Some very despicable crimes are being looked into some 40 years after the event. Whilst it is important that any criminal is brought to justice, especially those who commit the more serious offences, ought they be able to be convicted on memory alone?
The article talks about child abuse from a long time ago, where there is no evidence in a prosecution apart from memory. These memories are very old, and quite probably repressed by the victim, leading to distortions and hence be unreliable. The man in the article had probably been confused with the headteacher, but once his name and alleged crimes had been released, a number of other victims also confused the two and accused him too. He was acquitted after serving a year of the 13 (quite short for 2 serious sexual assaults and 12 indecent assaults?) he was originally sentenced to serve.
Should there be some time limit on how long after the event someone can prosecute on memory alone? How about extending this to other crimes in a similar way to the USA?
What should I do?