The things he was accused of seemed perfectly likely, and perfectly 'normal' for the period. That's not to excuse them, and it certainly wouldn't be acceptable behaviour in today's society. I do think there should be some sort of statute of limitations, not because the crime reduces in importance as the years recede, but because what is socially acceptable changes over time.
I think it'll make for some very complicated analysis in the jury room:
1. Did he do it at all?
2. Even if we think he did do it, are we actually going to find him guilty of this as 'if everybody who patted a secretaries bottom in the 1970s was convicted *everybody* would be in jail now.'
I think '1' might be pretty difficult to agree on unanimously. And I suspect some of the jury would be less than likely to comprehend the subtleties in '2'.
And then, as Bromp says, the same analysis has to be applied to each of the charges. They may be some time...
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 12 Feb 14 at 10:11
|