My man's woman: I think the interest in raising the State's statutes of limitations is because the Rape Crisis people are forcing them to test all the rape kits stored in county and state evidence labs....now that prosecutors are forced to test old rape kits they at least want to be able to prosecute and brag about how many more Rapists they have "put behind bars" even if the people whose DNA shows up are already in prison or on the registry....prosecutors will be blamed for not paying for the testing to be done sooner ...unless of course they can claim they are tough on crime and convicted people who are already in prison, already served their time and are doing fine...people on the Registry....you know how they like to brag about cracking cold cases ?

The push to either lengthen or completely eliminate the statute of limitations on sex crimes in several states are also the result of the Bill Cosby case. Many people believe that Bill should be criminally prosecuted for some of those incidents which occurred decades ago.

I disagree with lengthening the statute of limitations. Just think about it. If you or I were suddenly accused of a crime that happened 25 or 30 years ago, it would be very difficult for us to mount a defense in court. After all, how many of us remember where we were at a certain time in the past and who we were with?? We could call no alibi witnesses or present any evidence indicating our innocence since we cannot remember where we were that far in the past.

Oh, sure, as a defendant, we could say, "I did not do it," but because of the passage of time any supporting evidence would be limited. And, we all know, that the defense of "I did not do it,"---with no exculpatory evidence in our favor--- is utterly useless in a criminal prosecution for a sex crime.

Many sex crime prosecutions are based not on hard, physical evidence, but on a victim's memory of the event. Many times it is a "he said, she said" situation, which is the only "proof" of guilt. Since we all know memory can be fallible and fades with the passage of time, convictions based on a event from the victim's memory---especially for an alleged crime years ago--- could lead to more injustices.

An example of the fallibility of memories is that in the last few years several innocent men have been exonerated by DNA evidence because the victim misidentified him at trial. Memories are not always a reliable indicator of innocence of guilt, especially memories of events years earlier.

And, of course, there is a unified group, sol-reform.com pushing their agenda. I am sure the group consists of victims, which affirms my position on another thread where I state these victim's rights groups or advocates sometimes support bad legislation.

http://tinyurl.com/huzmzbp

These groups and advocates for lengthening the statute of limitations on sex crimes remind us to "think of the victims." What about the defendants?? After all, they are innocent at the time of the accusation. Do they not count?? Do we really want to push more and more questionable convictions on our prison system??

The only situation in which I would agree that the statute of limitations should not be a factor is if the prosecution could present DNA evidence to support their position.

The goal of our criminal justice system should be to protect the innocent as well as prosecute the guilty. Lengthening the statute of limitations would be fertile ground for more injustices in the form of guilty verdicts against innocent men.

rewdiazepam

This is just insane. When it comes down to taking away someone's liberty, the right to a fair trial trumps all. It may not be the moral thing to do that a rape victim cannot get justice, but it is the ethical thing for everyone to get a fair trial.

The real question is where do you stand on this idea: It is better to let 10 guilty go free than to punish one innocent person. It seems victims advocates are okay with one innocent person being punished than to let 10 guilty go free.

I can certainly agree with how she ended the show though, if you are a victim who is abused or raped report it right away. We need a better education system that helps children not become targets of sexual abuse in the family.

Independent, you said, "It seems victims advocates are okay with one innocent person being punished than to let 10 guilty go free."

BINGO!!

Many of these victim's rights movements have allowed their hate to impede the rights of the defendants. The "movement" or their agenda is more important than justice.

rewdiazepam

Rew & independent, I hope you all will post what you just wrote up on Diane's site. Keep the conversation going out there in the world.

I remember being presented with this question when I was 12 years old, and it is still one that I struggle with today. Is it better to forgo punishing the guilty to save the innocent? This is not an easy question to answer, but some of the greatest minds in history have come to a conclusion that punishing innocence is worse than letting the guilty go free.

Judge Blackstone in 1766 said, “All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer”

“it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”. Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan (Mar. 14, 1785).

In Herny v. United States” 61 U.S. 98 (1959): “It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches, that the guilty sometimes go free than that citizens be subject to easy arrest”

It is a question of what is morally right and what is ethically right. It goes against our sense of justice that a guilty person can be freed because the police did an illegal search. All evidence of that search is said to be fruit from the poisonous tree and is excluded in the case against the defendant. How can we let guilty people off on a technicality? It is a tough question, but look at that last quote from the US Supreme Court shows why we have this principle in place, so that citizens will not be subject to easy arrest.

This same principle applies to lengthening the statute of limitations when it is applied specifically to rape. It is morally repugnant that a person who raped a child cannot be punished because the statute has ran. At the same time it is also morally repugnant that lengthening the statute of limitations will make it easier for an innocent person to be convicted. How can we break this tie of morality? I would say that in the United States, where defendants are given the presumption of innocence, that this tie must go to the defendant.

How can you defend yourself from allegations of rape 25 years ago? Do you remember where you where April 4th, 1991? Can you provide alibi witnesses to support your innocence? As unfortunate as it is, the guilty get to be let free in order to not punish innocent people in this situation.

Now I support a comprehensive education system on sexual abuse and rape. I think it needs to be age appropriate but it needs to be taught at every grade level from K through 12. I think this kind of education could be tailored to talk about date rape and consent at the older grades, and be more geared towards sexual abuse with younger children. We have a problem in this country, but we cannot punish our way out of it. Education is the key to stopping abuse, I do not think we can punish our way out of this crisis. At least it has not worked for us so far.

I wholeheartedly agree Independent

This "need" to lengthen the time prosecutors "need' to prosecute really has nothing to do with "Justice for any 'victim' " The miscarriage of Justice has already occurred never to be resurrected by some scientific DNA hocus-pocus... It's too late because the prosecutors didn't want to use their budget to pay for testing rape kits when they had "eye-witness" testimony and wanted to add another 'conviction' to their "tough on crime" resume. Now when the rape kits have pilled up all over the country...they don't want to admit they caused the problem because they didn't want to use their budget for that...

Now they claim they need to lengthen the statute of limitations because what if they do "discover" they were wrong when they rushed to judgement? And have to admit it is their fault the 'crime is now past the statute of limitations because of their negligence...even if they didn't send anyone to prison back then...they still could have gotten a conviction within the statute BUT did not. due to budget/ laxity/laziness...how does that look for some of these guys who have progressed up the political pecking ladder on the strength of "tough on crime"?
The only way to cover that up is to brag that they solved a lot of "Cold Cases" as a result of testing the rape kit now...but for that 'cover-up' they have to be able to Prosecute and for that they have to (you got it) lengthen or do away with the statute of limitations....
You know, I really do sympathize with people who were raped and never got "justice" but after all these years shouldn't they have dealt with what happened? Shouldn't they be Survivors? Shouldn't it hurt them to be expected to dig all this up at this point? Just so a prosecutor can claim a victory instead of admitting blame for not doing his job in a timely manner in the first place?

Alas, It really is too late for any "victim" or any future accused "defendant' to find justice. And whose fault is that? The statute of limitations was meant to indicate that even the "Justice System" should recognize that people (even if once guilty) do change, life goes on, nobody is still the person they were 20 years ago...People grow...unless they are labeled forever-victim and never deal with/ grow past what WAS a terrible time in their lives Maybe the "perpetrator" is different now??? And if he is someone already served a life time in prison/ on the registry what does one more belated conviction really accomplish? Nothing.