Restrictions on sexual assault reporting removed

Mike Crowther said :

SOL’s defeat that worthy goal of general deterrence.

The problems occur when individuals use the lack of SOL against people. If you didn’t like xx teacher then 30 years later you for whatever reason decide to make up something about them.

If it was true or not what evidence do you have after 30 years?

I’ve know a few people who are just of the belief that ‘god will punish them’. Religious schools are always going to brainwash, its followers put god before the law.

bd84: Simon Wiesenthal was once asked what was the point of hunting down 90 year old Nazis. He responded that it wasn’t for revenge and that there is simply no way one can ever properly punish someone for such an enormous crime. “My purpose” he said, “was to send a message to the next generation of murderers that no matter how long they live, how far they run, they will still be hunted down.” SOL’s defeat that worthy goal of general deterrence.

bd84 said :

Having said that would there really be a community benefit from trying a crime that could have occurred 60 years ago?

Yes.

gungsuperstar said :

To IrishPete – I largely agree with you about legislative change implemented retrospectively. But as you’ve gone onto say, we’re talking about Statute of Limitations. It’s nowhere near as outrageous as retrospective changes to what constitutes a crime.

Yep, no argument here.

But let’s make sure we are selective and careful about retrospective legislation though. It isn’t always a good idea to make something illegal, or “more illegal” than it was at the time it was done. How can general deterrence and individual/specific deterrence work if the rules might be changed later?

IP

One advantage of bringing old abuses through courts is that courts can establish “facts” allowing you to talk about things without fear of libel or slander. This might be as simple as the need to share stories so that others can learn how to avoid vulnerability or how to reach out beyond the institutions, or to help other children’s charities, schools and religious groups “abuse-proof” their structure by seeing what hasn’t worked and why.

Victims don’t want revenge and punishment anywhere near as much as we want to see others stay safe.

bd84 said :

Retrospective law changes often don’t stand up if challenged in higher courts, especially when laws were in place for such a long time, so I’ll waiting until it withstand a challenge test before being happy.

Having said that would there really be a community benefit from trying a crime that could have occurred 60 years ago?

1985 was less than thirty years ago. Those delightful people may still be engaging in the same behaviours now. The 80 year-olds are probably less of a risk.

IP

bd84 said :

Retrospective law changes often don’t stand up if challenged in higher courts, especially when laws were in place for such a long time, so I’ll waiting until it withstand a challenge test before being happy.

Having said that would there really be a community benefit from trying a crime that could have occurred 60 years ago?

You obviously didn’t come to the same conclusion as me as to what instigated this legislative change.

To me, this is CLEARLY implemented because of what we’re learning about sexual abuse within religious institutions. Not many, if any of these were reported within 12 months because of the age and fear of the victims. And the people who committed these vile acts knew this, which is why they’re only now being brought to justice.

We’re not talking about crimes that happened 60 years ago – we’re talking about crimes committed as recently as 1985. They were kids then – that means their might be victims of child sexual abuse as young as early-30s. You probably work with them.

I would say there is ENORMOUS community benefit in allowing these people to access justice. Your twisting of the story to suggest otherwise is incredulous.

To IrishPete – I largely agree with you about legislative change implemented retrospectively. But as you’ve gone onto say, we’re talking about Statute of Limitations. It’s nowhere near as outrageous as retrospective changes to what constitutes a crime.

Retrospective law changes often don’t stand up if challenged in higher courts, especially when laws were in place for such a long time, so I’ll waiting until it withstand a challenge test before being happy.

Having said that would there really be a community benefit from trying a crime that could have occurred 60 years ago?

Good work only 28 years late.

Generally though, retrospective legislation is a bad thing, but I don’t think many will complain about this one.

Other media have described the Statute of Limitations as a “loophole”. These things were never loopholes – someone deliberately and consciously put a 12-month SOL on these offences at the time.

I’m not sure there should be a SOL on anything – not even a parking ticket. It might be cheap justice, but is it justice?

IP