The state's Supreme Court said a three-year "look-back window" on abuse allegations was unconstitutional
    • cmbabul@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      8 个月前

      If someone besides elon or one of his sociopathic peers put together a generation starship to colonize a new galaxy I’d sign up in a second

      • Halasham@dormi.zoneEnglish
        6·
        8 个月前

        We just have to convince a significant number of “rabble rousers” to sign up for a colony ship even if it is Elon’s, then riot and overthrown the colonial authorities once we’re far enough away he can’t readily send reinforcements.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          8 个月前

          I’d much rather just tell the fruitcakes to go with Elon and the others.

          Then we can start cleaning the place up

          • Halasham@dormi.zoneEnglish
            1·
            8 个月前

            Yeah, that would be nice. Unfortunately we have centuries of precedent that the owner class won’t abandon something until they’ve wrong all profitability from it, some point after wringing any qualities of goodness from it perverting the whole of it to perverse profitability.

            In order to be free revolting will be necessary, weather that be here or somewhere else.

    • HikingVet@lemmy.caEnglish
      12·
      8 个月前

      Depends on the crime. You’ll find most places have a statute of limitations only on certain crimes while other crimes (usually ones that cause grievous harm) don’t.

    • Halasham@dormi.zoneEnglish
      4·
      8 个月前

      If they’re by the powerful: They do, and almost immediately after committing them. Corruption is legal here.

    • nehal3m@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      13·
      8 个月前

      I mean sure, but whether or not you’re a member of a club should have exactly not a damn thing to do with it.

      • LizEnglish
        8·
        8 个月前

        I haven’t looked into this case. Are they actually making a specific ruling regarding priests, or is it just that this case involved priests? I could easily see headlines claiming the ruling to be more specific than it actually is, for clickbait reasons.

        • zout@fedia.io
          5·
          8 个月前

          It isn’t that specific. The supreme court ruled that because it is hard to build a defence after so much time has passed, it is against the constitution to allow people to sue someone after the statute of limitations has passed. Failing to recognize it is even harder to prove you’re a victim after such long time has passed.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      8 个月前

      There is no statute of limitations on murder. There should also not be one on sexual assault, especially not when a child is assaulted.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      8 个月前

      There doesn’t appear to be A limitation for sexual assault of children. It might be lumped in with “personal injury” for one year, though.

      Criminally, it’s 30 years starting when the victim is 18.

      • Mango@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        8 个月前

        RIP Priests.

        I think it should definitely be shorter than that though just for practicality’s sake. I didn’t think it’s likely to prove it disprove anything after so much time.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          8 个月前

          I’m okay if they don’t rest in peace.

          There’s reasons to extend it, actually. Even if prosecution is harder, victims rarely come forward in otherwise “reasonable” time frames.

          Especially when the victims are children who may not know what’s happening to them is even wrong.