No statute of limitations on rape cases as long as there is DNA to support the charges.
2006-10-13 18:38:35 · 13 answers · asked by warriorwoman 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I talk about DNA because there was a child that was born out of this rape, and it was her DNA that helped convict.
2006-10-13 18:49:02 · update #1
Total agreement here, no statue on murder and in my mind rape is the same thing. The rapist destroyed a life, just the same way one will never be replaced.
2006-10-13 18:45:09 · answer #1 · answered by patti duke 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are talking about DNA, it has it's own limitations. I believe there should be no statute of limitations where rape and child molestation is concerned but your DNA argument is unsupportable. It would have to be reported when it happened or very soon after for DNA to support the case, these products have to be obtained in a secure environment by unimpeachable sources.
2006-10-13 18:44:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so. With DNA we have proof positive. However, this government would not get it right. The ambitious DA's would prosecute to the nth degree some 60 year old guy who when he was 20 something "raped" a woman who, what? Said 'No?' Since then he has lived a stellar life. Another guy, 60, continued to cause mayhem in various ways and they get him. Both, I maintain would be sentenced to life. You see, there are always gradations in all crimes, although fewer in homicide. See what some ambitious DA's are doing and have done to men in the early 20s who impregnate some 17+ girl who sure as hell wanted it. Once you declare something a crime, a felony and without a statute, it gives ambitious DA's (and everyone in county government are afraid of these killers) a chance to demonstrate how much they care about women and children. Some do, most don't. So, gag me with a spoon.
2006-10-13 18:49:14 · answer #3 · answered by ALWAYS GOTTA KNOW 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's a difficult question. As time passes, the burden of proof and the defense both become increasingly difficult.
I see your point with DNA... still, putting someone away with 30 year old evidence, who knows how it was gathered, what errors are involved? The witnesses are dead, the cop is retired, the forensics person has moved to England, maybe the victim is dead by now.
I guess I say no.
2006-10-13 18:44:16 · answer #4 · answered by KALEL 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There needs to be SOL on some matters. Murder, Rape or other types of crimes that can be proven by other evidence than witness accounts.
If the crime can only be supported by eye witnesses, or accusers there MUST be a SOL, in order to prevent false memories (which does occur) from convicting a person.
2006-10-13 18:46:19 · answer #5 · answered by strangedaze23 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree 245153161%. I know someone who got molested as a child from age 8-14 and never said anything until she was 32, and it was a family member... And once she came out with it we all tried to press charges and nothing happened to the sick *******. And now whon knows how many other victims he will have and has since he did it to her!
2006-10-13 18:41:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i know someone who was molested at age 5 by a family member for many years but she never told anyone till she was 20 and by then it was too late to press charges...
2006-10-13 18:54:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, it takes some women a long time to heal and gather the strength necessary to go through the court process, and if they don't find the culprit for years they still committed the crime and should be punished accordingly.
2006-10-13 18:40:46 · answer #8 · answered by Sara 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no statute of limitation on murder and there should not be on all other serious offenses.
2006-10-13 18:43:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree.
2006-10-13 18:46:09 · answer #10 · answered by Eli 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋