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

[HiFi]

Your Missing the Point And Yes I Am Talking About a Limit to Report the Crime

I just brought up Chris Rock because I wouldn't have thought about this otherwise if I didn't read about it. The guy called me a stalker for no reason and I just repaid him the compliment. As far as the actual subject, as someone mentioned here and not in approval, I am talking about people not being allowed to report a crime if after a reasonable period of time has elapsed that one is not going to obtain a conviction, in this case Rape.

Quite simple, I say again, why is the taxpayers money being wasted by people being allowed to report rape after a year if there are no witnesses or medical evidence that would even support that a violation took place. All it allows is a stage for people to defame and slander others. Why even allow anyone to report rape after a year if it won't get a conviction without any medical proof. As I said before the only reason I can see is to be Politically Correct.

 

[Antigone*]

I just brought up Chris Rock because I wouldn't have thought about this otherwise if I didn't read about it. The guy called me a stalker for no reason and I just repaid him the compliment. As far as the actual subject, as someone mentioned here and not in approval, I am talking about people not being allowed to report a crime if after a reasonable period of time has elapsed that one is not going to obtain a conviction, in this case Rape.

Quite simple, I say again, why is the taxpayers money being wasted by people being allowed to report rape after a year if there are no witnesses or medical evidence that would even support that a violation took place. All it allows is a stage for people to defame and slander others. Why even allow anyone to report rape after a year if it won't get a conviction without any medical proof. As I said before the only reason I can see is to be Politically Correct.

I'm going to cry again....now not only am I a racist but I'm a guy as well ​

I can't win today...I need that fifth Home Guru was talking about yesterday.

 

[>Charlotte<]

I just brought up Chris Rock because I wouldn't have thought about this otherwise if I didn't read about it. The guy called me a stalker for no reason and I just repaid him the compliment. As far as the actual subject, as someone mentioned here and not in approval, I am talking about people not being allowed to report a crime if after a reasonable period of time has elapsed that one is not going to obtain a conviction, in this case Rape.

Quite simple, I say again, why is the taxpayers money being wasted by people being allowed to report rape after a year if there are no witnesses or medical evidence that would even support that a violation took place. All it allows is a stage for people to defame and slander others. Why even allow anyone to report rape after a year if it won't get a conviction without any medical proof. As I said before the only reason I can see is to be Politically Correct.

Oh, for Pete's sake.

Okay, let me try it this way. Do you agree that--regardless of how much time has passed--if there is enough evidence to make a good case an alleged rapist should be prosecuted?

 

[Some Random Guy]

I am talking about people not being allowed to report a crime if after a reasonable period of time has elapsed that one is not going to obtain a conviction, in this case Rape.

What you are advocating is a violation of people's first amendment rights of free expression. If Celebrity X broke my car window 15 years ago as a stupid teenager, I have every right to tell people about it - even if the statute of limitations has passed for vandalism in Colorado.

Quite simple, I say again, why is the taxpayers money being wasted by people being allowed to report rape after a year if there are no witnesses or medical evidence that would even support that a violation took place.

Is the alleged crime beyond the statute of limitations? Are there in fact any witnesses or medical evidence? Should we prevent investigators from starting an investigation (a few phone calls) to try to gather this basic info about a violent crime?

How do we know any taxpayer money is actually being wasted?

 

[HiFi]

God Can't You People Read English? As I Said Again

As I have repeatedly said, if a person was not medically examined for possible rape within a timely period- let's say 1 year for example and has no witnesses, why shouldn't the police just say no you can not file a criminal complaint and we're not going to investigate end of story.

As for right of freedom of expression, it's called liable, slander and defamation. You can't accuse someone of rape without proof and the only way to have any basis of proof is to file a criminal complaint. Well why should the police and courts have their time wasted if there is no medical proof or witnesses after say a year?

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: As I have repeatedly said, if a person was not medically examined for possible rape within a timely period- let's say 1 year for example and has no witnesses, why shouldn't the police just say no you can not file a criminal complaint and we're not going to investigate end of story.

A: Because that is not the law.


Q: As for right of freedom of expression, it's called liable, slander and defamation. You can't accuse someone of rape without proof and the only way to have any basis of proof is to file a criminal complaint. Well why should the police and courts have their time wasted if there is no medical proof or witnesses after say a year?

A: The authorities cannot determine the validity of any kind of criminal complaint without investigation.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Can't You People Read English?

Can you? I asked you a simple question. It only requires a yes or a no. If some type of evidence exists to indicate a rape was committed despite the amount of time that had passed, do you or do you not agree that the D.A. should proceed?

 

[Some Random Guy]

God Can't You People Read English?

Yes, but apparently you cannot write it.

Six quotes from you:

why don't we set a legal time limit to when someone can report rape

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

I don't see the point about people reporting rape after a year

Yes I Am Talking About a Limit to Report the Crime

Why even allow anyone to report rape after a year if it won't get a conviction without any medical proof.

In each of those six quotes you are advocating that people should not be allowed to report a rape. That's the first amendment violation I was talking about. You are restricting a victim from telling anyone about being raped. You didn't say until your last post that you really wanted the restriction to be

shouldn't the police just say no you can not file a criminal complaint

There is a difference between restricting a person's ability to say something and the police having a policy of not writing things down if it doesn't fit their guidelines.

As for right of freedom of expression, it's called liable, slander and defamation. You can't accuse someone of rape without proof and the only way to have any basis of proof is to file a criminal complaint.

Actually, I believe you're thinking of libel.

In the USA, "truth" is a defense to any accusation of libel or slander. In a civil trial for libel or slander, the standard of proof for allegations and defenses are different than in a criminal trial.

There are many ways to prove things without filing a criminal complaint.

 

[CdwJava]

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?

This is a complex question that defies a simple answer. Yes, there are ways to prove the rape occurred, but it is very difficult to obtain a conviction in such matters if the time delay is significant.

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?

Medical records are rarely the key piece of evidence in a rape trial. From experience, most rape allegations rely on the issue of consent not on the issue of intercourse. Both parties will admit to having intercourse, but the male claims it was consensual. In those cases, a medical exam might show the fact that sexual activity occurred, but absent significant ripping and tearing, or other trauma, this is not absolute proof of rape at all.

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 a statute of limitations on rape in most states (though I do not know that all states have such an SOL).

In CA the SOL is generally three years, but if reported outside of that three year SOL a rape prosecution can be initiated within one year of the report to police. The key will be in the details of the allegation (age at the time of the crime, time passed, and when reported) as to which SOL might apply.

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.

Yes, people have been convicted after more than a year and even without medical evidence.

- Carl