April 2010

The Catholic Church Just Doesn’t Get It

by Diane Dimond on April 26, 2010

He Just Doesn't Get It

As last week’s column was going to press – the one explaining why I think we should abolish the statute of limitations for sex crimes – I learned an interesting and astonishing thing.

There is, coincidentally, a move underway in Connecticut to abolish their statute. And the Catholic Church there, in a stunningly ill-timed response, is apoplectic about the idea.

The column last week discussed doing away with the criminal statute of limitations. Connecticut’s legislative movement is focused on removing the statute for civil suits stemming from past sexual abuse, thus allowing victims to seek compensation no matter how long ago the sexual attack took place.

The idea was sponsored by State Representative Beth Bye who has the distinction of having 14 constituents who were [click to continue…]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Some Sex Crimes Get a Pass – Why?

by Diane Dimond on April 18, 2010

Justice for the Victims of Sex Predators

Justice Is Blinded By Statute of Limitations

Sometimes the simplest sounding questions spark the most profound discussion.

What’s our purpose on earth?

Why is the sky blue?

Why do we have a statute of limitations on sex crimes?

I mean, really, why give the criminal any break at all? By placing a limit on how far back the prosecutor can go to punish a sex predator aren’t we telling countless victims that the justice system doesn’t apply to them?

Experts in the medical and law enforcement fields will tell you the career sex offender has probably committed dozens [click to continue…]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Concentrate on the Case – Not the Web

by Diane Dimond on April 12, 2010

No Place in a Jury Room

No Place in a Jury Room

Spending time on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace or LinkedIn is every American’s right.  But being hooked up to the internet has become an obsession for many people who are afraid not to be connected, as if being out of touch for even an hour would somehow put them at a major intellectual and social disadvantage.

Well, if you’re in a court of law you’re supposed to be out of touch – for as long as the court case continues – no tweeting, blogging, texting or chat room posting about the case is allowed. The mandate to concentrate on the case applies to defendants, plaintiffs, judges, lawyers, witnesses and it especially applies to jurors.

Many juries are now routinely instructed that, in addition to avoiding conversations, newspaper and television news [click to continue…]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Justice in a 2.0 World

by Diane Dimond on April 4, 2010

Community Discussion Goes Global

Community Discussion Goes Global

You have to have been living in a cave on the dark side of the moon not to notice the impact the internet has had on our world in the past two decades. Now, an impact you might not have realized – the ways in which the internet is used to manipulate what happens in courtrooms.

The manipulations are legal. It’s up to you to decide if the manipulations are ethical.

In any court battle it has long been the case that the side with the fattest wallet is more able to massage the ultimate outcome. Wealthy defendants can hire expensive and politically connected lawyers. They can engage pricey jury consultants to devise strategy and investigate who will make the most sympathetic juror. Now, a new service for the well-healed called Social Media Analysis.

Simply put, it’s a service that scours the internet for any and all comments about the client and their pending court case. [click to continue…]

{ Comments on this entry are closed }