Why is this any different to anything else, like murder?
I'll ask you again: How do you as the accused defend yourself from allegations thirty years ago? It's a denial of natural justice - sorry but if you waited too long to make your allegations public then you waited too long.
There needs to be a statute of limitations, end-of-story. How do you defend yourself against allegations from twenty or thirty years ago?
I very much disagree - most genuine victims don't come forward until 20-30 years afterwards.
So a person committing a murder 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?
So a person committing a sex act against a child 20 to 30 years ago should be let off?
Get real. Ok you are supporting Pell, but don't change the system to support the person. Victims of crime deserve an opportunity to raise an allegation without fear.
Again, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is trying to defend themselves from an allegation from 30 or 40 years ago. How do you do that? Where do you even start if you can't recall the exact circumstances of your supposed offense?
You might have had a brief sexual relationship with someone from decades ago that didn't work out or that wasn't really significant in your mind - then suddenly the police want to interview you about a night from thirty years ago like what happened to John Jarrett a few years ago. How do you get witnesses if you can't even remember the specific night or who that person even was?
John Jarrett was extremely lucky that there were holes in his accuser's story that came out during the trial otherwise he'd probably be in jail; he really had no hope of defending himself against that allegation because he couldn't even remember the night that he had supposed to have raped the accuser. What if he was in jail right now simply because he couldn't remember the incident and couldn't mount a proper defense?
There really needs to be a statute of limitations on things like sexual assault for this exact reason: The accused can't be expected to mount a proper defense if there's been decades passed since the supposed incident: It's a denial of natural justice particularly when it's your word against an accuser - in Pell's case the accuser was considered very credible despite the fact that he got things wrong like the set-out of the Cathedral and the colour of the wine.
I'm sorry but if you sit on something for decades for whatever reason then you are leaving it too late.
So we should not prosecute NAZI war criminals, the Pol Pot murderers?
Nowhere did I say this.
Seriously you need to stop suggesting the system needs to be changed to suit pedos.
The fact is Pell, went through, quite rightly the judicial system.
He was initially found guilty. The appeal court 2-1 found the initial finding was correct. Then the unanimously the full bench found Pell was erroneously found guilty and quashed his conviction. The system worked for Pell.
ULTIMATELY the system worked. Yes Pell went through hell. So did the complainant.
So Pell was one case.
Are you suggesting that a person should not raise a complaint of RAPE 30 years later because some one is older?
I can understand your passionate support for Pell. I can understand how you feel vindicated. But I do not understand your belief that the judicial system should be changed because of what Pell went through.
Do not defend the rights of the people of being accused. Defend the rights of people that believe that have been done wrong. The judicial system will sort it out. Yes it is at a cost.
Can you answer this? Do you rather that perpetrators never be accused of crime because of an arbitrary age of the crime?
Is this a society you want to live in where the guilty can hide behind the statute of limitations? It would make me sick knowing that Pedos can hide because an 8 year old, finally has a voice at 38 to raise the issue.
Your support for Pell is understandable and the other aspects of the case is understandable, but to say that because people are old should never be held to account for their actions as a young person, makes me uncomfortable. It demonstrates to me a belief that the whole juridical system is flawed. If that is the case open the gaols up, let al the prisoners out, as they are all innocent.
As far as I am concerned, Pell is innocent.
But shine a light on those cowards.
So for example, are you unhappy that the Pedos at Puffing Billy were held to account?