Torture, It's What's For Breakfast (and Lunch and Supper)

@oralloy,

When you change the statute of limitations you are changing how a person can be punished. It clearly violates the Constitution.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

When you change the statute of limitations you are changing how a person can be punished. It clearly violates the Constitution.

I disagree.

But as I said before, if the Republicans were to do as I suggest, I've no objection to Democrats challenging the move in court, and I will be content to abide with the ultimate ruling of the court system.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

How can you disagree?
If someone who faces no criminal prosecution because the statute of limitations has run out would face prosecution because the legislature changes the statute of limitations that is clearly having the way he can be punished changed.

2 Replies

@parados,

In Canada, the statute of limitations can be changed retroactively. Interesting that it can't be done in the US. The most notable changes came around child abuse, spousal and sexual assault charges.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

How can you disagree?

I see the bar on legislative changes as applying only directly to the laws. For instance, increasing the penalty for a crime after the fact would violate the Constitution.

So long as there is no change in what the law says (i.e. the criminal statute is the same one that existed on the books when the crime was committed), I don't think changing the statute of limitations amounts to changing the law.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

So your argument is there is no increase in penalty if a person is not subject to prosecution and then a law makes him subject to prosecution. That makes no sense at all.

The other issue is an attempt to change the law to target a specific individual would raise serious Constitutional issues.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So your argument is there is no increase in penalty if a person is not subject to prosecution and then a law makes him subject to prosecution.

Correct. So long as the wording of the statute is the same as it was when the crime was committed, there will be no increase in penalty. The penalty will be exactly the same as it was "back in the day".

parados wrote:

The other issue is an attempt to change the law to target a specific individual would raise serious Constitutional issues.

They would of course have to change the statute of limitations for everyone in the country.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

When you make someone subject to a penalty they were not subject to then you have changed the penalty.

2 Replies

@parados,

If at first you dont succeed try,try,try,try.try,try,ect again.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

When you make someone subject to a penalty they were not subject to then you have changed the penalty.

I disagree. And I am confident that the US court system will see it my way.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

So, you think change is not change. Go ahead, but I doubt any court would agree. Particularly in light of existing Supreme Court rulings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stogner_v._California

Quote:

Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.[2]

3 Replies

@parados,

It's good to see that you don't mind people getting away with a crime as long as they wait long enough for the time to expire. How do you feel about the victims never getting justice?

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Oh those poor victims. Will they ever get justice?

http://transform.fairfaxregional.com.au/transform/v1/crop/frm/storypad-v7zXR8UtxsRGj6PpRjbCvt/91e90a7f-3d0b-4bde-8756-3bcd3c1edfb7.JPG/r0_361_3696_2447_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, you think change is not change.

No. I disagree with you on whether or not this counts as change.

Interesting court ruling though. It does seem to favor your position, but I will have to look into how it weighs against other court rulings before I decide whether to revise my position.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I don't know who these people are. You will have to provide some information. How does this apply to what I said?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stogner_v._California

Quote:
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.[2]

OK. Upon review of the case, I accept that your view of ex post facto laws and statutes of limitations is the correct one.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

ROFLMAO... So if someone commits a crime they just have to wait until time runs out before they inform the police of the crime. I wonder why any criminals are ever tried for crimes based on your statement.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

ROFLMAO..

The majority of Americans side with the CIA and their common sense approach to such a heinous crime. That you and progressives have found another purely political action to tear down America has backfired. Shill.

0 Replies

@parados,

As usual this makes no sense.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
It clearly would violate the US Constitution. Making or changing a law after the fact in order to punish someone is strictly prohibited in Section 1 Article 9.
Quote:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Maybe you should spend some time reading and trying to understand the Constitution. You clearly don't know much about it.

I know a very large amount about the Constitution. And I do not believe that my proposal would violate the section you listed (or any other sections for that matter).

Ladies and Gentlemen, the next Republican nominee for the Supreme Court is...

2 Replies

Torture, It's What's For Breakfast (and Lunch and Supper)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know