But proponents of this session's bill said the 25-year statute of limitations is not enough to safeguard victims and bring those responsible to justice.
"All it does is reward a rapist who's clever enough to evade capture," said Christine Herrman, director of the Attorney General's Sexual Assault Task Force.
House Bill 3263 would eliminate the statute of limitations for four sex offenses: first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, first-degree sexual penetration and first-degree sex abuse.
Don Rees, a Multnomah County senior prosecuting attorney, said the bill is limited to the most violent sex crimes involving physical force and the most vulnerable victims.
Representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association were careful to express support for Gillmore's victims but said they respectfully opposed the bill.
Andrea Meyer of the ACLU and Gail Meyer of the defense attorneys association said they were concerned that a defendant wouldn't get a fair trial because witnesses die and memories fade. They also expressed concern about the potential for mishandling or contamination of DNA evidence over such a lengthy time.
"You are robbing the defendant of the ability to re-create the event fairly," Gail Meyer said. She added that the statute of limitations was particularly important to be maintained for sex crimes because "innocent, law-abiding people engage in sex" and could be wrongly implicated, which is not so for other crimes.
But the committee didn't seem swayed by the opponents' concerns, and the bill has bipartisan support on the committee. Rep. Judy Stiegler, D-Bend, committee vice-chair, said she was "offended" by their logic, emphasizing that the bill deals with the most egregious of sex crimes, in which physical force or children are involved. Rep. Brent Barton, D-Clackamas, called the opponents' arguments "logically flawed," describing the bill as narrow in scope. Rep. Jefferson Smith, D-Portland, pointed out that it doesn't change a prosecutor's burden of proving a case at trial.
Nationally, 14 states have adopted similar legislation, eliminating the statute of limitations in rape cases in which a DNA profile has been obtained. Thirteen other states have eliminated the statute of limitations on the most serious sex offenses, regardless of whether DNA evidence is collected.
"It certainly a trend that's been going on for the last five years, with the mass use of DNA to solve crimes," said Kristina Korobov, director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women. "Certainly the impact of sex assault on a victim and their family can be as devastating as homicide."
Surprised that there have been no responses, so I will say it:
ReplyDelete"Yes, it should be classified as a hate crime."
That being said, of course, there are many factors to be considered when it comes to how to prosecute such cases, but the effects of these crimes last a life time and therefore, there should be no statute of limitation on the ability to prosecute.
It is not a crime of passion...
Karen: I think this subject matter is a too volatile because it's been lurk mode on this post. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteFaith,
ReplyDeleteI haven't fully thought these issues through. Here are my half-formed thoughts about all of this:
I'm not sure how I feel about this, or the notion of there being "hate crimes" statutes in the first place.
I have mixed feelings about the "piling on" effect of enhanced penalties for a defendant based on his adding of racial, ethnic, religious, etc. verbal slurs to an attack. It seems to me that if more of the underlying crimes committed by various types of bigots (such as battery, etc.) were prosecuted to the full extent of available law, there would be no practical need for the existence of additional hate crimes statutes.
I'm also not quite sure how I feel about the statute of limitations for rape. I feel that they should be lengthened (or abolished) regarding sexual assaults involving child victims, and for sexual assaults committed by strangers.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea having no statute of limitations for an adult victim of acquaintance rape (and/or date rape). When an adult who was attacked (as an adult) by a person who is known to them lets YEARS go by before reporting the attack, I start to wonder what is really motivating the self-described victim's allegation.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Valid point and under those circumstances, I would also have a concern not having a statue of limitations in such cases. Often things are shades of gray instead of black & white....
ReplyDeleteKhadija said: "....I'm uncomfortable with the idea having no statute of limitations for an adult victim of acquaintance rape (and/or date rape). When an adult who was attacked (as an adult) by a person who is known to them lets YEARS go by before reporting the attack, I start to wonder what is really motivating the self-described victim's allegation."
If making rape a hate crime will increase the numbers of convictions then I am all for it.
ReplyDeleteThere should not be a statue of limitations on rape. Victims do not come forward for a number of reasons and that does not mean that the crime did not happen.
Rape cases are hard to prosecute either way it goes. Evidence or not.
Khadija: I'm not certain about all the ramifications either. I am concerned about female military officers who are essentially assaulted on the job while putting their lives on the line. There's no easy solution.
ReplyDeleteMekare: Welcome and thanks for replying. As I said I have many questions and mixed feelings about this. I think having some dialog is better than acquiescence.
ReplyDeleteYou know it is a hate crime . Because it use as to humiliate and destroy the person sense of self. We have to hand out hard punishment to those who commit the crimes.
ReplyDeleteThere should be no statue of limitation.
@ Khadija
having known someone who did not report her rape , because our culture is into victim blaming. She feared her family would blame her. Which happens all over the world.
The FBI has a good sit about hate crimes: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm
ReplyDeleteI think I have read somewhere that under many current laws rape is included in the acts that could be classified as a hate crime. So the issue is not so much whether or not rape per se could be a hate crime. The question is whether "gender" should be one of the official categories of classes of people (e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability status) in hate crime legislation.
In other words, what advocates might want to think about is strengthening inclusions of violence against women *as women* in hate crime/hate speech legislation.