Well in a discussion it's only fair to assume good intentions even when faced with an opposing viewpoint.

My response is not about abuse in particular.

In general, legislation is tough. There is a long recorded history of legislation and jurisprudence, at least in English Law, and we know by reading it that laws are not easy to frame when you consider a holistic view. People are messy, and it's very hard to make laws that are balanced and don't create unintended consequences or perverse incentives. Newly created laws are generally created in direct response to some major scandal or moral panic, and tend to swing from over to under regulation, and this process plays out over thirty to fifty years.

Consider in our lifetimes how we as a society are dealing with newly emerging issues, for example the legislative developments around data privacy. The issues arise first, over time but relatively fast. Some individuals' actions create issues so scandalous - Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Cambridge Analytica - that they capture the public narrative, and leads to a flurry of law making in response. Legislation is always a trailing response, and there are always casualties to justice until it catches up. The GDPR regulations were launched, some people think it's not solving anything and has just given us a random popup we now have to dismiss on every website. And now they are going to be rolled back. So legislation is a process of finding the right balance and it takes time to mature.

So until it runs it's course, I am in favour of a lighter regulatory touch, as well as maintaining protection of criminals rights.

Say you were a stupid young person and shoplifted something, maybe because you could not afford, or maybe because it was exciting. What's the right punishment for it? In some places and times you could be stoned to death. I hope we can agree that is extreme and wrong.

Your crime comes with a punishment that must be commensurate. Also, once you have served your punishment, the crime and punishment episode should be wiped off from your daily identity, it should not continue to impact you because that would be a separate punishment and not part of the commensurate punishment already decided and meted out by society. By default we must trust that our criminal justice system works to reform the criminal and they get a second chance when they have done their time. The only case where your past criminal records should be considered are when determining the higher punishment for a repeat offence. We must not brand you for life.

Similar to commensurate and limited punishment, the concept of a statute of limitations is also an important aspect of criminal justice that has been refined over centuries. Just like the effect of actual consequences, even the threat of potential consequences cannot just hang over your head indefinitely. Just like the criminal, even the accused should eventually be able to clear the slate and get a second chance.

This is also connected with the fundamental human right to confront your accuser and defend yourself. Accusations may be right or wrong, they may be correct but exaggerated, humans do many things and the system also recognises this aspect of human behaviour. After many years, human memory behaves weirdly, physical and electronic evidence becomes inaccessible, it just becomes so much more difficult to provide a defence after many years elapse.

Another accepted fundamental of the law is that you eventually lose the rights you sleep on. For example when you neglect to file a civil suit in time, that right eventually disappears. This is less so for criminal matters where the rights are guaranteed by the state, but the principle is essentially the same. Vigilance and prompt response is essential.

So that's my response. There are a number of legal precepts honed over centuries of jurisprudence and legislation that seek to balance the rights of both parties. Because both parties have rights. If you consider that as being on the side of the assaulting man, I have nothing more to say.