This is about civil claims. If there is rock-solid proof that someone dunnit, for example video, what is the justification for going easy on the rapist?
I'd agree in that scenario but the evidence in rape cases is almost always nothing more than "he dun did it to me sobs", so extending the statute of limitations for it is almost certainly going to do a lot more harm than good.
Also, "sex crimes" is a lot more expansive than just rape - poked a female coworker in the butt 15 years ago when everyone in the workplace was being silly, before PC culture infested it? OFF TO JAIL YOU GO
I'd agree in that scenario but the evidence in rape cases is almost always nothing more than "he dun did it to me sobs", so extending the statute of limitations for it is almost certainly going to do a lot more harm than good.
If that is the case, that seems a bigger problem than the statute of limitations. Hell, if you can just accuse based on literally nothing, then why not make your accusation fit the limitations?
They've made a habit of siezing power from men who earned their position with the same formula over and over.
1. Get a woman to make sexual accusations against him
2. Get him fired/removed/forced to resign with those accusations
3. Reward a woman who orchestrated it from frim behind the scenes with his job/salary/etc.
That's what they did with the new york givenor. That's how eliminated that guy that started employees $70k/year as punishment. That's what they tried to do with kavanaugh. That's how got rid of boris and replaced a with a white woman and a no-white-men cabinent in the UK. Typically, this allows them to "install" people who aren't even elected.
Rape isn't a crime that generally has financial damages. The only purpose in this would be to cast the witch-hunt net wider.
Remember that time when you raped me in January 2009?
Evidence? Don't worry, you won't need that in jail.
He claims he "doesn't remember" where he was 13 years ago on the night in question. Obviously that means he's guilty.
That's a great impression of a California prosecutor.
This is about civil claims. If there is rock-solid proof that someone dunnit, for example video, what is the justification for going easy on the rapist?
I'd agree in that scenario but the evidence in rape cases is almost always nothing more than "he dun did it to me sobs", so extending the statute of limitations for it is almost certainly going to do a lot more harm than good.
Also, "sex crimes" is a lot more expansive than just rape - poked a female coworker in the butt 15 years ago when everyone in the workplace was being silly, before PC culture infested it? OFF TO JAIL YOU GO
If that is the case, that seems a bigger problem than the statute of limitations. Hell, if you can just accuse based on literally nothing, then why not make your accusation fit the limitations?
"if"
lmao
There's never rock-solid proof for rape?
There rarely is, considering a common defense of a rape accusation is "it was consensual".
You basically have to have video of the rape happening for it to be "rock solid".
They've made a habit of siezing power from men who earned their position with the same formula over and over.
1. Get a woman to make sexual accusations against him
2. Get him fired/removed/forced to resign with those accusations
3. Reward a woman who orchestrated it from frim behind the scenes with his job/salary/etc.
That's what they did with the new york givenor. That's how eliminated that guy that started employees $70k/year as punishment. That's what they tried to do with kavanaugh. That's how got rid of boris and replaced a with a white woman and a no-white-men cabinent in the UK. Typically, this allows them to "install" people who aren't even elected.
Rape isn't a crime that generally has financial damages. The only purpose in this would be to cast the witch-hunt net wider.