(October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Losty Wrote: The killing or raping or whatever is still unlawful even if there's something that prevents charges from being brought up. I someone raped another person 50 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because they're no longer living their actions were still unlawful. The same if someone raped someone 5 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because the SoL has passed, the rape itself was still unlawful.

That's the problem though, if something is "unlawful", it's against the law. If the law has a statue of limitations, then the law doesn't apply to any events that happened prior to the period defined by the statute, so whilst at the time of the rape it was against the law, 5 years later it is not.

Effectively what the statute of limitations is saying is "rape is against the law unless the rape occurs 5 years or more before it is reported".

The argument Drich seems to be making (however poorly worded I think it is), is that rapes that occurred 5 years before they are reported aren't rapes in the sense that they aren't crimes, because they aren't unlawful anymore. I think his argument in that respect is correct, and it's effectively legal to rape someone provided the victim doesn't report it within 5 years, because after that time the person can't be charged with it.

That doesn't mean the rape (i.e. the actual non-consensual sex) didn't happen of course.

(October 17, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Losty Wrote: The killing or raping or whatever is still unlawful even if there's something that prevents charges from being brought up. I someone raped another person 50 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because they're no longer living their actions were still unlawful. The same if someone raped someone 5 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because the SoL has passed, the rape itself was still unlawful.

That's the problem though, if something is "unlawful", it's against the law. If the law has a statue of limitations, then the law doesn't apply to any events that happened prior to the period defined by the statute, so whilst at the time of the rape it was against the law, 5 years later it is not.

Effectively what the statute of limitations is saying is "rape is against the law unless the rape occurs 5 years or more before it is reported".

The argument Drich seems to be making (however poorly worded I think it is), is that rapes that occurred 5 years before they are reported aren't rapes in the sense that they aren't crimes, because they aren't unlawful anymore. I think his argument in that respect is correct, and it's effectively legal to rape someone provided the victim doesn't report it within 5 years, because after that time the person can't be charged with it.

That doesn't mean the rape (i.e. the actual non-consensual sex) didn't happen of course.

No, the crime still occurred. It isn't that the act wasn't unlawful, it's that the law recognizes that after such and such period of time, it's not prosecutable. Lack of prosecution, or inability to prosecute, is not what defines an act as lawful or not, it is the act itself.

To me, that sort of semantic handwaving is the opposite of what should be happening here. It robs the victims of their voice.

(October 17, 2016 at 2:49 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: To me, that sort of semantic handwaving is the opposite of what should be happening here. It robs the victims of their voice.

Ordinarily I would agree, however the thread is about the purpose of the statute of limitations, not about any specific rape or victim.

Yeah, I have to agree with CD. Being unable to prosecute it doesn't make it illegal. It doesn't effectively change anything except the punishment. Not being able to prosecute someone for a crime does not make it less of a crime.

Quote:The argument Drich seems to be making (however poorly worded I think it is), is that rapes that occurred 5 years before they are reported aren't rapes in the sense that they aren't crimes, because they aren't unlawful anymore.

That depends on which state you are in..... something I'm sure his fucking jesus would approve of!

California just eliminated the SOL on rape cases so the catholicks had best get out of there ASAP.

(October 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: One definition of "murder" is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So if the killing wasn't unlawful (because there was some statue of limitations preventing a conviction), is it still murder, or is it just a "killing".

The statue of limitations does not confer legality upon any act. It confers immunity from prosecution. Those are two entirely different things. Don't equivocate the concepts.

Here's the DoJ's definition of rape:

Quote:The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Not one word in there about SoLs changing the status of the action, and this from the nation's highest law-enforcement authority.

Here's what the same authority has to say on the nature of SoLs:

Quote:A statute of limitations is a statutory limitation on the prosecution of an offense if the formal prosecution is not commenced, usually by return of an indictment or filing of an information, within a specified period after the completion of the offense. Statutes of limitations have been said to be a defendant's primary safeguard against the possibility of prejudice from preaccusation delay. See United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789 (1977).

A statute of limitations establishes an arbitrary cutoff point; no showing of prejudice is required. Thus, a statute of limitations defense is fundamentally distinct from a claim that a pre-indictment delay violated due process, which involves an evaluation of the reason for the delay and any prejudice to the accused. Lovasco, supra. Statutes of limitations should also be distinguished from post-accusation rights to promptness, such as the constitutional right to a speedy trial and rights under the Speedy Trial Act. Compare USAM 9-17.000 (USAM Chapter on the Speedy Trial Act).

Again, not a word about changing the status of the offense from criminal to legal.

Yup, I made a mistake and made some false assumptions about what the statute of limitations actually does. I don't agree with Drich's argument anymore, however I can see how he came to it.

(October 17, 2016 at 12:47 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote: ....Truly I do not understand the statement.. What do you have to be sorry for?

To me this is disingenuous.. You can't be sorry and mean it as you had nothing to do with the circumstances.(you just found out about it) You cant apologize for society or the community as you are not in a position to speak for it...

To me this is pity.

You simply feel bad this happened and feel a need to say something..

If this is the case, and you are unsure of the time line then isn't it possible that your offer of pity could do more harm than good?

Or is this just an empty gesture.. Kind like passing a co worker in the hall and asking 'how you doing?' but do not care in any way shape or form how one is doing.. it's just what you say...

Could it be that because you (apparently) lack compassion, you just can't recognize it in other people?

No, this is not an inability to identify compassion as "compassion" was option "b". I see what you label compassion and further identified with pity. which was the reason for the post. i want to know what makes what i see as pity being labeled as compassion.

If their isn't a difference, then I have explained why I feel compassion so long after the attack can be counter productive.

Again everything in it's place. There is a time for pity and compassion but to decades after the fact UNLESS The individual intended on being a perpetual victim.

What I've said several times now is I have indeed made allowances for someone who intends to be a victim all their life. However the focus of my efforts is to make that person aware that they do NOT have to subscriber to perpetual victim hood even though all polite society is willing to offer is misplaced pity.

Again simply providing an alternative. So when someone like CL provides a contrasting example It makes me wonder why she would offer "pity" so long after the attack or if she saw compassion in a different way.

Quote:Also, word salad. Could you possibly organize your points in your head and be more conservative with them? I feel like your posts are rambling stream of consciousness diatribes that include everything from your own delusions of being a Jesus figure to some nonsense about a timeline having bearing on whether "pity" is genuine compassion or not. It's really hard to follow whenever it's not impossible. Perhaps a free course on essay writing or logic would be helpful.

This is an unfair assessment.

You are looking at a compilation of answers I have been giving out to 10 or 15 different people over the span of a week that have brought up to 10 different points each. I am even taking heat from fellow believers challenging me to be more Christ like. To which i responded with several examples of Christ confrontational behavior.

I answer each post based on the questions ask. If collectively my posts seem redundant or all over the place it is because I personally answer each person's objection or query individually. I have little control on the answers provided as they are given out in accordance to what has been asked or brought up.

IDK if you ever been/Always are on defense or have 1/2 a dozen to a full 12 people grill you from as many different angles on a given subject, but it is nearly impossible to provide a singular stream of coherent thought that ties together everyone questions/arguments. (especially when people are continually fading in and out of the toopic) IF My efforts seem fragmented because I am not talking to you specifically unless I have quoted you specifically.

(October 17, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 12:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Is Rape Not a Criminal act? Are Criminal acts and illegal synonyms?

If so let's define criminal act:

A Criminal act is an act committed by a person that violates a law and which is punishable by the government. Criminal acts are offenses against the public which are punishable.

So if an offense is not punishable then then it is not a criminal act, it is not illegal.

rape is only rape if it is reported with in the SOL. out side of the SOL it ceases to be prosecutable.

What exactly am I make up?

You exactly am makeup the punishable by government bit. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=illegal

Rape is rape a million years from now. Rape will still be rape when all the humans are dead. Rape that hasn't even happened yet is rape. In fact, rape doesn't have to be illegal to be rape. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rape

Clicky linky will make for more knowing.

actually I didn't:
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+p...iminal+act



Clicky linky will make for more knowing.

(October 17, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Vic Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote: ....Truly I do not understand the statement.. What do you have to be sorry for?

To me this is disingenuous.. You can't be sorry and mean it as you had nothing to do with the circumstances.(you just found out about it) You cant apologize for society or the community as you are not in a position to speak for it...

To me this is pity.

You simply feel bad this happened and feel a need to say something..

This is what you call empathy. It's a basic human skill that allows for societies to function. It would be pity if it involved a low opinion of the person you're being empathetic towards.

actually no.. Pity and compassion are synonymous.

The two words are literally used to define each other.

Search Results
pit·y
ˈpidē/
noun
noun: pity
1.
the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others.

com·pas·sion
kəmˈpaSHən/
noun
noun: compassion; plural noun: compassions
sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

You guys are arrogant if you think I don't know the meaning of the words. I simply asked CL to define those words as I do not understand her use of compassion so removed from the act. She wasn't responsible for it in any way shape or form nor did her words as far as I could determine show anything but pity.. So then inlight of what we (Cl and I) were discussion I was asking if there was some other reason besides and exhibition of pity did she intend when she offer her words... Then I asked why?

Why? because I see that as an offensive act. In other cultures say Korean, pitying someone in a similar situation could be construed as an offensive act. So I was wondering if she even knew why she said what she said or was it just a cultural reaction.