Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

leftyohiolib

(5,917 posts)
5. yea i saw that i guess more to the point would be
Sat Jun 22, 2013, 01:09 PM
Jun 2013

the protections that are set up in the statute should apply to all laws since things like loss of evidence can happen in any crime. or maybe better said none of that matters in cases of homicide so if they can say none of those conditions matter for that type crime shouldn't it be that none of that matters for any crime- crime is crime if someone vandalizes my house and i find out 8 years later who did it. i think they should still be held accountable.
or lets say someone outs a cia operative in wartime should still be held accountable even if it's a decade later

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

. Wilms Jun 2013 #1
From Wiki pkdu Jun 2013 #2
yea i saw that i guess more to the point would be leftyohiolib Jun 2013 #5
Witnesses die, forget, or become otherwise unable to testify. pnwmom Jun 2013 #8
Napoleon . orpupilofnature57 Jun 2013 #3
Yes taterguy Jun 2013 #4
--> savalez Jun 2013 #6
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #7
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»does anyone know why is t...»Reply #5