I'm not much into politics or law. Been following the Bernie Fine case in Syracuse. Apparantely the DA says there is enough evidence to where they are sure the allegations are true and he did molest the victims that came forward. But there's nothing they can do about it because too much time has elapsed from the incidents untill now. My question is......... HUH? So basically if you actually do the crime and are able to get away with it for a certain amount of time you're off the hook? Even though they can still prove it? It no longer becomes a crime anymore? Like you never did it? Anyone else find this absurd? Am I missing something?
I honestly dont understand the justice system. I just read about these kids who stole MILLIONS of dollars worth of stuff from celebrities over the last couple years...and they got 30 days in jail. Yet if i would steal gas at the local pumps i would get 6 months in jail. How does this make any sense?
First of all, there is no "proof". As is the case with most all molestation cases. There are allegations, but no "evidence where they are sure the allegations are true." The tricky situation with these cases is the lynch mob mentality due to the severity of the alleged crime. I mean, there are several rape/molestation cases that were completely fabricated each year, but good luck ever clearing your name from such an allegation if god forbid you were innocent. That said, I believe as well that Fine is guilty...but he is innocent until proven guilty. Our justice system is screwed up in many ways, but that is the way of life. I don't know of a better one in the world, whether that is a valid justification or not.
Apparently there is proof according to the DA. They just havent' disclosed it. That's not even the point though. Let's say they have the smoking gun in their hands. They still cant prosecute him? Too much time has passed since the crime so he's off the hook. That's insane to me.
Isn't it a state law the problem is with? I thought I read that if they can prove any of the molestation crimes were commited in another state then it turns federal and then there is no longer a statute of limitation clause. I'm not sure on that, just how I understood it.
Yes the time has run out.... but you can bet there will be some sizeable amounts of money change hands in civil suits. With the evidence they do have it's just a matter of how many millions will change hands.... both personnally and from the university.
I guess I just don't understand a timetable for a crime. How can time run out? He still did it. How can such a thing even exist?
Some states even have statute of limitations on filing for civil damages. Then, all they have to do to get out of paying it is file for bankruptcy.
Who's to say he did it. That's the problem. A guy is accused of something, and is fired/declared guilty before he has even been charged. Can you not see that potentially being a slippery slope not having a timetable on crimes. Crimes like these usually get prosecuted with or without hard evidence just on the word of the victim, that is a HUGE gaping hole for corruption to happen....especially with the cop out that time washed away the evidence. I can see both sides of the fence on this one. Tricky situation. I see a reason for not pursuing ancient cases, but I also see the absurdity in letting a sure fire 100% guilty person walk free.
Wh Again... the point isn't whether he did or didn't do it. If he walked into the police department and confessed that he did, he can't be prosecuted because "too much time has passed". I'm not saying he's guilty or not guilty. I just can't believe if he might happen to be guilty and if there is 100% evidence that he is that it wouldnt' matter. He would walk.
I agree, that would be messed up if such a scenario existed! I have been reading a lot on these cases recently out of curiosity. It blows my mind how much the law changes when it comes to child abuse cases (and maybe rightfully so?).... But hearsay evidence is allowable in molestation cases, as are "syndromes" who's inventors will even say aren't scientific enough to be used in a court of law. It comes down to if you are accused, you are guilty without rock solid proof otherwise...not the other way around. That is a scary (for the general public) yet reassuring thought (for children) all at the same time... Nothing is perfect in life, but where would you draw the line. Would we investigate a theft from the 50s? If not what differentiates between crimes? It is just a blurry line that they try and put a hard cut line on. It will leave both sides scratching their heads on the placement of the fence.
Well, after hearing the tape the guy made on the phone with Fine's wife.... not much doubt in my mind the dude did it. God his wife is a piece of work all by herself.
Yes! Why wouldn't you? Especially if something is plopped in lap when you know the dude is guilty. I just dont' see why the passing of time should absolve the crime committed.
I think most reasonable people agree with you on this. BUT... our screwed up judicial system makes this crap happen.
I think the logic for the statute of limitations goes something like this: It applies to crimes of lesser severity for the most part, as opposed to crimes that are more serious, like murder. The argument for the statute of limitations is that after a period of time, people who would be called to testify would not have the same memory of the event they would have if it were nearer when the event occurred. Sometimes people who testify get it wrong even when testifying about something that recently occurred. Another argument is that it keeps the courts freed up to concentrate on more heinous crimes by not having to deal with older lesser crimes that have been dredged up. I can understand and agree with the first argument about the fuzzy memory, while the other argument, to me, means someone can get away with something, simply because they have gotten away with for so long. Wnen you think of it this way, it hardly seems like justice.
