I see Stuart Hall has now been charged with a rape and indecent assaults on kids.

Pretty horrible and I suppose he is bound to be jailed if found guilty.

But I would guess there is a good chance he might top himself as his life is now ruined. And he doesn't really deserve that.

So should there be a Statute of Limitations in criminal law? I would exclude murder but include everything else perhaps on a graded timescale so rape after say 20 years would be excluded.

On the other hand perhaps serious crime always deserve to be punished?

What do you think?

Personally I don't see the point if jailing an 83 year old for a crime committed 40 odd years ago.

dl

 

What about the girl that was raped? Does she deserve no justice just cos he got away with it?
I agree they've kinda missed their chance but he's still the same man. His age has nothing to do with it. He should pay the price for his actions.
Especially if he's been fiddling with kids

 

They will never be able to prove one way or another so can;t see it ever going to court or will be word on word. Although accusations seem to be enough now adays.

No comfort for the alleged victime (cos it is alleged only) i know.

 

If someone has committed such a heinous crime then I think they should always be held responsible and have to face the music if they are caught as having done it. The whole idea of punishment is to try to stop people from committing crime anyway.

Stuart Hall has not been proved guilty in court yet!

Les

 

Really?? Of course he should be punished.

 

if hes guilty throw the book at him no mater waht age. Issue i have is there zero chance of a solid conviction, so unless he admits guilt there is no case.

 

So your daughter gets raped lives in a hellish internal torment for 20 years finally due to a media water shed gets the guts to say something thus bringing on legitimate charge and you wouldn't want that?


I see this a lot in the media what I mean is "celebrity forgiveness"

Craig Charles gets filmed smoking over £500 pounds worth of crack cocaine in a taxi, keeps his job and he's still on the tv every night

Richard Bacon Sacked from Blue peter again over cocaine is now working for Bbc 5 live

What I'm getting at if a normal man on the street does any of the above he is vilified and ostracized by normal society but celebrities seem to get let off.

 

I always thought after 20yrs they didn't continue the hunt anymore. The only thing I can think of is that they still have the womans sticky knickers and DNA has the answers?

 

What are the chances of a guilty verdict after 40 years?
One persons word against another's?
I always thought the DPP was only supposed to pursue cases where there is more than a 50% chance of success.
It seems to me that these days, this principle is waved for what are in effect, political reasons ie. to give people who didn't give a **** when they should have, the appearance that they now do.
If he gets off, then I gather his defence lawyers will be paid from the public purse, as will the prosecution costs and let's not forget about the costs of investigation.
Mind you, if he gets off, I guess it might present his previous employer in a better light.

 

Must have been a long taxi drive. £500 gets you a lot of crack.

£20 a time will go in the crack pipe, so thats 25 go's on the pipe with say 10 minutes in between (it would be more) thats 25 x 10 = 250 minutes.

Thats over 4 hours in a taxi!!! The taxi probably cost more than the crack.


*No, i'm not a crackhead but unfortunately my mate turned into one

 

You say his life is ruined and doesn't deserve it, would you be so forgiving if it was your son or daughter?
However ,what I don't understand is why have people waited so long to report these crimes!

 

Of course these crimes need to be punished. People need to see that no matter how long it takes, there is a we'll get you eventually no matter who you are.

What I do have a problem with is names being released until found guilty.

 

Interesting question, considering that the UK is apparently unique in the whole of Europe and possibly the wider developed world in not having a SoL for offences other than murder:

http://www.theopinionsite.org/should...on-sex-crimes/
http://www.theforensicnurse.com/Rape...s_By_State.cfm

Without DNA evidence, you really have to wonder how reliable any conviction can be so long after an alleged act took place.

 

When does GUILTY stop meaning guilty?????

If he did it he did it, age doesn't make him less guilty than he was when he was young...


However.... groupies and celeb hags.... Jimmy Saville all over again...

 

i suspect if this woman had made the allegations last year (pre-saville), the police would have said "little chance of prosecution after all these years, sorry" -- In todays climate "we will charge him... " (with little chance of conviction).

It has been 30 years and he is over 80 - I doubt if he can remember what was doing last week!!

 

You got the number right it was a 4 hour taxi ride with him stuck to the pipe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...000-crack.html

 

So if he did commit the crime the chances of the cps proving it are virtually nil so he will not be convicted. If he didn’t commit the crime the chances of him proving his innocence are also virtually nil but he will for the remainder of his life be tarnished with the accusations made against him.

 

yep, that in a nutshell is the problem.

He will always be thought of as a sex offender now by most people. despite not being guilty of anything.

dont forget we live in a society of innocent untill proven guilty, so right now he's guilty of nothing

 

Anyone seen John Leslie lately?

 

yep another case of it, no charges ever brought, yet destroyed him