• The very nature of rape makes a statute of limitations a very good idea, unless there is DNA analysis as smoking gun evidence.

    Rape is one of the few crimes that is more based almost entirely on one's memory and recount of the incident, and stories of "he said, she said", rather than solid, clear and convincing evidence. Eyewitness testimony has proved ineffective enough, that if there was no statute of limitations on rape, and a rape was tried 30 years after it happened, someone who resembles the attacker could easily be wrongly convicted, because the victim wants justice after such a long period of time, and mistakes the look-alike for the attacker. A statute of limitations is a very good idea in rape cases, since stories change and memories fade. There should be an exception, though, to this statute of limitations. When DNA analysis is part of the evidence to support the validity of the identification of the attacker, then the statute of limitations should be waived.

    Posted by: RapidGarret59
  • Yes, because statutes of limitations ensure that everyone knows that there are differences in crimes.

    Statutes of limitations ensure that everyone knows that there are differences in crimes. Without statutes of limitations, a crime such as rape may end up with the same jail sentence as murder. In this case, there will be no line drawn between the two crimes, and someone who commits rape may also commit murder, believing to get the same sentence anyway.

    Posted by: grenzickle
  • Self-victimization is the result of allegations long after the fact.

    It is incredibly difficult to prove rape under normal circumstances. To give false hope to a victim with a not guilty verdict being inevitable (assuming the jury doesn't unjustly ignore the lack of actual evidence) seems a cruel thing to do. Even with DNA evidence, all that is truly proven is that sex took place - not coercion. More effort should be put into treating the victim in a positive and constructive manner rather than focusing on the negativity of retribution especially since the story won't likely end well for all the people involved (including family members on both sides). Of course, it's an entirely different matter if the police secretly dedicate some resources to keeping tabs on a suspected rapist (without violating the suspect's rights); that would be a much more just outcome.

  • Statute Of Limitation is present in most European Countries .

    It is totally wrong and unjust to bring allegations of sexual assault including rapes , many years after the alleged incident happened . Memories do fade ! In the UK people are charged with offences that happened for example ..... Between 1984 or 1985 or sometime between 1985 to 1989 . Its as if the person is not sure of the date of the alleged assault . Having a statute of limitation of say 10 to 15 years makes sure those persons who decide to bring allegations years after the assault is claimed to have taken place , do so when their memories retain such details better , in addition there is a greater opportunity for the accused to mount a defense which is equitable and witnesses are more likely still to be living .

  • This is a Protecting Factor.

    Our founding fathers believed in a system where some bad people can get away, so no good people are incriminated. Without a statue of limitations on crimes, imagine being charged for something someone claims you've done years ago. Even if you beat the case it could cost you a lot while doing so. Statutes of limitations are needed.

  • Yes, it is just to have a statute of limitations on rape, because limitations must exist for every crime.

    While the crime of rape is very painful, a society based on law must create limitations. Rage and revenge can go on forever, in some hearts. But, a smart society creates a responsible arena for some of it, and then lets the rest of the crime become a part of history.

    Posted by: SuccinctDerek96
  • There should be a statute of limitation

    Rape should be reported relatively soon to the event occurring. This allows individuals to be prosecuted according to their current demeanor and conduct, not 20-30 years down the line where in many ways the person who is being prosecuted behaviour may have changed so much that it would be unreasonable to prosecute. Should we prosecute adults who may have had fights in their youth and may have assaulted someone? No. After a certain time people should adopt a let bygones be bygones attitude. If not then by all means prosecution should be sought soon after the event has occured. This also allows for a clear account to be recorded and leaves less to the persons memory/imagination.

  • Yes if it's because the woman refused

    If the woman/girl was too afraid to say anything for 10 years, then yes. She should have said something earlier. Why would she say something to the courts later? She needed some money so she decides to sue her rapist 10 years later? But if they did not find the rapist until years later or something similar, then my answer is no.

  • Statute of Limitation is a matter of due process.

    Without a statute of limitation, individuals would have a more difficult time preparing a defense. As time passes, evidence becomes more and more difficult to produce. A rape allegation raised many years after the event might only be supported by the word of the complaining witness (i.E. Victim). Rape allegations are serious matters and should be prosecuted as soon as possible.

  • Contrary to popular belief, Rape is not the same as murder

    Lets forget about the fact that even accusing someone of rape ruins their reputation and immediately demonizes them. So not only that, but we want be able to accuse people of decades later when it's pretty much going to be he said/she said. Rape is in fact not, a special kind of evil equivalent to or worse than murder. Let's stop pretending it is. It should not take you years to accuse someone, this is ridiculous.

    Posted by: JZ42
  • The crime of rape is so heinous that there should not be a statute of limitations.

    Most crimes have statutes of limitations (murder being the obvious exception). Statutes of limitations are imposed for a number of reasons: people's memories fade, evidence is spoiled, there may be intervening factors over time. With rape, however, the crime is so violent and invasive, the harm imposed by the crime outweighs the normal reasons for imposing a statute of limitations.

    Posted by: A Shelton
  • Absolutely not, no way should the passage of a certain length of time negate the crime of rape.

    There can be statutes of limitations on some crimes, like those involving taxes and such, but not crimes which inflict pain and suffering on people. The harm that can come from someone being raped can last for the rest of that person's life. There can't be a time limit after which the rapist is absolved from punishment. Rape is an act of violence committed against another person. There is no time limit on the suffering. The victim will carry that for the rest of his or her life; the perpetrator must be made to pay.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • As a rape survivor, I strongly believe that there should NOT be a statute on rape.

    As a woman who's been through such a horrific ordeal, the thought of a statute sickens me. There are numerous reasons why this is absurd. For starters, there have been cases where the rapist was unknown due to lack of technology. Years pass, technology catches up and a match is made. If a statute were in place, said rapist could walk free while his victim remains violated and unable to gain closure or seek justice.

    Posted by: babonanae
  • It is unjust for there to be a limitation on prosecuting any violent crime, including rape.

    Violent crime should never have a statute of limitations. That would imply that if you avoid prosecution for a crime until the statute takes effect, the government then washes its hands of your crime. That is completely unjust and wrong. People need to be held accountable for violent crimes that they have committed, so having a statute of limitation is a bad idea.

    Posted by: Fr4Giga
  • No, anyone who committed this type of crime should be prosecuted no matter how long it takes.

    I do not believe there should be a statue of limitation on a crime such as rape, or any other related crime. This type of crime is horrendous and needs to be brought to justice no matter how long it takes. In addition, there were many rape crimes committed when technology was not as advanced as it is today. While as a result of this technology, many previously closed or unsolved cases have been resolved, where if there had been a statute of limitations, the cases would have never been reopened.

    Posted by: Quibarce
  • Rape is a deeply scarring crime against a human person, and should be punished no matter when it is brought to court.

    Rape is not just a sexual crime, it is a crime of violence and degradation against a human being. It causes the victim long-term emotional and psychological distress. It also negatively impacts their life and their ability to function normally in society. Because of these reasons, at no point does the crime of a rape become too far in the past to punish.

    Posted by: RaymoCanyons
  • I don't think it is OK to have a statute of limitations on rape, because people who committed it before there was a way to use DNA as evidence will get away with it, when they should be punished.

    There are many rapists who acted before we were able to properly test DNA and use it as evidence in court cases. We now can test evidence from old cases. But those rapists will still go free because of the statute of limitation. They should be punished so they don't rape again.

    Posted by: darcyska
  • There should be no limit to how long after a rape occurs that the culprit can be brought to justice, because there is no reason for anyone to get away with it.

    Whether it has been one day or fifty years, a rapist that is found guilty should be punished according to the full weight of the law. There is no reason why someone should be able to get away with something because they managed to evade the law for a certain amount of time. In reality, there should be no statute of limitations for any crime. But, a crime such as rape should be especially clear of such an unjust practice.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • There should be no statute of limitations on a violent sexual attack, because the victim will live with the horror of rape for the rest of his or her life.

    The victim will live with the horror of rape for the rest of his or her
    life, and there is no way in the world that the attacker should get away with it, just because the police did not catch them in time. Such crimes also represent a psychological defect that should really be identified and addressed, either with jail, or by a doctor.

    Posted by: MarsBIue
  • Rape victims are victims that have to live with that traumatic memory for the rest of their lives. Why should the victimizer get a free pass after a certain amount of time?

    As a victim of rape, sexual battery, kidnapping and gross sexual imposition (all by the same man, and in one horrible incident), I have to live with these memories for the rest of my life. The scars will never go away, for myself or my children, who went through it with me. I don't believe that it is right or fair to the victim for the charges simply to "go away" after a certain time period.

    Posted by: CowardlyJoan92

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.