Should public officials and police be exempt from statute of limitations?

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by BeautifullyChaotic, Nov 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BeautifullyChaotic

    BeautifullyChaotic Well-Known Member

    I feel that people in a position of public authority; Police, Judges, Elected Political figureheads ect... should be exempt from any statute of limitations, IF the crimes they commit were committed while in that position of authority.

    I feel this way because these people are the guiding force behind teaching and enforcing the law, but often get away with crimes committed because a lot of people are scared of going up against someone in a position of power, scared of going up against the government; and often times don't report the crimes until the person is no longer in that position of power, or out of fear wait until they are out of the situation and statute of limitations has run out.

    This questions comes up in my mind after seeing the video of the Texas family court judge lashing his daughter, repeatedly and with great force; knowing that the statute of limitations has run out and the allegations of abuse can't be investigated by the courts. I personally believe the video to be a real depiction of abuse, but that is not what I'm asking, I am simply asking if people in a position of public authority should be exempt from statutes of limitation, if the alleged crime was committed while they were in that position of authority.

    What are your opinions?
  2. xan

    xan Chat Buddy

    If evidence is still valid and of good enough quality to be submitted to a court should there even be a statue of limitations for anyone?
  3. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Well I personally think anyone who upholds the law can't evade the law. You preach it, you have to live by it to the letter. You judge other people, you had better be crystal clean or be held accountable.

    I'm somewhat perplexed about you saying the statue of limitations has expired in this case? Where did you hear this? So I can beat the shit out of my kid, hell break a few bones,but after they're 18 or 4 years later it's a mute point? Idk, guess I don't know the law in this case, but can you please post a link or source to that claim? Curious about the justification behind that, because Im failing to see any rational logic behind it.
  4. In a Lonely Place

    In a Lonely Place Well-Known Member

    That doesn't make sense? I thought a crime was a crime no matter how long after the event it comes to light. Nazis were still being brought to trial fifty years after ww2
  5. BeautifullyChaotic

    BeautifullyChaotic Well-Known Member

    Quoted from-

    "Art. 12.01. FELONIES. Except as provided in Article 12.03,
    felony indictments may be presented within these limits, and not
    (2) ten years from the date of the commission of the

    (A) theft of any estate, real, personal or mixed, by an
    executor, administrator, guardian or trustee, with intent to
    defraud any creditor, heir, legatee, ward, distributee,
    beneficiary or settlor of a trust interested in such estate;
    (B) theft by a public servant of government property over
    which he exercises control in his official capacity;
    (C) forgery or the uttering, using or passing of forged
    (D) injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled
    individual punishable as a felony of the first degree under Section
    22.04, Penal Code;

    (E) sexual assault, except as provided by Subdivision (1) or
    (5); or
    (F) arson;

    "(4) five years from the date of the commission of the

    (A) theft, burglary, robbery;
    (B) kidnapping;
    (C) injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled
    individual that is not punishable as a felony of the first degree
    under Section 22.04, Penal Code;

    (D) abandoning or endangering a child; or
    (E) insurance fraud; "

    This makes me sick, but it is the law. I posted both felony and non-felony statutes of limitation because it is not yet known if the abuse depicted in the video is considered felony, or misdemeanor abuse.c The question of statute of limitation comes up because the girl did not post the video until 7 years after the video was taken. She was 16 at time of the video, so it is more than likely that the abuse continued after that, but this is her only physical evidence. The fact that she felt the need to hide a camera and take a video is proof that this kind of thing happened often enough in the home that she could anticipate when it would occur.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 2, 2011
  6. BeautifullyChaotic

    BeautifullyChaotic Well-Known Member

    Different crimes have different statutes of limitation, murder, crimes of war and rape have no statute of limitation.
  7. saint6

    saint6 Well-Known Member

    This is exactly how I see it.

    I can understand if it has been like 10 years and there was no evidence supporting a claim, but if there is clear evidence that shows that the allegations are true, then you should still be able to be charged with the crime.
  8. Mr Stewart

    Mr Stewart Well-Known Member

    wikipedia says:
    Reading through the entry, there are quite a large number of delays and workarounds for the limitation. The second paragraph in the first quote also makes the distinction that time of event is not necessarily automatic starting point for the time period allowed for a given crime. It is premature to argue about this man being clear of potential charges when we don't have the details, the courts haven't made any rulings, etc. I doubt this is the only evidence available for this case.

    As for whether people in positions on authority should be exempt, I think not. Part of the fundamental idea behind the code of law is that all citizens are equally bound to its tenets. The idea of having a particular occupation group of able bodied, sane adult citizens, be subject to a different set of rules doesn't play well with that. Keep in mind, though, that being in a position of authority does play a factor in sentencing. It increases the severity of the crime and carries a heavier sentence, usually.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2011
  9. BeautifullyChaotic

    BeautifullyChaotic Well-Known Member

    Ok, after reading the wiki explanation, I do think it would be a great problem for reasons of blackmail. Someone could catch a public figure committing a crime and use that for the rest of the persons life to blackmail them, and who better to blackmail than a respected public official?

    I have read in the news today on several sites that an investigation has been launched into the abuse depicted in the video of the Judge whipping his daughter, and statute of limitations is something they are looking into to see what, if anything he can be charged with. His daughter is requesting that he "seek help" so if anything really comes of it it's likely to be probation and court ordered anger management, but at least it's something being done.
  10. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the info in your previous post :smile:

    I don't share your view in this concept about blackmailing. If im understanding your point, if someone commits a crime, and is found out by someone else, there is a possibility of them being blackmailed.
    So in one essence of application, the statute of limitations is there to dissolve the crime to stop people from being blackmailed after so long?

    Again, im not sure if that's what you mean, but if it is. The application of the law is twisted considerably in that situation, imo. The law has to be as clean as possible. I don't think it should offer that sort of protection to crime on crime, outside of the law. It's basically saying in my eyes, we'll help you out with being blackmailed without making you have to be held accountable for your actions.

    I think if you're being blackmailed for crime you've commited, you either A deal with the blackmailer outside of the law, or B turn yourself in, and setup a sting operation to bring the blackmailer down aswell. Since they are in knowledge of the crime and aren't informing the authorities, and using the severity of the crime commited as leverage for personal gain, they themselves are on par with the severity of the specific crime.

    Idk if my views on this would sway differently to specific cases or not though.

    Ps. Isn't it funny that people who judge other people have a different set of standards to what they practice at home. It's not enough to interpret and dictate the law, you have to live by that. He either thinks it's acceptable to do this to a child or is two faced. Either way, it'll be interesting to see how the Law itself in the end responds to him. If they keep him on, they have some serious perceptual issues with child abuse and representation of the law imo.
    Kinda kills the idea that we can look up to people. It's more saying, we look up to ideaologies, not people in those ideaologies.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2011
  11. BeautifullyChaotic

    BeautifullyChaotic Well-Known Member

    Haha, the blackmail thing was kind of a joke, my way of saying that the reasons the SoL exists make no since to me and looks like all it does is protect criminals that know how to avoid being caught for a few years. I don't care what crime someone commits, if there is irrefutable evidence then they should be investigated and tried.

    He has stated in the media that "it's not as bad as it looks" and that he "has already apologized" and that his life has been "made very difficult by this child". He doesn't feel that he has done anything wrong and while he admits that he lost his temper, he believes it looks worse than it is.
    He was seen today leaving his home with suitcases, a briefcase and some rifles, and is taking PAID leave from work.

    The county has asked the Texas Rangers assist in the investigation, and they will be reviewing the original video file as soon as they retrieve it from the victim, but in my opinion, chances are she doesn't have the original file because really, who still has the same computer they had 7 years ago???
  12. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Ah, well that flew over my head :tongue:
  13. BeautifullyChaotic

    BeautifullyChaotic Well-Known Member

    It's okay, you couldn't hear tone of voice or see my shit-eating-grin, and I just realized I forgot to add the ever important "lol" needed to convey sarcasm :D My bad yo!
  14. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    No. They're still citizens with rights of citizens, public official or not.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.