Isn’t it time the UK introduced a statute of limitation on sex crimes?
Another week and another star of yesteryear is ensnared by Operation Yewtree.
This time it’s “comedian” Jim Davidson who has been arrested over allegations of sexual offences committed over a quarter of a century ago which the two alleged “victims” have decided only now to make.
As I’ve previously written I’m bewildered by the stupidity of the alleged “victims” in this witch-hunt, but am I the only person bewildered by what this witch-hunt is supposed to achieve on a broader level? Am I the only person who’d rather public money and police budgets be spent pursuing those criminals who are active now and creating victims now? Just how much police manpower is being diverted to service Operation Yewtree?
When a crime isn’t a crime
In the US there is a Statute of Limitations on all but the most severe of crimes. The period varies from state to state and from crime to crime, but typically a crime not reported within a few years, unless very severe, will not be investigated and cannot be actionned. This ensures that law enforcement and judicial efforts are focussed on active or recent criminals, which are surely those far more likely to offend again.
Other than the narrowly focussed Limitation Act of 1980 the UK has no such time limits on how long after an offence is committed action can be taken.
When a child isn’t a child
While Jim Davidson has not been accused of child sex offences, the main impetus for Operation Yewtree was child abuse and a statute of limitation here is tricky for a couple of reasons.
First of all, legally, a victim of child sex abuse could be as young as a baby or as old as a day short of their 16th birthday. Expecting someone abused in their early childhood to both understand and come to terms enough with what happened to them in order to report it within 3, 7 or 10 years is entirely unreasonable, and a 25 year limitation would eliminate only some of the waste of Operation Yewtree.
The current Limitation Act does offer a reasonable solution to this though. It does not commence the limitation period until the victim is 18 and of sound mind. So if we introduced a 7 year limitation on such offences for example, it would give the victims until they’re 25 to take action irrespective of how young they were when the offence took place. And those guilty of abusing the mentally disabled would have no protection.
Secondly it’s reasonable to view child sex offences as too serious for any limitation to apply. The problem here for me though is the gap between being a child and reaching the age of consent. No right minded person could argue that raping a 7 year old is the same as having unforced sex with a 14 year old, able to understand and “willingly” participate, but not old enough to legally consent.
Both are crimes, both should be illegal, but a statute of limitation on the former seems morally wrong to me, whereas a statute of limitation on the latter and on adult sex offences seems to be woefully lacking.
Reducing the age of consent is inappropriate; it’s entirely right that the law reflects and protects the period of maturation and the differing rate of maturation from person to person. But perhaps it is time that the law reflected the difference between sex with a child and sex with an under aged adult and especially consensual sex with an under aged adult.
When a law isn’t a law
Some years ago I was involved in a road accident caused by a driver mounting the pavement to jump a red light. A conscientious driver at the scene followed the offender to get a description and the car’s registration number.
The driver who caused this accident had unquestionably broken the law, yet when reporting it to the police we were told that since no one had been injured they would not investigate it.
Leaving aside the crass stupidity of waiting for this reckless menace to permanently disable or kill someone before doing anything to stop them, this reveals that there’s a gap between what the law says and what the police will action in the UK.
While the bobby on the beat can’t be expected to make that call, somewhere between the government and the police force, policy is clearly being dictated on which laws are enforced and under what circumstances.
Many aspects of Operation Yewtree seem like an unproductive and unrewarding waste of police time, providing nothing more than a media sideshow for the sensationalist wing of the British press. Even without changes in the law the government and the police could put a stop to this. Surely they should.