• Yes, But there should be a clause in which *irrefutable* evidence can still result in an investigation.

    In most cases after enough time has elapsed most if not all physical evidence either no long exists, Or is otherwise unattainable. This leaves only verbal testimony which is unreliable, Especially since there are a number of unscrupulous individuals who use rape threats in order to either cover up their own misdeeds or otherwise have an agenda that has nothing to do with rape itself.

    A good example is the #MeToo movement, Which can be easily used as a weapon by a few people in order to pervert the course of justice which if it does not result in a criminal conviction it would otherwise ruin a man's reputation.

    If physical evidence can be acquired, Such as a DNA test from a child born from rape, Or photographic/video evidence and anything tantamount then a case should be opened. Otherwise such accusations should promptly be ignored. It is better to let a rapist walk free rather than risk the imprisonment of an innocent man.

  • No evidence No Trial

    If someone waits 5+ years and has no evidence they should not be able to sue someone for rape and ruin their reputation when they have no evidence. . . . A statute of limitations on rape might allow some to get away but it will protect those who are being falsely accused of something they did not do "30 years ago. "

  • No evidence No Trial

    If someone waits 5+ years and has no evidence they should not be able to sue someone for rape and ruin their reputation when they have no evidence. . . . A statute of limitations on rape might allow some to get away but it will protect those who are being falsely accused of something they did not do "30 years ago. "

  • Not having a statue of limitations hurts victims.

    Victims should be encouraged to come forward sooner, so that DNA evidence can be used. If there is no limit, they would report it when there is little to no evidence. This results in problems in two ways:
    1.) Because there is little evidence, the person who did it goes free. People will have less faith in the judicial system and future victims will be less likely to report, causing a vicious cycle.
    2.) The person who did it goes to jail on hear-say, if concidently the person actual committed the crime is good. But, this encourages liars to get innocent people arrested, making people less likely to believe victims. This results in having victims less likely to report crimes in fear of not being believed.

    Victims should be encouraged to come forward as soon as possible as it is more likely to result in the person who did it to get caught. Both men and women need to know that just because they say "yes" at first doesn't mean that they can't change their mind if they get uncomfortable. No one can speak for them.

  • Rape Should Be Reported "Immediately."

    Due to the nature of rape, the alleged victim knows what happened when it happened, unless the victim was unconscious. A burglary victim often will not know until returning, which if traveling may be weeks or months.
    The accused needs to have every opportunity to get evidence and witnesses supporting non-guilt, as does the state (the prosecution) demonstrating the truth.
    A guilty defendant may be benefited by delaying, but a not-guilty defendant needs to get out from under the cloud of suspicion as soon as possible and as much as possible. His reputation is all the more damaged the longer things drag out.

  • Reporting of Rape

    It is the reporting of the alleged crime which should have a statute of limitations. Should new evidence come to light any time after this period a prosecution could still take place. This would stop these cases were crimes are reported 30 or 40 Years after the event without evidence.

  • Rape is a difficult topic to deal with.

    As a victim of multiple rapes, many do not understand my stance on this. But those of us who have been raped need to be able to heal. Sometimes we do not want to prosecute our attacker . A statute of limitations gives us a chance to be able to openly tell our therapists what happened in those instances.
    On the other hand rape is very traumatizing and we need time to process what happened to us. I believe that a limitation of ten to fifteen years is reasonable on both accounts with perhaps more time if DNA evidence is available.

  • Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

    So there is this fundimental basis of people are innocent until proven guilty. This is so until such evidence can be brought against them. If you were raped and went straight to the police filing rape, there will be pictures, dna, statement; and follow-up. I believe there should be two types of rape defined in our law: malicous intent and non. Reason for this is malicous intent for rape is the serial rapist, or those holding/beating women rapist. For this i believe there should be a statute of limitations, as the intent to permanently cause physical, emotional; and psychological harm to another. The second i believe does cause for a statue of limitions. First, this degree of rape i want list as the "he said/she said" rape. In many of these cases it tends to be harder to prove at the current moment, let alone 20 years down the line. Or if we have two teenagers having sex and the dad sends him in for "raping" his daughter; i dont believe he should be in the same grouping as hard core rapist. This is one that should have limitations as dna will degrade over time and as list of problems, i dont think 2 20 years who are both drunk have sex should be labled with serial rapist as they are now, since neither could give consent.

  • 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 .

  • 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.

  • 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
  • Patriarchy and bias in the law.

    It seems biased, seeing as though rape is generally targeted at women. The way the law is now, it favors the rapist over the victim, the former usually being male and the latter female. Lay low long enough and your crime just goes away. It's a sprout from the tree of rape culture and male patriarchy that needs to be pruned.

    On the contrary, men have a greater chance of being murdered, but no statute of limitations on that.

  • 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
  • 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
  • I was raped

    I was raped by a hotel manager in Orlando. I was drugged and raped. It took me several years to finally tell the police due the mental state I was in. They told me I only had 4 years. Meanwhile the guy was out raping more boys and men and was in jail at the time of the photo lineup provided by the Orlando Police department submitted to the Wicomico County Maryland Sherriff's office. I was then told I couldn't sue in civil court either for the same reason. I was victimized once by him and twice by the courts. Why are we protecting criminals. Anyone who thinks this law is fair was never raped or sexually assualted and probably shouldn't have a vote to begin with. These are stupid laws that protect the monsters of our society. My life has been hell and he gets 3 meals a day and I pay for it. This is unreal. That is like throwing salt in the wound. I have to live with this forever. I was studying nuclear physics in the NAVY, now I work in restaurants and warehouses. I have no self worth nor do I ever feel that I ever will. When do I get my day in court? Where are my rights? Thank God he was able to keep molesting people even after I came forward. He got out and did it again. My case may have locked him up for life. He now gets out in 2027. I feel like the one who has been in prison.

  • Statute Of Limitations Is Absurd

    The argument that police need to move on and investigate other crimes doesn't hold water. OK, fine have a statute of limitations for "investigative priority". Don't ban the government from carrying through charges if evidence just happens to fall into the police's hands.
    The standard for conviction is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" without enough corroborative witness evidence there is still reasonable doubt especially over time because then there is the possibility their memories might not be too good. A good defensive lawyer will raise these issues.

  • There should not be limitations for any crime.

    The idea that a "statue of limitations" would exist for any personal violent crime is in itself ludicrous. Time cannot erase the wounds created by a personal crime, especially a violent one. Rape is a despicable crime, nobody can argue that. The effects of the crime on the victim are inexplicable to anyone who has not experienced it, but in all cases, we see a victim who is anxious, hesitant, and scared of the possibility of seeking justice against their attacker. Should this victim be denied justice, simply because the attack rendered them emotionally incapable of seeking justice within a certain time frame? Rape is an extremely person and violent crime. Time does not heal the wounds. To excuse a potential perpetrator on account of time is unacceptable. Placing the suspect above the victim is unacceptable. A statue of limitations, no matter its intentions, only serves as a roadblock to victims of violent crimes. Haven't these people been through enough? To deny them the chance to seek justice for the pain they have endured is blasphemy. These heroes - these people who have endured violent crime and persevered - only deserve our undying support.

  • 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
  • Misogynist law making

    Rape disproportionately affects women. The statute of limitations on rape is a mechanism that systematically and systemically places women in a subordinate position relative to men. Instead of making issues of rape harder for women, we need to do everything and anything in our power to ensure that rapists are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

  • Rape is Unforgivable.

    Rape is an awful crime. If it can be proven 5 or 10 or 20 years later in trial, then by all means the rapist should be punished. Rape should never be forgiven simply because it has been too many years after the crime. I firmly believe rape to be on the same level of murder.

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

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