CBS News, April 5, 2012, Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky due in court for pretrial arguments
"The 95-page motion Sandusky's lawyers filed on March 22 also says that in regard to some of the alleged victims, prosecutors cannot establish sufficient proof. In some, the statue of limitations has run out." (emphasis mine)
Interesting. Should there be a statute of limitations for child sexual abuse or rape?
Did these victims one day wake up and think, "Gee, I feel so much better today. Oh! Of course, the statute of limitations has expired."
No! The statute of limitations should not expire for child sexual abuse or rape cases...that's just asinine! I had not heard about this. I had heard he was appearing in court but not what his attorney's are saying.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in trying any case in the media, this one and the one for Trayvon Martin, but I do think that they should be tried in a court of law when there is so much evidence.
Of course Sandusky's attorney's are going to try to allege whatever they can in order to try to save this man from going to jail...that is what they are getting paid for after all; but definitely, there should be no statute of limitations!
The prosecution hopefully will do their job in refuting the motion which Sandusky's lawyers are filing, that's what they are getting paid to do as well!
Alicia
DeleteI am not sure how the law works, and of course it would be Pennsylvania law which could be altogether different than the other states. But in this case it almost seems as though the applicability of the statue of limitations may be fluid and up to some judicial review.
There seems to be no statute of limitations for murder, and I would submit that rape and sexual abuse are extremely serious violations to the concept of the integrity of one's self, that while less than murder, certainly are serious enough to warrant not being eligible for the statute of limitations. I sincerely doubt that the victims pain recognizes the statute of limitations.
I agree that people should not be tried in the media, but I also believe that the media has a duty to put the public on notice when there is a weakness in a law such as a statute of limitations on rape or sexual abuse.
Thanks as always for stopping on by.
You know...I totally agree with your last statement. The media does have a duty to notify us in such a case. But unfortunately, the media thinks their only duty is to sensationalize what happened. Mainly they sway people's opinion and cause yet others to take the law into their own hands rather than remaining objective and waiting to hear both sides of the story.
DeleteIt will be interesting to see/hear what happens in this case. Either way it's a shame for Sandusky's family and for the victims and their families.
So true! The media has moved away from just reporting the news. All the talking heads providing their "analysis"...it often insults one's intelligence.
DeleteAlong with Sandusky's family and the victims, I feel a empathy for the students of Penn State. They are innocent (once they got past their silly Joe PA protests) yet their education and all their achievements will be marred by this incident. Given all things being equal between two candidates how often will a Penn State alumnus be discriminated against, most likely unconsciously, for something that they were not even remotely connected with...regardless of how the trial turns out for Sandusky.
You're right, didn't think about that. Great discussing this with you!
DeleteAlicia you are always good for a great discussion. I enjoy your cleared eyed no BS way of looking at things.
DeleteIt will be interesting to see what happens in this case. Too many times the Big Shots get away with crap. There was a local case of a MN Viking being accused of domestic violence. She had choke marks on her neck. He was acquitted. Arrgghh!!
DeleteCarol
DeleteWell he was Viking! The team probably needs him! You can't let a minor thing like spouse abuse get in the way of a potential Super Bowl win. Why not just put a clause in every law, does not apply to essential sports figures, so we wouldn't have to go through the charade of a trial?
Thanks for the comment.