(09-15-2024, 06:00 PM)RabbiO Wrote: The statute of limitations in Israel on criminal matters is 10 years, with some limited exceptions. If the matters in question fall into that time frame then the Israeli system of justice pursuant to Israeli law has no problem in those matters going to trial and renders your opinion about the age of the cases meaningless.
I want to thank contributor "RabbiO" for their response.
I did not mention anything about "limitation" because, as contributor "RabbiO" says, it likely does not apply to this matter.
If he will care to re-read my post, he will find that I referred to cancellation of elderly charges in the interests of justice in order to avoid any unfair trials based on rather old evidence.
I also referred to the possibility upon any conviction, of the President considering the exercise of their power of Pardon.
Finally, I referred to the possibility upon any conviction, of the courts considering the exercise of their power to not impose any punishment, similar to the British "absolute discharge" -
All this renders contributor "RabbiO's" opinion about legal limitation in these cases, meaningless.
Edit:
While I have legal training (retired) though not in Israeli law, others do not, and I did not take that into account above.
Quote:'A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. [...]'
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
In the above, "event" refers to the date when an alleged offence occurred, while "initiated" refers typically to when in criminal matters a defendant is charged.
Thus a defendant may not be charged after any limitation period has expired.
In this case, I assume the defendant has been charged within any applicable limitation period, so I did not discuss limitation.
(Also, had the rude-rabbi (reform) not been so typically abrupt, I would have drafted my response differently.)
Additional:
It may well be that some of the evidence in this matter has already been given in court, but it is possible that evidence given too long after the events to which it relates may not constitute the best evidence, thus leading to an unfair trial. Further, if the defendant has yet to give evidence, their recollection so long after the events in question may suffer, leading to their lawyers having to take this into account when advising their client whether to give evidence, and therefore to an unfair trial. In this particular case the defendant has also had a lot on their mind, during their exemplary leadership in defending the country.
Dragging the matter out as far is is has now been, may also amount to psychological harm upon the defendant, a man who has a heart condition requiring a pacemaker.
Therefore such a long delay can possibly bring a judicial system into disrepute, and thus proceeding any further with such trials may not be in the public interest.
As I have already pointed out, the delay has been caused, not by the defendant, but substantially by enemy action.