89
Dismay as Louisiana lookback law for child sexual abuse victims struck down
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
89 points (100.0% liked)
News
39069 readers
1874 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Too many conservatives making the news, I bet.
The judges literally prayed with the archbishop. What do you want to bet they would all be affected if they let the lookback stay in place? I bet it has nothing to do with conservatives making the news.
I hate to be on the side of sex offenders but it is literally unconstitutional in every sense based on the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution, where the government may not retroactively levy penalties or liabilities. Does it suck as applied here? Hell yeah, but arguably if they can cross this line today, what line will be crossed tomorrow? The ex post facto clause along with prohibitions on bills of attainder have a strong respected history in American Jurisprudence and arguably makeup one of the first major divisions between English and American Law (aka we fought a revolutionary war over it).
It doesn't violate any part of ex post facto. It doesn't increase or change the punishment of the law. It doesn't retroactively levy penalties or liabilities. It literally just increases the length of time for a suit.
The rest of your comment is just fear mongering around something that isn't accurate.
Smith v Doe literally already decided this argument 2 decades ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe
Not a single argument besides your is on ex post facto, it's literally about 'fairness' to the people accused. None of the justices brought up ex post facto, so your point is pretty ridiculous to begin with.
Tyler how do you feel about statute of limitations? Or should i dig into your history to find something to find you liable against the government?
This has nothing to do with me, it has to do with your argument that this is unconstitutional due to ex post facto, which is just absolutely wrong. You’re trying to shift the argument to support your viewpoint, rather than admitting you’re wrong about the law. You can easily switch your argument to “it’s not fair” like the justices have claimed. Or you can recognize that scientific progress has been made to realize that the law was never right and was never effective at doing what it said.
In regards to “dig into your history”, that’s an absolutely insane comment to make. This isn’t making something illegal that wasn’t illegal, it’s making it so that those people that did illegal things can still be prosecuted.