Jesus Camp

Damocles said:
Yet they can sue you and still you have the stigma. The solution doesn't work at all.
Click to expand...
Yes but in most states there are Statutes of limitations on Tort claims as well. Here in NM it is 3 years from the date of the injury or the discovery of the injury. So if you remember the abuse at 18 but wait till you are 23 to sue you are shit outta luck.
 
Damocles said:
M'eh. One year. I usually go out to the Comedy Club, but my wife is sick this year and we chose to stay home.

Since she is sick she has gone to bed. I am still up, taking advantage of tomorrow off.
Click to expand...
I have my two kids in from Tucson every year at this time so I never get New YEars. Next year I am going to insist that I get the first part of christmas and she gets the second.
 
Socrtease said:
Yes but in most states there are Statutes of limitations on Tort claims as well. Here in NM it is 3 years from the date of the injury or the discovery of the injury. So if you remember the abuse at 18 but wait till you are 23 to sue you are shit outta luck.
Click to expand...
So, I can be abused at 4, remember it at 18, but can only sue because of the statute of limitations on the crime is far different than it works for the tort.

As I said, the fix doesn't change anything. Allegations could be brought up at any time in such a suit.
 
Damocles said:
So, I can be abused at 4, remember it at 18, but can only sue because of the statute of limitations on the crime is far different than it works for the tort.

As I said, the fix doesn't change anything. Allegations could be brought up at any time in such a suit.
Click to expand...
True but remember at 15 and still be too embarassed to say anything and in most states you are outta luck.
 
Socrtease said:
True but remember at 15 and still be too embarassed to say anything and in most states you are outta luck.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you can "suddenly remember" at 18 even if you remembered at 15. The reality is that justice is not found in such a system that allows these high recidivism predators to continue to be out regardless of the evidence against them. The system, in this case, is broken.
 
Damocles said:
We cannot base policy on the lowest common denominator. People are not regularly convicted on baseless charges. Again, as a DA would you not face serious consequences for bringing spurious charges such as the fool who brought baseless charges against the Lacrosse team?

Instead of saying, "We should never send these people to prison, yet we should allow the same allegations to go through lawsuits at a far lower evidence level" is a dichotomy that is prevalent. The money does not solve the problem of recidivism and losing a lawsuit does not stop a sexual predator of this type.

Seriously, it would be better to fix the system and add protections against spurious charges than to simply dismiss any realistic cases that could be brought to protect against the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

Honestly, Damo, I've never read any concrete evidence to suggest that the recividism rate is near what is popularly believed. Damo - there is a mass hysteria about this. People aren't thinking rationally.

I guess it's better to put 10 innocent men in jail than let 1 guilty guy go free, though. Gonzo thinking.
 
Socrtease said:
Yes but in most states there are Statutes of limitations on Tort claims as well. Here in NM it is 3 years from the date of the injury or the discovery of the injury. So if you remember the abuse at 18 but wait till you are 23 to sue you are shit outta luck.
Click to expand...

Tort claims also don't have the same burden of proof. And paying money isn't the same as spending life in prison.
 
Watermark said:
Honestly, Damo, I've never read any concrete evidence to suggest that the recividism rate is near what is popularly believed. Damo - there is a mass hysteria about this. People aren't thinking rationally.

I guess it's better to put 10 innocent men in jail than let 1 guilty guy go free, though. Gonzo thinking.
Click to expand...
Then you haven't researched this. That is clear. When one comes forward, many come forward from the same person. They repeatedly do the crime. Socrtease isn't pretending that there isn't an extremely high recidivism for this particular crime because he knows that there is.
 
Watermark said:
Tort claims also don't have the same burden of proof. And paying money isn't the same as spending life in prison.
Click to expand...
However, because of the lower burden of proof it is far more likely that a claim that never would net a conviction can actually "mark" a person for life. Basically a fallacious claim can net a person a ton of cash while actually ruining another's life all without the need to actually prove the claim to the level of conviction.

By allowing tort you actually exacerbate the problem of fallacious claims rather than promote a solution that can actually net justice for the victim.
 
Damocles said:
Then you haven't researched this. That is clear. When one comes forward, many come forward from the same person. They repeatedly do the crime. Socrtease isn't pretending that there isn't an extremely high recidivism for this particular crime because he knows that there is.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it isn't high but it's not 100%. The only place I've ever read that were in places that said it just like you did. "Well, OF COURSE it's 100%". It's that kind of blurry anecdotal evidence. It sort of reminds me reading about whether or not pot causes insanity in the 30's, anyone who suggested it didn't immediately lost their job. The only reason I even bring this stuff up, Damo, is because I'm worried people are getting whipped into an insane frenzy over this issue. It happens every few years.

And besides, I guess Soc is right. The statute of limitations is there for a reason. 15 years in the future there is not going to be any real evidence besides accusations.
 
I mean, almost every protection and right was put in there for a reason. I remember being confused about why double jeopardy existed whenever I first heard about it. My teacher explained to me that in the old times, whenever the protection didn't exist, the government used to constantly bring cases up against people it thought were guilty in an attempt to punish them in that manner. It may not make sense at first, but then a guy who knows about why the law exists, like Soc, can explain it.
 
Watermark said:
I'm not saying it isn't high but it's not 100%. The only place I've ever read that were in places that said it just like you did. "Well, OF COURSE it's 100%". It's that kind of blurry anecdotal evidence. It sort of reminds me reading about whether or not pot causes insanity in the 30's, anyone who suggested it didn't immediately lost their job. The only reason I even bring this stuff up, Damo, is because I'm worried people are getting whipped into an insane frenzy over this issue. It happens every few years.

And besides, I guess Soc is right. The statute of limitations is there for a reason. 15 years in the future there is not going to be any real evidence besides accusations.
Click to expand...
I've never said it was 100%. Now you are being disingenuous. It's like a disease tonight.

It is extremely high, and the likelihood that you are allowing somebody who will victimize more children walk the streets through such a policy is also very high. The more you let walk with that policy the more it comes closer to 100% that children will be abused because you let lawsuits go where conviction should be.

And all I propose is allowing a trial where there is actual evidence.
 
Damocles said:
I've never said it was 100%. Now you are being disingenuous. It's like a disease tonight.

It is extremely high, and the likelihood that you are allowing somebody who will victimize more children walk the streets through such a policy is also very high. The more you let walk with that policy the more it comes closer to 100% that children will be abused because you let lawsuits go where conviction should be.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Damo, I was actually thinking of someone else at that moment, whenever I used the 100% figure.

And I agree, molestation and child rape is more on par with murder than with other crimes, and was treated far too leniently in the past because people didn't understand the issue. In many states they still let molesters get off with probation. It's an ancient way of thought.

The important thing to do is to give our children knowledge of how they work. If we didn't have as many taboos about sex, we wouldn't have to worry about daughters being beaten with irons because they tell their mom that their stepdad is molesting them. That would go a long way. Our society, in a way, fosters these kinds of protections for molesters.


But the statue of limitations, well, it may sound unfortunate but it's there for a reason. So that it's not as easy for people in their 20's to bring up cases against their preacher, or some other person, for personal reasons. The crowd can easily be whipped into an insane frenzy and convict innocent men, even whenever there is no real evidence. This is obviously a sensitive issue.
 
Watermark said:
I'm sorry Damo, I was actually thinking of someone else at that moment, whenever I used the 100% figure.

And I agree, molestation and child rape is more on par with murder than with other crimes, and was treated far too leniently in the past because people didn't understand the issue. In many states they still let molesters get off with probation. It's an ancient way of thought.

The important thing to do is to give our children knowledge of how they work. If we didn't have as many taboos about sex, we wouldn't have to worry about daughters being beaten with irons because they tell their mom that their stepdad is molesting them. That would go a long way. Our society, in a way, fosters these kinds of protections for molesters.


But the statue of limitations, well, it may sound unfortunate but it's there for a reason. So that it's not as easy for people in their 20's to bring up cases against their preacher, or some other person, for personal reasons. The crowd can easily be whipped into an insane frenzy and convict innocent men, even whenever there is no real evidence. This is obviously a sensitive issue.
Click to expand...
Then the reality is that tort should be equally, if not more strictly, limited as well. Imagine being a preacher who has done no such thing who is sued and enough allegation is brought forward that he loses.

Even if he won he is unlikely to be the preacher of the same church as before, if any church will ever let him preach again.

It's like attempting to have our cake and to eat it too. Why protect them from a criminal case for those reasons while we still allow them to be painted with lawsuits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top