Saturday, 27 April 2013

More cruelty than justice in these prosecutions

Prosecutions that are unreasonably delayed often have more cruelty than justice in them; defendants may have lost access to evidence to disprove stale prosecutions, and with the exception of the abilities of new technologies such as DNA identification, if a plaintiff has a good cause of action they should pursue any claim with diligence and timeliness.  

The Charging of Max Clifford for alleged offences committed between 29 and 47 years ago brings to mind several similes which I cannot lawfully share with you, this matter now being sub judice and any comment a contempt of legal process, so please be careful if you leave your own comment.

The attempts in Germany to charge and jail 50 men who are thought to have served with the SS-TotenkopfverbÀnde before they die of natural causes is an even more extreme example of justice delayed - in this case some 69 years after their membership, there being no actual evidence of any offences on which basis to charge them. 

My own view is that a 15 year limitation for prosecution of the most serious offences is appropriate, with a 5 year limitation on minor offences. But then I also believe that we will all be judged and have to answer for our lives.  

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I worry how perceptions can change over years and how something thought almost de rigueur at the time, another age and it is now frowned upon, having said that - Savile was another level.

Twisted lawyers out for a fast buck and a paranoid hysteria, does not make for a good mix - we have a good recent example, of the attempt to end press freedom [well what 'freedom' remains].

Minds, can and are twisted by sepia memories and historical perceived slight.

At the end, in life all of the time we are being judged.

Remember and deem who amongst you would pick up the first stone?

Anonymous said...

Does a limitation for prosecution apply when the prosecuting authorities suppress the evidence against certain parties?

There appears to be a lot of it about with regard to a number of care homes.

Anthem said...

It's a tough one.

One the one hand, the person themselves will know if they are guilty or not and, if they are, then they may well feel tremendous remorse for their actions.

As a result of this, they may well have spent the intervening years attempting to atone for their crimes.

On the other hand, this does not help the victim. Whatever crimes were perpetrated against them may well have adversely affected their lives in the intervening years.

In the case of someone who may have murdered someone - even fifty years ago - then their victim has not even had those intervening years.

If a crime was a crime at the time it was committed then I don't see why there should be some kind of cut-off point for prosecution.

Punishment is also meant to act as a deterrent and what better deterrent than to know that, if you commit a crime, then there is always the chance of it coming back to haunt you and, as we have seen with the Saville case, even death won't get you off the hook.

Behave yourselves, people, and all will be fine.

Anonymous said...

One of the worst things that Maggie did was to give in to the non-forgiving Jewish lobby and make some actions a crime retrospectively.

That and the idea that the state can keep taking someone to trial until they get the 'right' result go against all of my ideas of natural justice.

john miller said...

The only evidence I can think of that works after 47 years is corroberation by a witness.

But if two people can get together, point their fingers at another and say "It was him wot dunnit" and claim damages, then I think we're looking at rather less evidence than the CPS usually requires.

It's a dangerous game, because if these famous people are not convicted, they have the money and motivation to make the police pay out a fortune in damages.

anon 2 said...

But then I also believe that we will all be judged and have to answer for our lives. Me too, Raedwald.

And so the principle applies to the activators and executors of this modern, so-called 'justice.'
Whatever do they think makes them any better than the people they presume to judge, or the majority whose opinions they gag? Have they never heard of sequestration?

Their 'justice' is not worthy of the name, in any case. There's nothing just, or right, or impartial, about their arbitrary revenge, their lies, and their oppression.
How utterly despicable they are - I even incline to see glory in contempt of their process. Perhaps the People should consider expressing it en masse.

Oh - and if the euSSR want to punish me for saying so ... good. I can't wait to get permanently away from them and their global prison.


Anonymous said...

In todays litigious society it comes as no surprise that people would chance making a few thousands using dubious accusations and methods that are worth a punt, fully in the knowledge that the accused may just pay them off to see the end of the matter.
(in)famously, Michael Jackson took such accusation to the grave (and no, I really, really don't know the truth of that particular case but mud sticks.)

Anthem said...

"In todays litigious society it comes as no surprise that people would chance making a few thousands using dubious accusations and methods that are worth a punt, fully in the knowledge that the accused may just pay them off to see the end of the matter.
(in)famously, Michael Jackson took such accusation to the grave (and no, I really, really don't know the truth of that particular case but mud sticks.)
"

This is the part that worries me the most. It only takes one nutter to make a false accusation and that's it, your name is tarnished forever, even if proven innocent (no smoke without fire, mud stick etc etc).

I'm gutted by all these recent revelations. It seems that most of my childhood favourites were all involved in some dastardly deed or other.

Jimmy Saville was my hero as a kid and he once fixed it for me to milk a cow blindfolded.

right_writes said...

"Jimmy Saville was my hero as a kid and he once fixed it for me to milk a cow blindfolded."

Did you get any "milk" out Anthem?

bones said...

You quite certain it was an udder you were holding?