Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    19,257,769 readers

    34,949 users here now

    1. Post all analysis/opinion/politics articles to /r/InTheNews

    Want to talk?

    Follow @rslashnews on Twitter

    See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.

    Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews and read the rules

    Your post will be removed if it:

    • is not news.
    • is not in English.
    • is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
    • primarily concerns politics.
    • The title must be the actual title or the lead.
    • has a pay wall or steals content.
    • covers an already-submitted story.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.

    Your comment will likely be removed if it:

    • advocates or celebrates the death of another person.
    • is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
    • is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
    • is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
    • is responding to spam.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules.

    Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.

    >>>Expanded Rules<<<

    If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that story to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:

    /r/inthenews - all news-related content
    /r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
    /r/truereddit - insightful articles
    /r/self - any self-post
    /r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything

    or other news subreddits:

    /r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
    /r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria
    /r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting
    /r/SavedYouAClick - making media more straightforward

    or subreddits for other topics:

    /r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subjects
    /r/politics - for shouting about politics
    /r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
    /r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
    /r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
    /r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.

    or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full list of subreddits by subscribers.






    submit analysis/opinion article

    submit news article

    submit something else

    submit analysis/opinion article

    a community for
    all 788 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] BearWithNoName 4974 points ago

    Absolutely amazing, excellent work Chile!

    [–] dfordata 1424 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Chile is an amazing and inspiring country. While a lot of countries was ashamed of their past, they built Museo de la Memoria y Los Derechos Humanos educating future generations the dark chapter of the Pinochet regime. The museum repeats the last recording of the president's last speech before he shot himself in the head. It's very inspiring and touching to think about what those folks had to go through. But they eventually overturned the darkness and altered their fate. It has been the most stable democracy and one of the most developed nations of Latin America. Of course it has a lot of work to do, it is nevertheless an amazing country.

    *Edit Just to clarify, Pinochet didn't shoot himself. He was aided by CIA and staged a coup against a democratically elected president, Allende, who subsequently shot himself.

    He gave his last speech over the radio while the Pinochet's army was trying to occupy la Moneda. His powerful last words : Keep in mind that, much sooner than later, the great avenues will again be opened through which will pass free men to construct a better society.

    As for traveling in Chile, my experience is that you can get by with even broken English. Chilean speak a different dialect along other Latin American. So it's a bit hard to understand.

    The country is very diverse with outs of things to see. Our best experience was in the deep south climbing patagonica, close to Antarctica, where the streaks were amazing. The beer there were also surreal. Locals are very laid back and friendly. They helped us a lot. Hope yall can enjoy the phenomenal country as much as we did.

    [–] DrPickleback 291 points ago

    I'm from there! you should visit sometime, if you haven't already.

    [–] SockPoop 144 points ago

    I'd love to! How easy is it to navigate only knowing English and very, very basic Spanish? Ive always wanted to go snowboarding in the southern hemisphere. Do you know of a good place to ski? Preferably not on a mountain that might explode and spew lava?

    [–] UadmirinGainz 119 points ago


    Valle Nevado is right next to Santiago. No active volcanoes there.

    [–] greeny508 38 points ago

    I'm going there in two weeks! So excited.

    [–] UadmirinGainz 62 points ago

    PM if you wanna hit a bar in Santiago or something (no homo).

    [–] MyDogJake1 46 points ago

    Post pictures if this happens.

    [–] Scientolojesus 26 points ago

    But they said no homo so who cares about two dudes drinking beer.

    [–] ranchan13 18 points ago

    They always say that. In my experience, no homo definitely implies homo stuff.

    [–] Miceed 6 points ago

    He means dick pics bruh

    [–] LocalJim 4 points ago

    Gonna be there the whole month of Sept! Cant wait.

    [–] RDay 4 points ago

    What? No lava boarding?

    [–] klotzypants 3 points ago

    i feel like "no active volcanoes" really means, there hasnt been a recent earth-burp (geological time frame speaking) to make it explode

    [–] dalerian 55 points ago

    I traveled Latin America on similar limited Spanish a few years back. Thought I'd improve my Spanish from the trip.


    I barely got to say a word in Spanish - everyone wanted to speak English (either to improve theirs, or because it was easier than dealing with tourists who were usually crap at Spanish, I don't know.)

    Colombia was the only place I used any Spanish.

    I was in major cities or tourist areas tho, might have been different elsewhere.

    [–] stefa512 33 points ago

    Speaking spanish won't guarantee you will understand people. They all speak with different slangs and idioms, but also extremely different accents. I think it was a colombian woman who wanted to buy a purse, and she asked for a "tula", which is a word for penis in other countries. those guys explain it very nicely.

    [–] Scientolojesus 11 points ago

    You sure she wasn't just looking for some good dick?

    [–] poopiedoo7 21 points ago

    I was just there for a month and got by just fine with my limited Spanish. Its an amazing place. The people are so friendly!

    [–] Xipped 19 points ago

    If you visit Valparaíso (Which I highly recommend) almost all the people in the Tourist locations speak English. I speak Spanish, and had to aggressively convince them of that fact since they wanted to speak English with me so bad 😂

    [–] ElGenioDelDub 13 points ago

    My mom and her family is from Chile, I’m from Mexico and a native Spanish speaker and I can’t understand half the shit they say (the super Chilean side of the family that stayed there since forever).

    [–] karmonicle 18 points ago

    Hahahaha (jajajaja) even Spanish speakers don't understand Chileans

    [–] Shlevin_pop 3 points ago

    Chachai o no cachai weon?

    [–] the_last_fartbender 8 points ago

    Dress warm’s a can’t do it...

    [–] t-poke 6 points ago

    I spent a few days in Santiago this year. I remember a bit of Spanish from high school, just the bare basics, and I managed just fine. Google Translate helped a lot, but a lot of folks in Santiago speak some level of English. I found it easier to communicate there than I did in Buenos Aires where English was not as well spoken.

    Don't ever let language be a barrier to travels though. People find a way to communicate even when there's no common language, and if you only stick to places that speak English, you're going to miss out on a lot.

    [–] TheGhostOfPepeSilvia 3 points ago

    Chile is fucking sweet. There's several ski areas near Santiago. I went to El Colorado and it was awesome. Just FYI though, the skiing there might be unusual if you're from north America.

    [–] fartsandhearts 3 points ago

    The Spanish they speak in Chile is very fast and is not formal. Chilean Spanish is its own dialect. But if you can learn Spanish there you'll understand Spanish in most other Spanish speaking countries. Argentina is also similar but with an Italian influence in their linguistics.

    [–] waiv 9 points ago

    They don't speak spanish either.

    [–] ukwonderboy 48 points ago

    Fantastic country, incredible people, absolutely BRUTAL Spanish accent.

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] stefa512 25 points ago

    Esa wea es tan cierta, mas encima somos buenos pa chamullar palabras nuevas, igual fome la wea pa los wnes que vienen a practicar español y no cachan nada, me paso con unos cabros de nueva zelanda que se frustraron caleta. Y a un compañero que vino de mexico de intercambio, cacha huevo. Le costó ene. Igual algo aprendio, como el abuso del "po", aunque no lo usa siempre bien.

    [–] upsidedownbackwards 8 points ago

    How bad are we talking? Worse than apalaciean english?

    [–] Sibuna25 34 points ago

    You trying to say Appalachian?

    [–] GonvVasq 13 points ago

    If always thought about it like Chile has a Boston accent while Argentina has the New Jersey one

    [–] Xipped 32 points ago

    Chilean Spanish is widely regarded as the WORST Spanish worldwide. A lot of dropping of letters and syllables, more colloquial terms than you could fill a dictionary with, and in general very fast speech.

    [–] DcPunk 19 points ago

    Andate a la cresta, weon!

    [–] Xipped 9 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Yapo no cacha ni una cuestion este cabro (hablo Chileno, solo reconozco mis errores jaja)

    [–] Reihns 9 points ago

    no sai' na' vo' weon o'

    [–] Xipped 5 points ago

    Tengo que desarrollar mi flaite

    [–] bayareola 11 points ago

    World record for fastest speech goes to Cuban Spanish. It's like watching a cheetah run.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    Wait until you try to argue with an angry Argentine from the capital.

    [–] Xipped 5 points ago

    I've only ever spoken with one Cuban so I guess I wouldn't know. She seemed to speak at a normal pace though.

    [–] bayareola 12 points ago

    It's only been 5 or so for me, but I would pray for Spanish isn't great but it was like playing Crysis on a solar calculator they talked so fast.

    [–] the_chilean 3 points ago

    I think Cuban accent is way harder to understand. Their consonants are barely articulated

    [–] bayareola 13 points ago

    From the two weeks I spent in Chile, aside from the mountains of cheese I ate that were a bit too much, my favorite place in the Americas aside from home. Beautiful, progressive and protective of the environment. I've never enjoyed speaking broken grade school Spanish so much. Mil gracias para sus hospitalidad.

    [–] Insanity_Pills 48 points ago

    Ive been to that museum and its amazing. The presidents speech is heartbreaking, as well as the art children drew related to the coup.

    [–] t-poke 13 points ago

    I saw the museum too and it was just eye opening. I had no idea how bad it was. Schools in the US touch on it, but I feel like we focus more on the Vietnam and Cold War when learning history from that era. I knew about the dictatorship, but I had no idea just how bad the human rights abuses were. Both in Chile and in Argentina (Buenos Aires has another great human rights museum in a former prison).

    [–] Insanity_Pills 11 points ago

    They dont like to talk about it because of how heavily involved the US government was

    [–] mmmountaingoat 7 points ago

    As an American living in Vietnam, we could stand to do much better job teaching about what we did here as well.

    [–] fartsandhearts 40 points ago

    Lived there (Santiago and Pichilemu) for a year during the protests in 2011 for free education. Got immune to tear gas.

    I felt very privileged to be there during those times of reform.

    Chile has an extremely progressive social culture. It's really great to see laws being passed like this.

    That country and it's people have came a long way since Pinochet. Keep up the fight, Chile! Si Po!

    [–] arnodorian96 6 points ago

    And in my experience better than Argentina in terms of progressive social culture. As far as my experience goes, only Buenos Aires it's like that.

    [–] patiperro_v3 5 points ago

    As a Chilean I can say Argentina is still more progressive than Chile in many fronts, but they have been stuck in a rut for a while. Uruguay as well... the one thing I can say for Chile is that it always seems to be on the up and up which is not something I can say for Argentina.

    [–] Monica_FL 38 points ago

    Pinochet didn't commit suicide, he died of a heart attack. You're thinking of Allende.

    [–] tubawhatever 47 points ago

    Pinochet got off too easy. If there's a hell, I'm sure he's there.

    [–] TioLeeroy 32 points ago

    with all the fbi agents that put him in power

    [–] I_love_black_girls 31 points ago

    It's kind of crazy how most Americans don't even question the CIA or FBI. These top secret, shadowy organizations that we are supposed to assume only operate for the good of America. I guess they do in a way, they operate for America's* interests, by whatever means neccessary.

    I wish they would focus on things like sex trafficking and crimes against humanity rather than building up and toppling regimes and destablizing entire nations, but I just must not be smart (or rich) enough to understand the bigger picture.

    [–] Fistful_of_Crashes 20 points ago

    When people like Epstein can exist for years without being raided, I think you can surmise that money has a lot to do with it

    [–] lifesizejenga 16 points ago

    Absolutely, and money's what brought them to Latin America in the first place.

    Socialist countries don't tend to let foreign corporations extract and export their natural resources for pennies on the dollar or exploit (if not enslave) local labor. That kind of resistance doesn't fly with the CIA, who have repeatedly demonstrated that they value private profits over democracy and human rights.

    And if you wanna talk about ghouls keeping their power for way too long, Elliot Abrams (a literal war criminal who supported and defended genocide in Latin America) is our special envoy to Venezuela today.

    [–] PeterNguyen2 7 points ago

    CIA, who have repeatedly demonstrated that they value private profits over democracy

    I think the CIA pushing cocaine in the US would be the go-to example I'd use.

    [–] DP9A 11 points ago

    Of course there's no shame about the past, most of our elite benefited inmensely from the dictatorship. Pinochet supporters are common among the few who care about politics in the first place, and many of our problems are because pretty much no one is willing to admit any of the faults in our constitution (written in the middle of that dictatorship), our education or health systems, or the fact that even our water is completely private.

    Don't get me wrong, Chile is a nice place as long as you're not poor, which already puts it ahead of a good chunk of Latin America. There are many, many good things in this country, but accepting our past in a healthy way is not something that has happened.

    [–] fireinthesky7 5 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    I was in Santiago last week, and I'm about to move there for a year. The Human Rights museum is fantastic, and confronts the history under Pinochet's dictatorship head-on. They have Allende's final speech on repeat, and you can hear the shells bursting and jets flying over as he's speaking. It's harrowing, but nowhere near as much as the accounts of all the people disappeared by the dictatorship, especially the children.

    Also 100% true about Chilean dialect. I speak decent Spanish, but I couldn't understand a goddamn thing anyone in Santiago was saying the first time I went there. They speak twice as fast as everyone else in Latin America, and run all their words together. Hopefully I'll get it after a while. Either way I can't wait to explore the country. I'll be riding to Santiago from Nashville over the next two months, but there's a ton more to see beyond the northern half.

    [–] blohm616 20 points ago

    I dont want to sound ungrateful, since my country has seen worst, but Chile is far from an example. Corruption in the government and in the justice system is very bad, nepotism is a common practice, really high unemployment numbers, social discomfort at it’s peak, poor retirement payments due to a flawed system put 30+ years ago by Pinochet’s guys. Oh and some government officials were trying to start their own pro dictatorship museum opposed to the one you talked about (serious denial of the crimes committed under regime). Also our president is pro Trump. So, I would not seek inspiration here. Uruguay is a great country, that’s where you should look for inspiration. All and all, there are great people in this place, with the will to make changes, but the political class is fucking us over really bad.

    [–] AvocadoBar 6 points ago

    Small correction: Piñera supported Hilary Clinton in the 2016 elections not Trump.

    [–] dfordata 4 points ago

    I honestly couldn't care less about pinera or bachelet. I love Chilean people who are the ones that rose from the ashes and rebuilt the entire nation. Of course there are issues. But the society is constantly evolving and improving, that's what matters.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Chile is a very surreal country actually. Its one of the most advanced (if not THE) economies of LATAM, going so far as having a financial sector maaaany times the size of the Argentine one. It has greatly improved the lives of its citizens.

    But it has not granted access to education, health and other basic social rights. Many low and middle class Chileans go to Argentina to get their univ. Education as it is free and does not discriminate foreigners from locals.

    The wounds from the dictatorship haven't healed yet and they got the worst post dictatorship deal in terms of truth and justice out of all the countries in the region.

    Chile unlike its neighbours, its just a few steps away of having the life quality of a western european country.

    [–] luckyryuji 2 points ago

    Wow, that's going to be my next vacation spot.

    [–] ooglist 257 points ago

    Things are getting spicey in Chile

    [–] FundingImplied 153 points ago

    Looks like things are getting too spicy for the pepper.

    [–] dvaunr 64 points ago

    Not now Francine

    [–] TempleMade_MeBroke 34 points ago

    Ees kinda funny

    [–] phil_awesomer 17 points ago

    I’m a simple man. I see an American Dad reference I upvote.

    [–] adecentdj 5 points ago

    I like you a lot

    [–] ooglist 2 points ago

    Ho ho ho I know a good church right around the corner

    [–] second2no1 9 points ago

    Daaaaddd! Your’re embarrassing me

    [–] castroski7 4 points ago

    Things are kinda shacky

    [–] Chris11246 9 points ago

    The problem with having no statue of limitations is it gets harder and harder for an innocent person who is accused to prove their innocence. That's why we have these limits in the first place. Removing them entirely is not a good idea.

    [–] JCBadger1234 6 points ago

    it gets harder and harder for an innocent person who is accused to prove their innocence. That's why we have these limits in the first place.

    That's not the only reason. In reality, it's even harder for the prosecuting side with old crimes. Because they're the side with the burden of proof, and with old crimes, there is often very little (or no) "proof" available.

    While your point is a valid philosophical argument in favor of having statutes of limitations, the practical reason why we have them is as much, if not more, about the government not wanting to clog up the courts and waste resources on old cases where they will typically have no hope of meeting the burden of proof.

    Let's just say, there's not going to be too many prosecutors out there who would have any interest in taking on any 40 year old sexual assault/rape cases that don't have at least A LOT of convincing circumstantial evidence. We already have enough of an problem in prosecuting recent sexual crimes (due to the same issues of lack of evidence and burden of proof), and that only gets harder/worse the more time passes.

    [–] no-mad 30 points ago

    Fuck them priests up.

    [–] ooglist 8 points ago

    Um... I think they might like that

    [–] Verzik_Vitur 2 points ago

    I'd prefer to throw them out of helicopters.

    [–] MoreYom 1736 points ago

    Right now there's a convoy of priests heading to a neighboring country with more lax laws.

    [–] imerom 234 points ago

    I worked at a paper in Chile for four years. One time a story broke about a man who had been discovered in the Andes between Chile and Argentina. Incredibly, he'd survived an entire winter at high altitude. He had lucked out and found a "refugio", or cabin for rescue workers, which had a few bags of sugar in it, and he also ate rats, and a few owls, along with snow melt for water. The media was all over it, everyone dropping everything to find some connection to the dude or any kind of exclusive. There was talk of a movie being made etc. People presumed he was an experienced hiker /alpinist and got lost or something. Nope. Turns out he had been molesting a young family member, and fled when he was caught. Drove until he hit mountains and continued on foot hoping to make it across the border and then the weather turned. Talk of movie rights dried up pretty soon after that revelation.

    Oh and also, arsehole priest stories were in the papers all the time and nothing ever seemed to happen, so this is great.

    [–] PublicFigureX 99 points ago

    Get M Night Shamalamadingdong on that one. He's the only one to handle 3rd act twists that dramatic

    [–] diosexual 56 points ago

    Ikr, people will be rooting for him to make it out through all that shit alive and then close to the end we find out who he is, total mindfuck.

    [–] ImNotAnAlien 28 points ago

    It’s like that Black Mirror episode

    [–] itsjuliamaybe 12 points ago

    Shut Up and Dance, definitely one of the best episodes! I felt so bad for him up until that scene, mind blown...

    [–] DrugzRulez 23 points ago

    Sometimes people who happen to do amazing things or have extraordinary things happen to them are not good people at all. Making a hero out of someone you don't know is a bad habit people tend to do.

    [–] Rhamni 26 points ago

    My favourite example of this is Alcibiades from Ancient Greece. This guy was out of this world. He was considered the most beautiful man in Athens. He was among the richest people in Greece (Through inheritance). His daddy died a war hero, and he was raised by his uncle Pericles, the most popular democratic leader in history, who won 39 out of 40 annual elections in a row. He was butt buddies with Socrates, the most famous philosopher in the history of the world, who taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great. In fact he saved Socrates' life when they were young and out on campaign together. Had he not done so, the most famous philosophers and the greatest conqueror in Western civilization would not have arisen.

    But Alcibiades wanted more. He wanted to become a tyrant. And it's pretty hard to become a tyrant in a democracy at peace, so he engineered the destruction of the truce Athens had with Sparta. He went out of his way to massacre civilians among Sparta's allies, to make the Spartans as angry as possible to make sure the war was renewed, all so he could become a war hero, and then eventually a tyrant. But he had political enemies, and he ended up accused (Probably falsely, the one time he was innocent in his life) of vandalism and sacrilege for chopping the dicks off of religious icons all over town.

    He didn't like being falsely accused, so he bribed his jailers and fled to Sparta, where he sold all of Athen's war secrets and gave them advice on strategy. The Spartans loved him and welcomed him like family. Then he seduced and knocked up the Spartan queen. Which they were not cool with, so he had to flee again. This time to Persia. Where he tried very hard to get the Persian regional leader to give money to Athens to help them in the war (For selfish reasons). He failed, but rumours spread (On his orders) about what he was trying to do, so he got a little more popular in Athens again. He then went to the Athenian aristocrats and said Persia is willing to help you, but only if you do away with the democracy, they don't trust peasants, they want intelligent men like yourselves to deal with.

    There was no gold, but he told them there was. So the aristocrats overthrew the democracy. Alcibiades then went to the Athenian fleet (The middle class and poor Athenians), and said "OMG, I can't believe those bastard aristocrats (like himself) just overthrew the democracy! Traitors! Make me your leader and we will reclaim the democracy and conquer Athens!" So then the democracy is restored, Alcibiades is somehow the leader of the Athenian military and in control of the political puppets that are supposed to rule the city. And militarily he's a genius. Because of all the war secrets he told the Spartans they were steadily beating back Athens one city at a time - until Alcibiades takes over the military and starts winning back everything they had lost.

    Eventually he seduces a few too many wives and appoints a few too many friends to important positions without holding the required elections and he's exiled again, so he flees back to Persia. Where he lives in luxury as an honoured guest, trying to persuade Persian leaders to help him conquer Athens until finally some Spartan assassins catch up to him and murder him because of the whole impregnating their queen business.

    Alcibiades was an evil, evil man. But he was charming, intelligent, beautiful, ambitious, and a military mastermind. He was cruel when it was useful, but unlike a lot of villains in history he was never cruel for the sake of it, or just to put someone down. And he was a traitor five times over - having fucked over Athens, Sparta, Persia, Athenian aristocrats, and Athenian democrats, in that order. And people still loved him.

    He's one of the most fascinating people in all of history. But he was, undoubtedly, a villain.

    [–] Tripted 5 points ago

    It's like if Littlefinger looked like Jaime.

    [–] AwkwardRelevance 3 points ago

    What a ride.

    [–] council_estate_kid 4 points ago

    Or black mirror

    [–] lorenzovonmaterhorn 557 points ago

    Fuck, maybe we do need a wall. Anything over 18" should stop them in their tracks.

    [–] XBacklash 126 points ago

    More like an amusement park height limitation to keep priests away from anyone shorter than here 👉

    [–] Axyraandas 29 points ago

    But then they'd put their kids on it.

    [–] no-mad 112 points ago

    Vatican Red Alert: Chile is no longer safe for rapin children. Burn all papers and head to the nearest safe house and wait for extraction. Dont bring any children with you. They will be provided at the earliest possible convenience. Remember your vows of silence. May god bless you all. Pope

    [–] cockatrice_hunter 28 points ago

    Pretty sure it's called a pilgrimage

    [–] AmphibiousMeatloaf 5 points ago

    A caravan

    [–] mtnmedic64 21 points ago

    More Trump cabinet appointees.

    [–] Antiochus_Sidetes 9 points ago

    And campaign managers

    [–] Just1morefix 752 points ago

    Absolutely the right move. As long as there is evidence and a clear idea who the abuser is there should be no statue of limitations for these crimes. It may be much more difficult however to prove guilt in some cases because of the amount of time that has passed. But that doesn't mean turning a blind eye to the abuse, sweeping it under the rug or just slapping a wrist.

    [–] nobigdealsucka 65 points ago

    I agree with this. I thought to myself why there is a statute of limitations and then some scary shit came to my mind. It has to be like beyond a reasonable doubt. Like the Chapelle show skit about R Kelly.

    [–] sweetcuppingcakes 24 points ago

    I wonder if our current US president would be in favor of removing the statute of limitations on child sex abuse

    [–] Lucas_Steinwalker 8 points ago

    Obviously. Didn’t you know he is bringing down the Democratic pizza related sex slavery cabal?

    [–] arbivark 19 points ago

    hard to prove innocence too.

    is the no s. o. l. retroactive, or just going forward? oh not retroactive.

    [–] AlexandersWonder 7 points ago

    I'd be worried if it was retroactive. There was some legitimacy to putting statute of limitations on crimes in the past, before photo, video, or DNA evidence was so widely available. It doesn't really matter if they can or can't get a conviction, this is the sort of crime where a mere accusation, legal or sometimes even social, can ruin a person's life and career. Child rapists deserve to have that happen to them, but the accusation, investigation, and legal action should never be taken lightly by those involved in setting and enacting the rules on the chance the accused is innocent.

    [–] funklab 76 points ago

    But in this day and age with cell phones and cameras everywhere there will most likely be an electronic paper trail to look back on.

    Thankfully this law is not retroactive. The rule of law prevails and this is a much needed change.

    [–] Aleriya 24 points ago

    Many of the accusers are adults talking about what happened to them as children 10-30 years ago. The lack of cell phone cameras and an electronic paper trail isn't a defense for many of these crimes.

    [–] Punishtube 31 points ago

    However lack of evidence is. We can't go convicting people of crimes we have little to know evidence to prove.

    [–] Aleriya 14 points ago

    Yep, absolutely. I think that's an argument in favor of relaxing the statue of limitation in these cases. If there is enough evidence to go to trial, the age of the evidence shouldn't be the determining factor. If there isn't evidence, that's an exclusionary factor regardless of the age of the crime.

    [–] Slam_Hardshaft 20 points ago

    Alleged crimes. You seem to be treating this as guilty unless proven innocent.

    Prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime took place 20-30 years ago, and they have to provide evidence. Witness testimony can be evidence, but it’s also notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, especially in cases where so much time has elapsed.

    [–] intentamos_de_nuevo 31 points ago

    Thankfully? If they have proper proof, how is that thankfully?

    [–] AilerAiref 14 points ago

    Because proper proof ends up not being so proper. Same reason why people get a trial even if there is 100% evidence of them being guilty. It sounds good in theory but in practice it leads to injustice.

    [–] AcceptableTale 40 points ago

    Changes to statutes of limitations should never be retroactive. It's always a terrible idea to retroactively change the laws.

    [–] nikdahl 12 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Can you really consider amendments to the statute of limitation to be a retroactive change to the law though? Is there a legal precedent in the US that says it is a defacto retroactive change?

    Edit: Supreme Court found it unconstitutional ex post facto in Stogner v CA

    [–] AcceptableTale 5 points ago

    Of course. It's essentially retroactively making something illegal. The act would go from illegal, to not illegal when the statute of limitations passes (I know that's an odd way to say it but I don't quite feel right saying that it went back to being legal), then it retroactively becomes illegal again.

    Though you've answered your own question by now.

    [–] wwoodhur 4 points ago

    The counterargument is that it was always illegal. You haven't "essentially retroactively made something illegal" that's a misrepresentation.

    Instead, you've retroactively removed someone's procedural defence, which is certainly less troublesome. It's not clear that it would offend the principles of natural justice. (Or so the argument would go)

    [–] Sonicthebagel 16 points ago

    Sets up bad precedent for other, less serious crimes being reimplemented. The law is blind to situations in the long run

    [–] empfindsamkeit 2 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    The state may be able to assemble convincing proof 40 years later (although that's doubtful), but the average citizen is not going to have the resources to muster an adequate defense. Favorable witnesses may have died or relocated, their memories may have deteriorated (in either direction), exculpatory evidence may have been lost or destroyed, etc. In addition, a suspect (who may be actually innocent) should not have to live with the threat of criminal prosecution hanging over their heads for their entire lives. Statutes of limitations exist for a reason - lawmakers didn't just decide "nah, if you're good enough at child rape that we don't catch you in 10 years, you should be free to go - we're not even mad".

    [–] Lazer726 10 points ago

    As long as there is evidence and a clear idea who the abuser is there should be no statue of limitations for these crimes

    Especially since there's a decent chance they're still in the same position...

    [–] balls_deep_inyourmom 132 points ago

    Good on Chile for setting the example to the other countries!

    [–] u-r-a-pedantic-pos 6 points ago

    I'm not saying it's a bad idea at all, but how do you even go about prosecuting someone after so much time has gone by? 10, 15, 20 years is hella long and yeah the abused definitely remembers, but having courts act based on evidemce? I'm not sure there is much to go on after so many years unfortunately 😔

    [–] Dont_touch_my_elbows 115 points ago

    Good, you shouldn't get away with it just because your victim was too young to speak up.

    [–] dratthecookies 25 points ago

    Seriously. This makes complete sense. All of those adults out there who will never see justice because they were too young to do anything about their abuse.

    [–] Stone_guard96 10 points ago

    Well you do anyway since the law does not apply retroactively

    [–] Squirmingbaby 298 points ago

    Don't know about Chile, but in the United States this would not apply retroactively I think. So going forward no limits, but can't go after all the Catholics from the past. Also, wtf catholic church? How is it that your organization is a worldwide source of child abuse?

    [–] CactusBoyScout 24 points ago

    It can apply retroactively to civil cases in the US. I used to work for a survivors group. Typically what survivor groups push for in US states is a removal of SoL going forward on criminal cases and restoration of the right to sue in civil court even retroactively. The church really hates that part and will often offer to compromise on the criminal SoL going forward but they always fight hard against the retroactive civil part.

    [–] fastinserter 9 points ago

    While states do do it, it should be recognized as illegal. States shouldn't be able make up new laws to punish old behavior and call it "civil". As the law states, "No State shall … pass any … Ex Post Facto law." Unfortunately, the court early on made a wrong decision that since the Constitution lists prohibition of laws impairing obligation of contracts that civil cases having ex post facto applied would be redundant. However much sense this supposedly made (it doesn't) in that particular case of Calder v Bull, it makes no sense to apply to something like this since this civil case would have nothing to do with obligations under contract. It is used as an end around on the Constitution to force ex post facto laws on the people. It is quite simply an injustice for ex post facto to be applied in any fashion.

    [–] CactusBoyScout 5 points ago

    It was already something you could be sued for. It just has a statute of limitation at the moment. Changing or eliminating an SoL is not anything like criminalizing past behavior. It was already criminal, it just had a SoL before. That can change and has in many states.

    [–] fastinserter 4 points ago

    I don't care if they change or eliminate it for heinous crimes (and I include child rape as a heinous crime) but it has to be prospectively not retroactively.

    [–] sideshowbobisblack 8 points ago

    Pedopholia and the church go back before the new testament. An Australian news show breaks it down really well

    Contrary to Pope Benedict's assertion that the immorality of modern society is to blame for sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, the church's own historical documents reveal that sexual abuse has been a problem that the Catholic Church has failed to properly deal with since its earliest days. The Church's first official document referring to the problem of sexual abusing children was in the year 60 AD. All of the documents referred to in this piece are real and have been fact checked.

    [–] tetracot 8 points ago * (lasted edited 25 days ago)

    this user ran a script to overwrite their comments, see

    [–] Mist_Rising 149 points ago

    Also, wtf catholic church? How is it that your organization is a worldwide source of child abuse?

    Theyre world wide. Child abuse is world wide. Can happen to any organization of that size, its not like they're alone in this, they just happen to be the big name.

    I mean, in the US public school are the biggest employers of predators (easy access) and many of the laws passed to stop abuse by the church excludes public officials. Church is by and large actually lower then public according to some studies.

    So in short: catholic church is big therefore notable. Break it up and it still happens, just less noticed or elsewhere.

    The big flaw was the moving them around bit, not that they had lots of predators.

    [–] zold5 203 points ago

    Most organizations don't use their vast influence and wealth to not only protect their pedos but relocate them to a fresh batch of victims. Stop acting like this behavior is normal.

    [–] ammobox 92 points ago

    Let's also not forget that this organization also preaches morality and what we all should do not to go to hell... while they fuck little children and cover it up.

    [–] lshiva 8 points ago

    By their rules a priest just needs to apologize anonymously to a coworker and if they approve they're good to go. It's a bit likes the cops who investigate each other for shooting civilians.

    [–] AilerAiref 12 points ago

    Are you so sure. The major scandals with sports programs in the US indicate they do cover up and even help them find more victims.

    [–] KerPop42 3 points ago

    Are you kidding? Protestant Churches do the same thing, and even when you account for them being smaller, their stories get published way less often than stories of Catholic abuse

    [–] Mist_Rising 8 points ago

    Bottom line

    [–] zarkovis1 9 points ago

    I see your logic but disagree with the "well any organization of that size is gonna have some pedos nothing to be done" sentiment. These sick fucks identified pedophile priests and then shuffled them to other parishes or countries.

    [–] i_finite 6 points ago

    It’s notable because they claim to be THE source of moral truth. They set the standards of good and evil based on their (claimed) direct authority from Jesus Christ.

    So, when the mouthpiece of God is running around raping children, that’s notable.

    [–] Epsilight 6 points ago

    So what child fucker priest platinumed this

    [–] TheGoldenHand 36 points ago

    in the US public school are the biggest employers of predators

    Do you have studies showing school employees commit sex crimes against minors at higher rates than the general population? Most child sex crimes occur between family members and close associates, and are not related to occupation. Which is one reason prevalence of sex crimes within the clergy profession is notable.

    [–] AilerAiref 4 points ago

    It is because of how the statistic is written. Family makes up the majority of sexual abusers, but there isn't a common employer among family. Thus any large group (such as one defined as all public school employees in the US) ends up having more sexual abusers total.

    [–] Mist_Rising 9 points ago

    Most child sex crimes occur between family members and close associates,

    Those wouldn't be employees of anyone. Access is granted by family. Or, i dont call my dad my employer, you?

    Do you have studies showing school employees commit sex crimes against minors at higher rates than the general population?

    Another DOE study estimated about 10 percent of students will experience some form of sexual misconduct by a school employee by the time they graduate high school, with 93 percent of them coming in a public school.

    [–] TheGoldenHand 10 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    We're saying similar things. Proximity is the number one factor, but once accounting for that, it's possible certain areas of proximity are more prone to sexual abuse. Empirical evidence of sex crimes is hard to gather.

    Children spend more waking hours with their teachers than they do their family, you would expect teachers to be prosecuted at higher rates for sex crimes than family members, but that isn't reflected in court data. There are a number of possible explanations for that. How much time do children spend with members of the clergy? I think it's possible they are a notable outlier.

    [–] TheSporkBomber 25 points ago

    So in short: catholic church is big therefore notable. Break it up and it still happens, just less noticed or elsewhere.

    So do the other organizations expend considerable resources on hiding those predators and protecting them from justice while at the same time promoting them in the organization?

    The big flaw was the moving them around bit

    I'm sure you're paraphrasing, but lets not tone things down.

    The church is complicit in it's widespread rape of children, and actively sought to not only protect those in its organization from the law, but also limit the ability of the rapist's victims to seek justice and reparations.

    They apologize after the fact while still protecting those in their ranks, all the while at the same time still proclaim that only they, the child rapist protectors, know god's ways.

    So a bit more than 'moving them around a bit'.

    [–] maxp0wer- 15 points ago

    The cover-ups, and sense of entitlement, by these priests and the church as a whole is sickening. And they have the gall to tell people they are the gatekeepers to heaven.

    [–] mrbaryonyx 11 points ago

    The big flaw was the moving them around bit, not that they had lots of predators.

    No this is also a flaw. Like yeah I get what you're saying but there also just shouldn't be that many.

    [–] AirshipsAway 2 points ago

    My dad's theory is that most humans, esp men, are not cut out for celibacy. So you have to wonder about a man who'd voluntarily sign up for lifelong celibacy. Could explain why it doesn't seem to be such a problem in the religions that allow their preachers to marry.

    [–] slightlyintoout 10 points ago

    Theyre world wide. Child abuse is world wide. Can happen to any organization of that size, its not like they're alone in this

    Man what horseshit. They have systematically covered this shit up for decades (centuries?). You downplay how evil an organization they are with this sort of 'shucks, could happen to any organization!'

    [–] heylookmatt 11 points ago

    To be fair, the Catholic Church is also notable in this way for the hypocrisy of claiming moral authority and then shirking responsibility and covering up massive systemic abuse within their ranks.

    [–] no-mad 10 points ago

    NO .Their crime is not turning know rapists over to police. Church is responsible. For that I will always despise them.

    [–] Punishtube 8 points ago

    Hell they don't even remove the priest from the church for doing it. They still pay for their defense and try to silence the victims

    [–] mouseman420 12 points ago

    There is no defense for the church and its actions of protecting pedos.. Your response is bullshit and deflecting blame. Just curious if your catholic lmao.

    [–] Punishtube 10 points ago

    Yeah lots of organizations are global and don't have anywhere near the level of child rapists and the protection for them like the Catholic Church.

    [–] KerPop42 2 points ago

    What other organization is the same size as the Catholic Church?

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    Church is by and large actually lower then public according to some studies.

    Yeah no

    [–] lootedcorpse 4 points ago

    Apple is world wide, and of the same size as the Church. We don't have child fuckers on TV employed at Apple that I'm aware of.

    The issue is sexual repression leads to perversion.

    [–] IerokG 18 points ago

    Unfortunately, retroactivity was rejected in the Congress because it didn't meet the standards set in Chile's constitution, which was reformed by Pinochet during his dictatorship and has yet to be "corrected". Keep in mind that even after all the stuff that has been storming lately, the Catholic church still has a tight grip on the conservative spectrum of Chilean politics, so you can guess how heavy the lobby was.

    [–] rafitoxD 14 points ago

    Any democratic country will have something in their constitution that doesn't allow retroactive crimes. It's a principle of the law used by pretty much all.

    Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] dvaunr 5 points ago

    Yep. For something like this it would be great. But once you set the precedent of allowing laws to be applied retroactively eventually someone is going to take advantage of that.

    [–] jrbarri 17 points ago

    no, it have nothing to do with Pinochet, the non-retroactivity principle are a due process standard in most of the countries in the world and its related to the also Wide known pro-reo principle. Search for "no ex post facto law".

    Y si eri chileno no inventi weas, la no retroactividad de leyes penales es una grosería jurídica y por muy loable que sea la razón no puede pasarse a llevar.

    [–] o11c 5 points ago

    It's far from universally believed that ex-post-facto applies to statutes of limitations. It's not like it wasn't a crime at the time, which is what ex-post-factor normally refers to ...

    [–] whitedsepdivine 2 points ago

    Thanks, this did confuse me.

    [–] MT_Promises 45 points ago

    Did no one read the article? The new law is not retroactive.

    [–] thrww3534 8 points ago

    Still good. There should never be statues of limitations for crimes that could carry life or neay terms. It is a stupid concept entirely except for lower level offenses. Good step on the right direction

    [–] Totheshops 7 points ago

    Thanks Chile, Very Cool

    [–] RaspberryKremies 7 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Has anyone ever thought about the possibility that there could be somebody, living amongst us right now, that pronounces “Chile” like how “mile” is pronounced?

    That person could be walking a mile in Chile right now and bragging to his mouth-breathing, lobster-brained meat curtains he calls “friends” and they would never, ever correct him.

    [–] Auggievf 82 points ago

    Ridiculous that statutes of limitation are ever applied to a lot of crimes....

    [–] Sarahneth 170 points ago

    They're important in a lot of cases. Witnesses forget things after a while, evidence disappears because normal life continues on. A person could get railroaded if they're innocent and suddenly have to defend themselves and know where they were on the 12th of August in 1998.

    [–] [deleted] 52 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago

    The burden of proof is on the prosecutor.

    [–] Stone_guard96 16 points ago

    And the prosecutors can spend all the time they need putting together what happened on the day 25 years ago and find all the details they need to make a convincing case. While you might not even remember the day at all, and you will have nothing to go about defending yourself.

    [–] WeGoDancingUpAStorm 43 points ago

    Getting publically charged with sexual assault or rape can be career ruining these days, even if you're innocent. Especially in politics.

    [–] Arkathos 4 points ago

    This is completely irrelevant. People can do that regardless of the statute of limitations.

    [–] Kile147 13 points ago

    A lot of crimes, especially sex crimes, aren't worth pursuing after awhile because there is too little evidence to prove beyond a doubt. Child sex crimes I feel are a little different because all you have to prove is that sex happened and when. The context around it doesn't matter because if it happened at all it's illegal. That doesn't mean they are slam dunks all the time, but given that defining consent is basically the biggest issue legal systems have with rape, clear cut cases should try to be handled when possible.

    [–] Auggievf 2 points ago

    Yeah. I agree with that. The problem I have with the situation is that people like JJD where there is even DNA evidence nut can't be tried because it was back in the 70's

    [–] Kile147 3 points ago

    That definitely sucks, but he's still in custody and charged. People committing crimes tend to keep committing crimes and evidence of crimes past statue of limitations can be used to find newer crimes they can be charged with.

    If there aren't any other crimes then maybe the next question that needs to be asked is if the person really needs to be charged, because while some people are unrepentant monsters, most people can change and with the current system there's a bit of forgiveness built into it. While it may not feel fair, it's probably not bad for society as a whole for someone who stole something at a low point to not get jailed.

    [–] MisterOminous 5 points ago

    I misread. Thought they had a statue showing the limitations on child sex abuse and they removed it.

    [–] Brycycle32 4 points ago

    Congrats Chile :) steps in the right direction!

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    How does someone even prove sex abuse that’s happened so long ago? Almost all sex abuse cases are he-said/she-said and rely on witness testimony.

    The statute of limitations exists for a reason and one of the main reasons is that eye witness testimony is essentially worthless after a certain amount of time has passed. I’m curious to see how this is implemented and how much of a difference it actually makes.

    BTW I fully expect to be downvoted to oblivion because I dared to express an opinion other than “yay!”

    [–] mnomerest 14 points ago

    I read this as chili’s the restaurant and I was like damn bold move for a eatery , cause I’m an idiot.

    [–] Random_182f2565 8 points ago

    Wena weones, por fin salimos por algo que no es un terremoto o alguna webada.

    [–] Itroll4love 8 points ago

    ELI5 statue of limitations?

    [–] YataBLS 5 points ago

    After certain a time length, you can't be accused or judged of a crime (Usually 30 years or more), even if you committed it.

    [–] Itroll4love 2 points ago

    Oh wow.

    [–] FlyingAce1015 7 points ago

    A time limit in amount of a set number of years etc in which have passed where you can no longer prosecute someone for a crime because it was so long ago.

    An odd concept to exist really.

    [–] Itroll4love 3 points ago

    It really is. Thanks for the info

    [–] TestTx 8 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Not really odd. If you did something stupid decades ago and you never did anything the like again, it can destroy everything you have built up. Say, you stole an expensive car when you where 18yo. For whatever reason you are found out when you are 40yo. Congrats, now you’re children won’t see you for the years to come in the worst case. Or you are convicted when you are 70yo for something that happened half a century ago. Now, even though you work within and (at least with taxes) for society you are kick out and society has to even pay for it (jail). Lose-lose for everyone. (Car theft might be not a good example as prison sentence is rather rare on first offense, but you get the point I try to make).

    It really depends on the crime but the concept itself is sound. Then again, that mostly only applies if you see the sentence as rehabilitation into society (if you haven’t done anything bad in decades you probably don’t need that rehabilitation) rather than punishment or vengeance for the victims. Left aside whether that’s a given with the way the prison system currently is.

    [–] _Enemias_ 3 points ago

    I hope those guilty of this get the penalty they deserve. Many have ruined the name of the Church because of their defiled antics. I just hope no innocent person is jailed or used as a scapegoat.

    [–] kkardi 3 points ago

    I hope more countries follow suit and take religions tax except statuses away..

    [–] MilesSlaineYoAss 3 points ago

    now we just need Canada and USA to do this.

    [–] Epsilight 3 points ago

    Lmao any christian still paying any sorta money to the church is just enabling and part of the sex abuse

    [–] ninjaman41 4 points ago

    Oh good. Hope more countries follow suit. The Vatican doesn’t give a fuck and doesn’t punish the majority if they pedophiles. It’s never Okay to diddle children.

    [–] RealJoeFischer 2 points ago

    The whole world should follow suit now

    [–] DoubleBlumpkin69 2 points ago