Bill Cosby is in some hot water lately. He is accused of raping up to 27 different women and the world suddenly has begun to close in around him. That said, and not to condone his actions should he in fact be guilty, I would like to point out a few things. During the period in which the alleged crimes took place, there was a very different social culture? Now we know this doesn't make things right and to the vast majority or the population today, non-consensual sex is extremely offensive, but society at that time was not what it is now. It often turned a blind eye to this culture, treating it as tolerable, just as it condoned domestic physical abuse ("a woman has to know her place") or racial discrimination (public abuse and segregation for 'non-whites'). In fact, it was only in the 1970's that the criminalization of marital rape even began to take hold in the U.S. and it took until 1993 for it to become official law in all 50 states. That's only 20 years ago! Today's population and popular culture society is obviously against rape/abuse of all forms, but where is the moral line of responsibility? Should we go back to the turn of the century, seek out all events that we find offensive today and take any surviving offenders to trial for them? Or, should we grandfather all cases up to their statute of limitations date and move forward as a civilization? The statute of limitations exists for the reason that society and law changes over time and once that time expires, the courts no longer have jurisdiction. There are three reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations, namely: (a) a plaintiff with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence; (b) a defendant might have lost evidence to disprove a stale claim; and (c) long dormant claims have more cruelty than justice in them (Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition).
** There are very strict guidelines, but the cause of action dictates the statute of limitations on a civil case, where contracts, personal injury, libel and fraud cases legal or equitable remedy. These statutes can be reduced or extended to ensure a fair trial. Once a statute in a criminal actions case expires the court no longer has jurisdiction to punish the defendant. ** (Source: Wikipedia, as referenced from:
Special Historic Session. "Opening Remarks:HistoricSpecial section". http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/compsum2.pdf. Supreme Court Of California. Retrieved 6 June 2014.
We take people to task on their discriminating opinions today as a means to alter social culture for the better, to direct resources to where they are best utilized and to bring about positive change. A pot smoker in Colorado or Washington State today has new freedoms brought about by more liberal perspectives, but 20 years ago, the same behavior would have earned them life imprisonment. So were they horrible criminals before the last vote? No, they were people living within a system which has since changed for the better.
There is no reason to justify the heinous acts of one person against another. I do believe however, that it must be the people actually involved in the dispute that must exercise their rights and not us as the general public. Should we try to control the outcome, we will allow a combination of the toxic, infectious seepage of anarchist confusion and easily provoked, mob mentality to dictate how we govern ourselves as a society. This to me is not a progressive option for humanity.
