|
It is often the case in these situations that prosecutions couldn't have taken place or people been charged not because the laws were different on the crimes themselves, but the political climate, the government, the establishment etc created an environment where it simply wasn't possible or practical.
There has been a gestalt shift in recent years in how the Government and organisations respond to these sorts of issues. Essentially, the historic approach was always we can't be seen to be anything other than above reproach so anything that could bring our name into disrepute should be covered up, ignored or suppressed with the view with what you can't see doesn't exist.
Now, the Establishment and organisations are still trying to be seen as above reproach, but the response is to investigate and attempt to prosecute any and all potential breaches with the aim of showing how they keep their respective houses in order.
It is a reaction to the historic issues of child abuse in the Churches, state institutions, the entertainment industry etc, and the historic abuse of power over events like Hillsborough.
One could reasonably argue that a la the threads title, things can go to far and it becomes a situation of witch hunts and a climate of overzealous prosecutions.
I would tend to agree with that statement, but I do think cleaning house and being open is the way to go, just tempered against the overzealous and those seeking to profit and make a career of it all.
While I also agree that there can be many situations of hypocrisy in who gets blamed and prosecuted while others seem to get away scot free, I don't agree that two wrongs make a right.
If crimes are committed, I don't agree that because we fail to hold one set of people accountable, we shouldn't prosecute and punish anyone else either.
"They did/said something bad so you can't tell us of for doing something similar because otherwise it's unfair" is not an approach I support or find constructive beyond dealing with toddlers. |
|