• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Statute of limitations needs to be reexamined.

Gaius46 said:
In Minnesota there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault for someone under 18 provided there is preserved physical evidence that can be DNA tested. Nor is there a statute of limitations on kidnapping

Here's a link to a Minnesota House document summarizing the statute of limitations laws in the state. What I'm citing is on page 4.

Additionally the article states:





See bolded. Why would Heinrich's lawyer insist he not be charged with Scheierl's assault and kidnapping if the statute of limitations had run out?
Click to expand...
Maybe he was afraid that a change in the law might occur which would allow the state to prosecute cases which occurred prior to the year 2000? I honestly don't know. What I do know is they could not prosecute Heinrich for the kidnapping and rape of Scheierl TODAY. This point is well covered in the video I provided in the OP, numerous newspaper articles available, as well as literally every single interview I have seen in the past week or so(which has been MANY) with officials involved with the case.

They could not prosecute him for the Scheierl case because the statute of limitations had expired.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Maybe he was afraid that a change in the law might occur which would allow the state to prosecute cases which occurred prior to the year 2000? I honestly don't know. What I do know is they could not prosecute Heinrich for the kidnapping and rape of Scheierl TODAY. This point is well covered in the video I provided in the OP, numerous newspaper articles available, as well as literally every single interview I have seen in the past week or so(which has been MANY) with officials involved with the case.

They could not prosecute him for the Scheierl case because the statute of limitations had expired.
Click to expand...

Apologies. That is what the video in the StarTribune article says - I wasn't able to view it until just now.

I'm not sure why that is. Everything I looked at says there is no statute of limitations on kidnapping. With the sexual assault having qualifications I could see where they might conclude that, but there are no qualifications at all on the statute of limitations for kidnapping
 
Gaius46 said:
Apologies. That is what the video in the StarTribune article says - I wasn't able to view it until just now.

I'm not sure why that is. Everything I looked at says there is no statute of limitations on kidnapping. With the sexual assault having qualifications I could see where they might conclude that, but there are no qualifications at all on the statute of limitations for kidnapping
Click to expand...
It is a little bit convoluted.

Crimes committed prior to the year 2000 are still subject to preexisting statutes of limitations. Pretty stupid, if you ask me. It's like they're exempting cases to which the technology didn't exist at the time to solve but now CAN be. What's the point in that?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
It is a little bit convoluted.

Crimes committed prior to the year 2000 are still subject to preexisting statutes of limitations. Pretty stupid, if you ask me. It's like they're exempting cases to which the technology didn't exist at the time to solve but now CAN be. What's the point in that?
Click to expand...

Ahhh so the statute of limitations laws changed. I was looking at the laws as of 2010 - didn't realize they had changed. I kind of assumed that statute of limitations laws don't change all that often and didn't bother to look to see if they were different. Bad assumption on my part.

A possible explanation for why the new limitation laws don't apply retroactively is that there might be Constitutional problems with that. The Constitution doesn't allow for ex-post facto laws. If something is made illegal today you can't be charged with a crime if you did it yesterday. I don't know if that would apply to a statute of limitation law. I kinda/sorta think it would but I'm really just guessing. Maybe one of the lawyers can chime in on the subject.
 
Gaius46 said:
Ahhh so the statute of limitations laws changed. I was looking at the laws as of 2010 - didn't realize they had changed. I kind of assumed that statute of limitations laws don't change all that often and didn't bother to look to see if they were different. Bad assumption on my part.

A possible explanation for why the new limitation laws don't apply retroactively is that there might be Constitutional problems with that. The Constitution doesn't allow for ex-post facto laws. If something is made illegal today you can't be charged with a crime if you did it yesterday. I don't know if that would apply to a statute of limitation law. I kinda/sorta think it would but I'm really just guessing. Maybe one of the lawyers can chime in on the subject.
Click to expand...
I don't know either.

What I do know is that an absolute monster just got a deal that he should have never been in a position to get.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I don't know either.

What I do know is that an absolute monster just got a deal that he should have never been in a position to get.
Click to expand...

I agree. There are good reasons for statute of limitations laws but like most things sometimes they are going to benefit people who really do need to be locked up forever.

fwiw though I guessing this asshole never again sees the light of day as a free man.
 
Gaius46 said:
I agree. There are good reasons for statute of limitations laws but like most things sometimes they are going to benefit people who really do need to be locked up forever.

fwiw though I guessing this asshole never again sees the light of day as a free man.
Click to expand...
"Word on the street" is they already have in place a plan to bring him up on federal charges for civil rights violations. If you recall the case of the civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi in the 1960's(Mississippi Burning), it was federal civil rights charges that the perpetrators of that crime were ultimately found guilty of and incarcerated for.

If they find Heinrich guilty of denying Jacob Wetterling his civil right to life(which is a slam dunk since he already admitted to it) and tack that on to the 20 year sentence he will get for the child pornography charge, it should be enough to keep him in for life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom