MT: The Latest: Fox asks Montana lawmakers to act on [child sex crime] time limits

[kansas.com – 2/19/19]

HELENA, Mont.

The Latest on Montana cases before the Supreme Court (all times local):

4:20 p.m.

Montana Attorney General Tim Fox is asking state lawmakers to act after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his petition that would have allowed prosecutors to charge a man for the decades-old rape of an 8-year-old girl.

The Republican attorney general called the high court’s decision Tuesday “beyond disappointing.” He is urging the Legislature to repeal statutes of limitations for child sex crimes, saying no offender “should find comfort in running out the clock.”

Read more

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I have a hard time believing that a DNA sample from 30 years ago is even possible. Forensics at that time were simply not as sophisticated as now, especially in remote places like Montana.

The reason for statutes of limitation are for cases like this. How is the accused supposed to defend himself? How does he answer questions like “Where were you on March 28th, 1987 from 6 to 8 pm? Can anyone verify that?” Do they seriously think he (or anyone) can give an hour-by-hour account of wherever he may have been at any point 30 years ago? Or that anyone can vouch for his presence?

I’m certainly not okay with the sexual assault of an 8 year old, but the accused’s constitutional rights must be preserved. They’re already overlooked with impunity when someone is accused of sex crime far too often.

Every time I read one of these I have to ask all you Californians: If 2002 SCOTUS Stogner decision stopped California in it’s tracks, then why can’t other States be affected ??

There are reasons for statutes of limitations beyond just the difficulty in memory recollection and quality of evidence.

There is also the need to restrict the number of unlikely or bad cases wasting court time.

In addition, there needs to be an urgency to report crimes to prevent more victims. If someone waits 20 years, there is no help to prevent other victims when it mattered.

This guy trying to get the court to ignore statute of limitations is obviously just a political game. He knew darn well the result. He just wants to make the news and get votes and has no intention to actually get justice for anyone.