Arkansas is considering eliminating the statute of limitations for rape, reports the Arkansas Democrat Gazette (“Limits on rape charges targeted,” Jan. 18, 2009.) This proposed change in the law is unnecessary and would expose countless innocent men to greater risk of being falsely accused, and even wrongly convicted, of rape. While the goal of convicting more actual rapists is laudable, this is yet another proposed change in the law of rape that does not take into account the unjust effect on innocent men and boys.

Currently under Arkansas law, rape charges must be prosecuted within six years, or if the charge is based on DNA evidence, 15 years. (See state-by-state chart specifying the statutes of limitations for rape.) The proposed change in Arkansas law is consistent with a disturbing trend in the United States. According to the National Conference for State Legislatures: “Most states have laws limiting the time during which crimes other than murder may be prosecuted. In recent years, many states have adopted varying extensions to their criminal statutes of limitations for cases of sexual assault.”

The proposed Arkansas change isn’t sitting well with criminal defense lawyers, according to the news report:

That's a recipe for false charges and Hail Mary defenses, say defense lawyers who say they'll vigorously oppose [the] bill.

"It's a horrible idea," said Jeff Rosenzweig, a Little Rock attorney and chairman of the legislation committee for the Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "It would just green-light all sorts of abusive prosecutions." Witnesses die and evidence decays or is lost over the years, he said. And, unlike murder, a rape victim is left alive to report the attack. . . . . .

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that rape is not the same class of crime as murder. Rapists can't receive the death penalty, for instance, he said.

"Rape is a very serious crime. It's just not as serious as murder," Rosenzweig said.

Removing the time frame for prosecution would open the door to turning nasty family feuds into criminal cases, he said.

"I guarantee if it passes - when the family is arguing over grandma's will - someone will say 'unless you give me X or Y I'll file a rape charge for the thing,'" Rosenzweig said.
Extending or eliminating statutes of limitations for rape leaves innocent men at a serious, and possibly fatal, evidentiary disadvantage. Any trial lawyer can attest that the passage of time erodes one’s ability to defend charges.

What are the practical implications if a man is accused of raping an acquaintance ten, or twenty-five, or even fifty years ago? In all likelihood, the man’s accuser would assert that the supposed act occurred on a specific date, at a specific place, and she would paint a vivid picture of the supposed surrounding circumstances of the sexual encounter. She would justify her ability to remember with specificity by the supposed trauma she experienced.

In contrast, the innocent man’s memory will have faded to the point that he likely would have no recollection of even where he was on the night in question; whether he was drinking; whether she was drinking; what they might have discussed; where they went or with whom they interacted prior to and after the supposed sexual encounter. In fact, the most an innocent man might be able to honestly assert is, "I would never rape a woman and did not do what she alleges, but I have no clear recollection of the night in question."

He almost certainly would have long ago destroyed any evidence proving he was somewhere else at the time of the alleged act (for example, he would have discarded calendars, plane tickets showing he was out of town, credit card invoices showing he ate at some out-of-town restaurant, and any other tangible evidence that would exonerate him). He almost certainly would have destroyed any evidence showing a consensual relationship with his accuser (e.g., love letters or cards, voice mails, emails or text messages). Alibi witnesses likely will have disappeared or even died.

In short, an innocent man hauled into court on rape charges ten, twenty-five, even fifty years after the alleged act would be like the warrior of old entering battle stripped of his shield and sword. His ability to defend the charges would be decimated by the passage of time. Is that in any sense fair to innocent men?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 at 12:58 pm and is filed under False Accusations, Rape/Sexual Assault/Statutory Rape. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.