years ago? I think even 5 - 10 years is stretching it.
And I don't think that punishing somebody 50 years after the crime is at all the same as punishing them expeditiously. For example. Let's say the sentence is life without parole, and the person dies a year later. That's a 1 year sentence vs a 51 year sentence if they had been tried and convicted soon after the crime. 1 year vs 51 years is a really big difference. I just can't see that as justice.
This type of prosecution is such a slippery slope. I think it just causes way more problems than it solves.
Yeah, the problem is that with DNA evidence the presumption of innocence goes out the window. DNA says you murdered somebody 50 years ago, then you murdered them. Has anybody ever been linked by DNA to a 50 year old crime and then been found not guilty? Not to the best of my knowledge. I believe the conviction rate is 100%.
Murder is pretty rare in general. How many dead bodies of people that were strangers to you would you ever expect your DNA to be found on? In the OP's article, it doesn't discuss where the DNA was found or what type it was, nor if there was a sexual assault, but based on the witness account of her being forced into a truck, it seems to match up that she was in contact with these two individuals whose DNA would otherwise never in a million years be on her clothing or body. She wasn't simply given a ride by someone trying to help, and she didn't need one because she already had a car. She allegedly was forced into a truck, which indicates to me that no other individuals are involved in giving her a ride to any other destination than the one in which she unfortunately found herself.
Yeah, the problem is that with DNA evidence the presumption of innocence goes out the window. DNA says you murdered somebody 50 years ago, then you murdered them. Has anybody ever been linked by DNA to a 50 year old crime and then been found not guilty? Not to the best of my knowledge. I believe the conviction rate is 100%.
I was recently watching the trial of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the armorer from the Rust film set who was just found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. I couldn't count the number of times in that trial that I heard witnesses say, I can't remember, that was three years ago. Witnesses have a hard time remembering something from 3 years ago, how can they be expected to remember something from 50 years ago? I think even 5 - 10 years is stretching it.
And I don't think that punishing somebody 50 years after the crime is at all the same as punishing them expeditiously. For example. Let's say the sentence is life without parole, and the person dies a year later. That's a 1 year sentence vs a 51 year sentence if they had been tried and convicted soon after the crime. 1 year vs 51 years is a really big difference. I just can't see that as justice.
This type of prosecution is such a slippery slope. I think it just causes way more problems than it solves.
It wasn't 50 years old.. But OJ Simpson.
You know why you hear of people being found guilty in those cases? Because they're guilty. What you don't hear about are all the cases that are never brought. Prosecutors don't bring cases they don't think they can win. That's the entire point of the Hur report on Biden.. Yes, he did it, but he doesn't believe that a jury would convict.. At least, that's the VERY short version of it. It actually is more nuanced than that, but.
As far as witnesses not remembering.. That's why the star in those cases is.. DNA evidence. Because after 50 years, most witnesses are dead. DNA doesn't forget.
So, having someone serve 1 year isn't justice.. But letting them remain free, not haunted by the fact that they have to think about whether they left a hair or other DNA sample that will come back and point to them.. Even if they don't have a DNA sample on file.. Their third cousin might submit DNA and then it gets tracked back to them and the cops could show up at their door at any point. THAT.. You consider justice?
Remember the above.. Not all of those DNA cases are newly tested DNA. In many cases now, they've had the DNA for years, but couldn't tie it to a suspect. Now.. That's more apt to happen.
Some cases.. You hear about it all the time.. They announce who they believe killer/rapist/whatever was, but that person died 20 years before. Those cases there.. That I actually have a bit of a problem with, because the person can't defend themselves.
You know why you hear of people being found guilty in those cases? Because they're guilty. What you don't hear about are all the cases that are never brought. Prosecutors don't bring cases they don't think they can win. That's the entire point of the Hur report on Biden.. Yes, he did it, but he doesn't believe that a jury would convict.. At least, that's the VERY short version of it. It actually is more nuanced than that, but.
As far as witnesses not remembering.. That's why the star in those cases is.. DNA evidence. Because after 50 years, most witnesses are dead. DNA doesn't forget.
So, having someone serve 1 year isn't justice.. But letting them remain free, not haunted by the fact that they have to think about whether they left a hair or other DNA sample that will come back and point to them.. Even if they don't have a DNA sample on file.. Their third cousin might submit DNA and then it gets tracked back to them and the cops could show up at their door at any point. THAT.. You consider justice?
Remember the above.. Not all of those DNA cases are newly tested DNA. In many cases now, they've had the DNA for years, but couldn't tie it to a suspect. Now.. That's more apt to happen.
Some cases.. You hear about it all the time.. They announce who they believe killer/rapist/whatever was, but that person died 20 years before. Those cases there.. That I actually have a bit of a problem with, because the person can't defend themselves.
Well there you go. You made my point perfectly. They're guilty. You have no presumption of their innocence. They are guilty. And I think that is the general feeling of most people these days. Which is a reversal of a legal ideology that has been in effect for about the last 250 years.
Well there you go. You made my point perfectly. They're guilty. You have no presumption of their innocence. They are guilty. And I think that is the general feeling of most people these days. Which is a reversal of a legal ideology that has been in effect for about the last 250 years.
Well, maybe they'll let Gary Ridgeway out of prison and you can move him in with you? I mean.. Since you're putting words in my mouth that I just think they're all guilty.. I mean, he pled guilty.. But.. You would have left him out because too much time had passed?
If someone isn't guilty.. How did their DNA wind up there?
We're not talking about cases where there was a trace.. There's one relatively recently where the guy was convicted after a DNA match to tobacco spit found in the kitchen of a murder victim from 30+ years ago. Provide a good explanation for how it got there.
DNA from semen found in a rape victim.. Explain how it got there.
We're not talking about they found a cigarette butt in a city park under the victim type cases here. Where that cigarette butt could have been left there hours or days prior.
These are DNA samples that have precious few other answers for how they could wind up where they are.
And, many of these, like Gary Ridgeway.. Plead guilty.
Well, maybe they'll let Gary Ridgeway out of prison and you can move him in with you? I mean.. Since you're putting words in my mouth that I just think they're all guilty.. I mean, he pled guilty.. But.. You would have left him out because too much time had passed?
If someone isn't guilty.. How did their DNA wind up there?
We're not talking about cases where there was a trace.. There's one relatively recently where the guy was convicted after a DNA match to tobacco spit found in the kitchen of a murder victim from 30+ years ago. Provide a good explanation for how it got there.
DNA from semen found in a rape victim.. Explain how it got there.
We're not talking about they found a cigarette butt in a city park under the victim type cases here. Where that cigarette butt could have been left there hours or days prior.
These are DNA samples that have precious few other answers for how they could wind up where they are.
And, many of these, like Gary Ridgeway.. Plead guilty.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said "Because they're guilty." Those were your exact words. You didn't say "think". I know that just slipped out, but you said it.
But even using your revised words "I just think they're all guilty", demonstrates a lack of presumption of innocence. If you were questioned for jury duty and said that, that would be enough to get you thrown off the jury.
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but it scares me that almost anyone can have cops busting down their doors at any moment, just because their DNA somehow got on a murder victim 50 years ago, with no additional evidence whatsoever of their involvement in the crime, and no real way for them to defend themselves against the charges. It's pretty hard to come up with an alibi 50 years later. .
We already hear so many stories about people serving decades in prison for crimes they didn't commit. This will just increase the numbers.
You make a good point. Prosecution is still going to need more than just DNA. Now if it's a serial killer and you have the same DNA on 12 people that's a little different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
