Does this make sense for anybody else? Or is it just me:

[Looney]

It's on CNNfront page poll. Who would they indict if there are no suspect??

 

[ironcrotch]

lol.. pwned. :beer:

i'm not a lawyer so maybe there is someway to file an indictment on DNA without a person? maybe to start the legal preceedings?

 

[sixone]

It makes perfect sense, if you read the related story.

 

[ohtwell]

They do that so they can keep the case open past the statute of limitations on rape cases.


: ) Amanda

 

[cw42]

haha, xbox killing on front page... pretty pathetic how people try to blame videogames.

 

[ohtwell]

Originally posted by: sixone
It makes perfect sense, if you read the related story.

Yep!


: ) Amanda

 

[ohtwell]

Originally posted by: cw42
haha, xbox killing on front page... pretty pathetic how people try to blame videogames.

They aren't saying that playing the Xbox made them want to kill, or that it gave them the idea of how to do it. They are saying that people were killed because the people allegedly stole their Xbox and some other stuff. I think you took that title the wrong way.


: ) Amnada

 

[Kibbo]

I think that it is a disengenuous way to circumvent the law. However, I think that the statute of limitations on rape in that state is too short (15 yrs)

To manipulate the law, just because it is a bad one, sets a dangerous precedent. I wonder what justification was made regarding keeping the statute the way it was?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: sixone
It makes perfect sense, if you read the related story.

Ah it does. I didn't read that story initially. That actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
I think that it is a disengenuous way to circumvent the law. However, I think that the statute of limitations on rape in that state is too short (15 yrs)

To manipulate the law, just because it is a bad one, sets a dangerous precedent. I wonder what justification was made regarding keeping the statute the way it was?

Well they're not really manipulating the law imo... they have the DNA, they just don't know who it belongs to. So you indict the DNA label XYZ123 until the owner of the DNA is found. It's like indicting a murderer, and you know exactly who did it, but you just don't have a face or photo of him. This is just one step beyond that, you don't have a face or name, but you do have the person.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
I think that it is a disengenuous way to circumvent the law. However, I think that the statute of limitations on rape in that state is too short (15 yrs)

To manipulate the law, just because it is a bad one, sets a dangerous precedent. I wonder what justification was made regarding keeping the statute the way it was?

The prosecutors aren't the ones making/changing the statutes of limitations. They have to make the best of what they have to work with. If it helps get a rapist off the streets for a longer period of time, so much the better.

 

[Kwatt]

If there is a law I don't like and I find a way around it is that okay?
Because there is a few I think that are wrong.

I always thought that if you think a law is bad or wrong you seek ways to have changed or removed. Not seek a way to bypass it.

Now we have the people in law inforcement looking for ways to get around the laws of the state which they swore oath to uphold.

IT MAKES ME NERVOUS!

I do agree that the statute of limitations on some crimes is far to short.

I don't think this is the proper answer.



Kwatt

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Kwatt
If there is a law I don't like and I find a way around it is that okay?
Because there is a few I think that are wrong.

I always thought that if you think a law is bad or wrong you seek ways to have changed or removed. Not seek a way to bypass it.

Now we have the people in law inforcement looking for ways to get around the laws of the state which they swore oath to uphold.

IT MAKES ME NERVOUS!

I do agree that the statute of limitations on some crimes is far to short.

I don't think this is the proper answer.



Kwatt

Generally, I would agree with you. However, these indictments would be subject to appeal, IF they result in a conviction. Works for me.

 

[Kwatt]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Kwatt
If there is a law I don't like and I find a way around it is that okay?
Because there is a few I think that are wrong.

I always thought that if you think a law is bad or wrong you seek ways to have changed or removed. Not seek a way to bypass it.

Now we have the people in law inforcement looking for ways to get around the laws of the state which they swore oath to uphold.

IT MAKES ME NERVOUS!

I do agree that the statute of limitations on some crimes is far to short.

I don't think this is the proper answer.



Kwatt

Generally, I would agree with you. However, these indictments would be subject to appeal, IF they result in a conviction. Works for me.

As long as you are comfortable with the end justifying the means. Have at it. After all the US is still a semi-free country...


Kwatt