Options
Are 40 and 50 year old sexual abuse cases a waste of Police time and resources?
Elyan
Posts: 8,781 Forum Member
✭
There seems to be no end to these allegations related to crimes that were allegedly committed 40 or 50 years ago.
Police forces all over the country are telling us that they don't even have the resources to cope with the criminal investigations they currently have on their plate.
Is Police, CPS and Court time better served investigating and dealing with crimes that they have on their plate today?
Would we as a society not be better to offer the alleged victims of historical crimes victim support and counselling instead.
Is it time for us to just be hard and say enough is enough - and that the Police have enough to do already?
Police forces all over the country are telling us that they don't even have the resources to cope with the criminal investigations they currently have on their plate.
Is Police, CPS and Court time better served investigating and dealing with crimes that they have on their plate today?
Would we as a society not be better to offer the alleged victims of historical crimes victim support and counselling instead.
Is it time for us to just be hard and say enough is enough - and that the Police have enough to do already?
0
Comments
it`s rewarding offenders for not getting caught.
If everyone is dead its hard to see the point except to revise the opinion about the deceased
What is the point of offering counselling to victims if they know their abusers have just been allowed to get away with it?
I mean Ted Heath for example is now guilty until proven innocent and considering he has been dead for 10 years he can't exactly defend himself and so I understand why his friends and colleagues are reacting the way they are. Also why did the police officer not come forward until now, he's a police officer with information not some scared abused child.
People who have been molested during this time or any time should come forward.
Not to mention the fact that proving such incidents is almost impossible, unless a distinctly recognisable pattern over several individuals emerges.
All that said, I think that real cases of abuse, such as the filth which went on in care homes, and involving children, should definitely have no time limit. It was clearly against all moral decency standards then, as well as now.
Stuff between adults? no. Too difficult to prove.
I'd bet that 50 years from now, there will be red flag issues, which are currently treated as OK.
No.
Allegations should be investigated and the amount of time spent should be appropriate to the individual details and circumstances.
If someone is alleged to have committed a crime like this then it shouldn't be ignored. Also if someone is accused then they also have the opportunity to face their accuser in court and that could be in a criminal case or even a civil case.
I'm sure the system isn't perfect and the issue of anonymity for the accused person should be looked at. However, effectively time barring such crimes would be wrong and how many times do you hear people saying that the (alleged) criminals seem to get more consideration than the victims?
It really isn't. What it is, when you consider the US reasons for statute of limitations, is a common sense approach due to the "deterioration of evidence" because of the passage of time.
I completely disagree because part of an investigation can identify weaknesses in vetting procedures as well as uncovering accomplices - Ray Teret? - and anyone who covered things up or otherwise colluded.
If people come forward with false allegations then it's the police's job to weed them out. The actions of some liars shouldn't impact on genuine victims and their right to seek justice.
no, it really IS.
in what way would someone guilty of sexual abuse 40 - 50 years ago not be rewarded for being sly enough to beat the clock on prosecution?
Not that old chestnut again?
It was not legal in those days to sexually assault someone, it's just that some idiots either hide behind statements such as 'things were different then' or use it to excuse their actions or the unacceptable behaviour of others.
Deja vu anyone?
Such cliched excuses are distasteful at the very least and sometimes you wonder if it's because some people who trot them out (no one on here since I don't know them and because these excuses have become cliches so it could just be a matter of repetition) think that a little bit of unwelcome sexual activity is not really a big deal in the past or now and there is some sort of expectation of entitlement.
+me.
i was there and i remember, i dread to think what kind of world those who think it was any more acceptable then than now have lived in.
Closure for the victims;
Learning lessons from the past to prevent these things ever happening again;
The principle that the passage of time shouldn't make a crime any less horrific.
There's a news story recently about the tramp who allegedly pushed two dozen or more people to their deaths on the Underground. It happened decades ago (allegedly), but that doesn't mean the police shouldn't at least open inquiries into what really happened.
That said, I will agree to some extent that it's only in the public's best interests to pursue these matters if police time and resources allow for it. In an age of deep spending cuts on law enforcement, I can understand if there's a limit to what can be done. But then you could argue that the money for any historic investigations can be recouped from convicted perpetrators.
But they were different then. It's no use pretending they weren't. The dynamics of society were nothing like they are today. Doesn't make people "idiots" for pointing that out.
Some stuff that was reported to the police back in 1965 had no action taken on it. Is it fair that 50 years later, when the two individuals are both old, the police should suddenly decide to investigate the same incident now?
As I said - anything involving children, yes, investigate. So for example, Heath definitely. But not adults.
Anyway the thread title asked for opinions. I've given mine, and I'm not endlessly arguing about it. So I'm out/-
you weren`t even born 50 years ago were you?
It was because their status, as men compared to women and children, more so as important men, protected them.
it`s a bit like when children ask if you remember when there were dinosaurs, no concept of the possibilty of civilisation as long as 50 years ago.
charlie says don`t go off with strangers c.1973.
Yes, that people got away with things doesn't mean there was nothing to get away with. There's also some blurring of lines with people (deliberately?), as if people are talking about some Carry On style slap and tickle with 17-year olds, rather than what actually is the case.
I think it has wider significance than just the impact on the (alleged) perpetrators and victims.
It's not a "reward", it's the lesser of two evils. The justice system works on a premise of "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" The nature of these cases, usually the accuser's word being the only evidence, and the passage of time obscuring memory, means that unfortunately, there is a reasonable doubt inherent in these cases before they even start.