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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That should be up to the courts to decide whether there is enough evidence or not. If there is more evidence than just the victim’s testimony (especially for rapes that occurred before they could test for DNA), Then this is not an issue. If there is no other evidence, Then the DA may choose not to prosecute anyway. And if they do, Then it is up to the jury to decide if their word is enough. This protects defendants who might be falsely accused because of changing/fading memories of the victim. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, And any reasonable jury would not believe that the word of a victim after 20 years is enough to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The statute of limitations on rape is a great danger for society and is a "get out of jail free card" for rapists who committed crimes before DNA technology or whose DNA is not easily traceable on databases at the time of investigation of his crime. In the USA, a rapist can be set free solely because of the statute of limitations, even when DNA and other evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that he committed rape. In Oklahoma, when DNA from a rape matched that of a convicted rapist, the case was thrown out of court: the statute of limitations was over, so he got away with it.
It is wrong, and completely illogical. They deserve to have heavy sentences, but if the victim dies. They deserve death. It is entirely seemly for a young woman or man raped to be silenced, like in the case in Sweden where a young woman got raped, and was told to move away but the man that raped her got to stay. Also see: melanie martinez.
There may be many variables and reasons why a girl or woman may not step forward until years later. Some are fear, mental state, humiliation, family, those who would disbelieve, loss of job, brainwashed and we can go on and on. Think about this, who made this law? So the abuser can abuse with the knowledge he is 'home free' within a period of time. This does not even make sense people no matter what reasons those who passed this give it is just wrong. There are no reasons to allow any criminal free from his crime because time passed!
If a person can be freed from prison after serving many years due to DNA testing (convicted of the crime)...Then the same DNA testing should be used to put someone in prison many years later as well. I find this statute appalling. As a survivor of child sexual abuse...It never goes away, is forever ingrained in my childhood memories and justice was never given to me. As a woman now I don't know if I could ever be as resilient as I was then...
Doesn't matter how long ago the person was raped! They should have justice! That rapist should go to jail no matter how old the case is! You should be held accountable for your actions no matter what and if you rape someone, you better be ready to pay for it! No matter how many years have gone by!
Often times children are afraid to come forward until they are older. Also some women of age are afraid to come forward for many many years after. This is such a heinous crime I'm not sure if there should be no statute of limitations but I am sure it needs to be way more than ten or twelve years
Victims of rape, especially in cases of violent rape, are shocked and often will need time to process what happened, to gather themselves, to be able to verbalize what happened, to reach out, etc. It's not unusual for victims to finally be ready to do these things--let alone face the legal proceedings and meet the perpetrator in court--years after the fact. If the concern is that memories fade.. As a rape survivor, 16 years after the fact, I can tell you the memory does NOT fade. Not at all. It does NOT fade.
We all know by now that technology is at a point where it's constantly advancing. By keeping rape case open without a time limit we give comfort to rape victims and we are actually giving the allegation a chance to be proved. Let me tell as a victim of rape I am very upset that my rapist walked away laughing.
Simply put, rape is a crime and should be recognized as a very serious one at that. We don't hold statutes of limitations on crimes like murder or even robbery. There is no reason why we should hold them on rape. Rape harms victims not only physically but traumatically. It doesn't matter how long ago the crime was committed; if a man were to rape a 6 year old boy, he deserves to be arrested even 10 years after the fact.