Shouldn't there Be a 1 Year Time Limitation on Rape?

[HiFi]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Before people jump on my case without reading this, I am not a rapist and I deplore the crime of rape. I'm posting this because I just read of comedian's Chris Rock's troubles with some woman who accused him of rape a few years after that allegedly happened and got me thinking of this from a legal standpoint. Here are my questions which I value anyones opinions:

1. How can anyone prove a rape without witnesses ever happened if the woman accuser never went to a hospital at the time and didn't have a rape examination (I'm sorry if that isn't the proper wording) with documented records?

2. If you can't prove rape without any medical records at that time the rape
supposedly took place, how can you convict anyone of this crime, assuming there were no witnesses to the rape?

3. Given the above, why don't we set a legal time limit to when someone can report rape instead of wasting the courts and law enforcements time and money?

If I am wrong and people have been convicted of rape say after a year or more of the attack without medical evidence or witnesses, please let me know. Thanks for your input on this even if you think I'm completely off base.

 

[seniorjudge]

Questions 1 and 2 are rhetorical and/or hypothetical. The answer is the same: You need evidence to convict a person of a crime.

Question 3 is that there is a statute of limitation in every state on rape.

Google.

 

[Some Random Guy]

1. How can anyone prove a rape without witnesses ever happened if the woman accuser never went to a hospital at the time and didn't have a rape examination (I'm sorry if that isn't the proper wording) with documented records?

Yes, a prosecution in such as case is very hard. Prosecution in rapes that were very recent are also hard because it is often just the accuser's word against the rapist.

2. If you can't prove rape without any medical records at that time the rape
supposedly took place, how can you convict anyone of this crime, assuming there were no witnesses to the rape?

That is a problem facing prosecutors every day. And even with medical records, not all rapes leave physical evidence that sex was non-consentual.

3. Given the above, why don't we set a legal time limit to when someone can report rape instead of wasting the courts and law enforcements time and money?

There is no time limit for reporting anything. There is a time limit for prosecution. The time limit is based on the statute of limitations for the crime. This limit depends on which crime is being prosecuted and which state's laws they are being prosecuted under. It may also be affected by the age of the victim since many states will not start the statute of limitations clock running until the victim turns 18.

 

[HiFi]

What's the limit then and why investigate without proof?

OK, then why investigate anyone claiming they've been raped if they haven't had a timely medical exam or there are no witnesses?

What is the average limit? Obviously its more than 2 years in the case of Chris Rock?

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: OK, then why investigate anyone claiming they've been raped if they haven't had a timely medical exam or there are no witnesses?

A: Now how would anyone on this forum know the answer to that? Ask the investigators, not us.


Q: What is the average limit? Obviously its more than 2 years in the case of Chris Rock?

A: The average? That's a meaningless question; each state has its own law. You don't add those all together and divide by 50; that would be a worthless number.

 

[HiFi]

Ok THen Put it THis Way Why Should People Be Allowed to Report Rape After a Year?

It seems that reporting rape after a year is a waste of time for everyone because you won't get a conviction without any medical evidence so why are we even allowing this- Just to be politically correct?

 

[Antigone*]

It seems that reporting rape after a year is a waste of time for everyone because you won't get a conviction without any medical evidence so why are we even allowing this- Just to be politically correct?

...and who the heck are you to Chris Rock...a stalker maybe

 

[HiFi]

That was a real intelligent answer

I read about it in the paper, you racist genius- I'm white by the way and I don't see the point about people reporting rape after a year and wasting everyones time and money and being a license to slander people if no one can be convicted of rape after a year has gone by if there is no evidence. I don't see any point of allowing this other than to be politically correct.

 

[Antigone*]

I read about it in the paper, you racist genius- I'm white by the way and I don't see the point about people reporting rape after a year and wasting everyones time and money and being a license to slander people if no one can be convicted of rape after a year has gone by if there is no evidence. I don't see any point of allowing this other than to be politically correct.

...I'm not by the way. Oh and thank you

 

[seniorjudge]

I read about it in the paper, you racist genius- I'm white by the way and I don't see the point about people reporting rape after a year and wasting everyones time and money and being a license to slander people if no one can be convicted of rape after a year has gone by if there is no evidence. I don't see any point of allowing this other than to be politically correct.

Since neither you nor I know anything about the investigation except what is in the news, we really know nothing.

 

[>Charlotte<]

...why are we even allowing this- Just to be politically correct?

When the victim comes forward, the D.A. will decide whether or not to prosecute. If he thinks he has the evidence to convict, he'll proceed. If he doesn't, he won't. We don't know what evidence exists in this case.

Aside from the SOL, certainly no victim of a violent crime should be dismissed out of hand simply because it's been two years since the crime was committed. I hope you're not suggesting otherwise just because you're a fan.

 

[Antigone*]

When the victim comes forward, the D.A. will decide whether or not to prosecute. If he thinks he has the evidence to convict, he'll proceed. If he doesn't, he won't. We don't know what evidence exists in this case.

Aside from the SOL, certainly no victim of a violent crime should be dismissed out of hand simply because it's been two years since the crime was committed. I hope you're not suggesting otherwise just because you're a fan.

Careful C... I called this guy a fan(atic) and he called me racist. Can you believe that... He hurt my feelings, now I'll go back and finish crying my eyes out.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Careful C... I called this guy a fan(atic) and he called me racist. Can you believe that... He hurt my feelings, now I'll go back and finish crying my eyes out.

Actually, I've been sitting here thinking about that for a couple of minutes. I'm almost positive I have a "WTF??" look on my face. How exactly does he conclude you're a racist because you called him a stalker? If those are the rules in this thread, I'm just gonna go ahead and conclude OP is a ball retriever at Wimbledon and move on.

 

[Silverplum]

Actually, I've been sitting here thinking about that for a couple of minutes. I'm almost positive I have a "WTF??" look on my face. How exactly does he conclude you're a racist because you called him a stalker? If those are the rules in this thread, I'm just gonna go ahead and conclude OP is a ball retriever at Wimbledon, and move on.

You do.


(And I'm not your stalker. You just happen to be standing near Senior Judge. )

 

[>Charlotte<]

You do. (And I'm not your stalker. You just happen to be standing near Senior Judge. )

You used the word stalker!! Racist!!

ETA: Well, shoot. So did I.