A man is on trial for allegedly raping his sister between 1970 and 1972 when he was 15-17 and she was 8-11.
Did you get that? That's forty years ago.
And yet, there are unquestionably hordes of people who think justice would be served by bringing a man to trial even if the complainant sat on her hands for 35 or 40 years.
In the U.S., there is a trend to extend and even abolish statutes of limitations for rape. Let's put this in perspective for all those who think there should be no statute of limitations for rape. Do you favor the same rule for false rape claims? Well, nobody seems to care about that. The fact is, false reports are often subject to a very limited statute of limitations that will bar most claims if the woman's lie has its intended effect and her fraud is not discovered for several years.
Now that's fair, isn't it? But wait. It gets worse. Much worse.
Removing the time frame for prosecution opens the door to turn nasty family feuds into criminal cases. Alleged rapes from long ago will be held over the heads of adult males to exact concessions and financial consideration. 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 an innocent 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 at the time in question; whether he was out of town with the high school basketball team; sick in bed with the flu; away visiting grandma; whether he or she were 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?
Of course it isn't. So why do we allow it?
Because we don't really care about innocent men or boys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
story of my life / story....
I was *fucking* lucky in that the dates my FRAs alleged just happened to nearly coincide with a couple of dates held by outside agencies... and yet it is all still rolling on...
Now that gender / Raunch perverts dominate American politics..there will be no justice for anyone but perverts!!
40 years. That IS sick!
This reminds me of a case I heard about on tv a while back.
Maybe someone actually knows the case I'm talking about and can post a link to it.
There was this guy that like 20 years ago supposedly raped a girl in college.
He was going through some sort of 12 step program and was supposed to apologize to anyone he had hurt in his life.
So he sent this woman a e-mail saying he was sorry for what happened like 20 years ago.
I do not think he ever said WHAT he was sorry for but she said she was raped.
He went to prison for like 10 years and of course sex offender registry for life.
This was for something that supposedly happened like 20 years ago with nothing more than her word.
And of course she was like the homecoming queen to the media.
I'm doing this by memory so some of what I'm saying might be wrong but it's how I remember it.
Isn't it nice to know that any female you have ever known or for that matter not have known can say you raped her until the day you die and you will go to prison!
I am noticing a lot of older women making claims against their brothers these days.
A woman I work with was caught stealing, and blamed it on her brother raping her. She was almost 60.
I noticed a woman opposing a particular sex offender law naming her brother's full name and the middle school where he taught, claiming he raped her.
This may be the next day care/recovered memories witchhunt - it seems to be cropping up more nad more these days.
@Anonymous Jun 15, 2010 11:17:00 PM
The news story you are referring to is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12876396/
Handling of 'abduction' case involving teen has been absurd
I know that in this paranoid world, you never approach a small child who is by herself, take her by the hand and walk out of a store with her in search of mommy.
But I am not 14 years old.
I am not Edwin.
Last week, Edwin went to the Burlington Coat Factory store on West Colonial Drive with his mother.
Get more stories like this. Sign up for home delivery today.
He saw a 3-year-old girl without a parent. If he had it to do all over again, if he could see the cops, the handcuffs, the TV cameras and the jail cell all awaiting him, I imagine the last thing he would have done was try to help her.
But he did.
I pieced together what happened from the investigative report, a 911 call, surveillance video, news reports and interviews with the Orange County Sheriff's Office.
Edwin approached the girl and told her he would find her mother. Edwin's mother said she saw the two together, asked Edwin what was going on, and then said she would help.
Then Edwin made his big mistake. He thought the girl's mother might be among a group of women that he saw leaving the store. So off he went.
The video shows him leaving the store, with the girl following behind. Once outside, he took her by the hand.
Edwin's mother then appeared, following after him and the girl.
It turned out the girl's lost mother was in the store. She told investigators that she was returning an item to the shelf when she lost track of her daughter. She naturally became alarmed. Another shopper told her that the girl left the store with a man. Edwin is big enough to pass for a defensive lineman, which probably is part of the problem here.
The video shows the girl's mother rushing out the door.
By that time, Edwin had discovered the girl didn't belong to any of the women he had seen leaving the store. He said he was turning back to return to the store.
There was a convergence of Edwin, his mother, the little girl and her mother. The girl was returned to her mother.
The video then shows mother and daughter going back into the store, followed shortly thereafter by Edwin and his mother.
A store employee then called 911 at the behest of the girl's mother. After the employee tells the dispatcher about the abduction, the dispatcher asks where the perpetrator is.
"He's over in shoes,'' the employee said.
Edwin is quite the kidnapper. He brings his mom along. He hangs out in front of the store until the victim's mother shows up. And then he returns to the store and starts shopping for shoes.
Anon @ 1:32 am. All i gotta say to that is holy shit the story of 14 yr. old edwin is tailor made for anti male hysteria. Poor bastard was slightly foolish cuz ever since i was 4, my parents taught me "if you're lost, FIND A WOMAN." So even at that age i would NOT have held the girl's hand. I would've grabbed an employee, or someone w/in feet of me.
But yeah, i hope that despite how scared he is, the damn situation is solved at least relatively quickly
It's stories like these (anon @ 1:32, and 40 year case) that i hate to say it but: all you well meaning young men especially, when you see women and children not your own in trouble; do NOTHING for them! Because let's face it, anything involving touching, comforting, helping up, lifting, saving their lives, looking at, getting w/in 20 feet of, etc. COULD MAKE YOU LIABLE to a bullshit accusation!
More evidence that there IS a war against men! Unless something is done to neutralize this misandric absurdity, we may see entire cities being converted into prisons
Yes sir, if you are a man it's up to you to prove that you never, ever raped anybody, going all the way back to the Mayflower landing if necessary.
Because it's so reasonable to expect men to prove that they never raped anybody. And conveniently, men are unable to falsely accuse women, so we have the added advantage of this making up for all of the horrible things that women experienced in the nineteenth century.
The trial continues before Mr Justice John Edwards and a jury of seven women and five men.
SEVEN women and five men? What are the odds he will be found not guilty? That is if the women have been indoctrinated by feminism
Of course, if Edwin was instead Edwina, the police would not have arrested her.
I also assumed, after first reading about it in the Jun 16, 2010 1:32:00 AM comment, that Edwin was black.
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/06/breaking-14yearold-accused-of.html
Having a statute of limitations is something of a crude form of justice, because even if something happened a very long time ago, if there is sufficient evidence then justice should be carried out.
Suppose a woman says "Mr X did such and such to me in 1977". If there is no other evidence to support her claim, then the case should not be reopened.
But suppose there is compelling evidence. Say someone finds an old film reel in the attic, that clearly shows Mr X doing a whole of heinous things. In that case, I say charges should be brought no matter if it was a long time ago.
If something allegedly happened a long time ago, and there is limited or no evidence to support it, then the case should be dropped. But where the evidence is really overwhelming and beyond dispute, then and only then should the case be re-opened and charges laid.
"Having a statute of limitations is something of a crude form of justice, because even if something happened a very long time ago, if there is sufficient evidence then justice should be carried out. "
There is also the issue of ex post facto in regard to existing statute of limitations as well as prompt complaint requirements in he-said/she-said cases. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan used to say.
Nick raises a good point -- if there is a film or something of that nature. I also have less concern for stranger rape. If a woman can't find her rapist, then
I have a problem with that.
My concern is the acquaintance rape cases where a woman sits on it for 30 years.
With that said, I don't want to leave it to the discretion of a prosecutor to decide which cases to bring and which to drop, so the only solution may be a finite statute of limitations for all claims.
"Nick raises a good point -- if there is a film or something of that nature."
Even if there is, it doesn't mean that the accused is guilty.
It makes sense that there is no statute of limitations on murder because dead people can't call the police.
However, there is nothing preventing a rape victim from making a complaint in a timely fashion.
"so the only solution may be a finite statute of limitations for all claims."
Yes, that would be the only solution.
Further, rape should never be prosecuted if the only evidence is the word of the accuser, whether it was 40 years or 40 hours ago.
@ Anonymous Jun 16, 2010 1:32:00 AM
Poor Edwin learned a painful lesson at the hands of a society ruled by gender feminists: No good deed goes unpunished!
On the other hand, the gender feminists could use a good lesson in morals, ethics, and responsibility from the Amish:
On October 2, 2006 at around 10:25 AM at the West Nickel Mines School in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, a man named Charles Carl Roberts entered the one-room schoolhouse in the Amish community. He barricaded himself in the building with the female students as his
hostages. Forty minutes later he shot and killed five young girls aged 6 to 13 before committing suicide himself.
The news shocked the nation and devastated the community. In the face of such evil, one question was asked in a hundred different ways, “Why?”
The senseless murders stunned the world; however, the Amish response proved to be just as astonishing. On the day of the shooting, one of the grandfathers of the murdered girls was quoted as saying, “We must not think evil of this man.” Another Amish father said, “He had a mother and a wife and a soul and now he’s standing before a just God.”
An Amish neighbor of the gunman visited his family after the shooting to offer comfort and support. The rest of the community visited Roberts’ widow and parents. A group of about 30 members of the Amish congregation attended Roberts funeral. The
Amish even set up a charitable fund for the wife and children of the shooter.
The schoolhouse was torn down the following week and left as quiet pasture. A new and renamed school opened nearby called The New Hope School.
Note it was the Amish MEN who said and did these things in response to the shootings. No moral panic, no hysteria. No revenge. They simply responded rather than reacted. The gender feminists would do well to learn the lessons the Amish teach. Grace and mercy should season justice.
A neighbor of mine always asks me to watch her 15 daughter for her at my place when she is late at work because she does not want to leave her daughter alone with her 17 yr. son. She told me that her brother had molested her when she was a child. Once she questioned me as to why I allow my than 10 year old son to share a bedroom with my 8 year old daughter (we had limited space). I used to just think she was just being neurotic, but for a moment there, she made me question my values and sense of judgement.
Now that I've read this post, I wonder if she is a
trouble maker and maybe I should not have her daughter around the house.
Oh yeah, she also never used to allow her children to sit in the lobby alone to wait for the school bus because she thinks there is a child molester that comes to the building to visit his mother. That was the first time I heard there was such a thing as a sexual offender list.
Come to think of it, she is a troubled person and now I feel sorry for her (she is a nice person otherwise).
Zee
If you are a man, I would stay away from her daughter.
Stay away from her daughter, and from her.
And after you escape, go immediately to the nearest delousing center: what she's got might be contagious.
Uh Anon @ Jun 16, 2010 12:11:00 PM: Don't mean to be rude, but WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING???!!! I dont care how much of a favor you think you are doing. Do not have anything to do with being responsible for a 15 yr. old girl.
If the woman doesn't trust her 17 yr. old son, you don't think she'd become suspicious of you? dude quit babysitting her?,
Sincerely,
Concerned Android
I concur - get that woman the hell out of your life.
COMPLETELY.
Women who talk about sexual abuse and act like there's a predator under evey rock (her OWN son!?!?!?) are a false accusation looking for a place to happen.
This woman is POISON. A spider, and you, my friend, are a fly.
Be NICE - but get her the hell out of your life.
Annon 12:47, 2:47 and android-
I should have said I'm a woman-sorry for the misunderstanding.
I see "Zee" is not an identifiable female name .
Oh, if I were a guy there was no way the mother would have asked me to babysit.
Regardless, it is better to keep my distance because I have to think about my whole household.
Zee
It's true - if this 'kidnapper' had been a girl, she would be applauded as a heroine.
Since it is a boy, he is now a criminal.
This kid is lucky some much media attention is on his case.
Otherwise, he'd be charged up the wazoo, offered a plea, and end up pleading guilty to something he clearly didn't do.
It happens all the time.
Wonder what our National Treasure and resident Child Saver John Walsh has to say about this case.
John Walsh has openly decreed that no boy should ever be allowed to babysit. Apparently they shouldn't be allowed to rescue lost children either.
Its not about justice, its about putting as many men through the court system as possible. This is done to keep the Prison Industrial Complex growing.
Archivist: everything you wrote is of course correct. We're either living in a time where people have lost all rationality or there is so much man hatred that it's really just a witch hunt.
As I said before, the Statute of Limitations in alleged rape cases should be 72 hrs., unless the female is unconscious. Alleged rapes of children are a problem because perhaps they are too scared to complain but all I can say is that the accused is really the one whose rights must be protected against the power of the State. And btw, isn't it unconstitutional to enact ex post facto laws? Aside from the fact that long statutes of limitations are insane for what amounts in 99% of the time as a he said/she said situation, you can't use a law enacted today to prosecute something that preceeded the new law.
Zee - I'm a woman too, who befriended a sexual abuse obsessed woman.
I supported her even though her stories didn't add up. "Believe the victim, support the abused, so on and so forth...
I pissed her off and she ended up accusing one of my family members in retaliation.
Women like this are evil incarnate - DO NOT TRUST HER. Remember the story of the little girl who took a snake under her coat to warm it, and it bit her?
"You KNEW what I was when you picked me up" the snake hissed to the dying child as it slithered away.
Look. She's betrayed her own son by telling YOU he was a molester!
Y O U could get in deep trouble for not reporting him as a sexual abuser, do you not realize that? Read up about the 1974 Mondale act.
She could accuse YOU. She could accuse someone you love to spite you. She could get her daughter to accuse you or someone you love.
www.paulstuckle.com - read "Loss of Constitutional rights".
Anon: And btw, isn't it unconstitutional to enact ex post facto laws""
Not anymore, anonymous.
Everyone is so busy reviling and hating sex offenders that things like Constitutinal rights and ex post facto have been done away with "to save the children".
Just as with Hitler, laws, Constitutional rights and common sense have been destroyed to "save the children".
People on sex offender registries are constantly subjected to ex post fact punishments amid cheers and approval of "the good citizens".
And now it's landed at YOUR dorstep, it's too late to cry foul! The damage is done.
People on sex offender registries are banned from parks, housing, libraries, swimming pools,public streets near schools, and now a bill to bar sex offenders from obtaining FHA loans was recently passed, and is awaiting a final vote - since "taxpayers shouldn't have to support sex offendeers".
Hellllllooooooo! Are sex offenders now tax exempt, or aren't THEY tax payers as well?
But we all dumbly go along with it...until it hits home. Again.
I've been informed "we don't support sex offenders on this site", but what do you think an innocent person falsely accused and convicted ends up being?
A sex offender.
The old saying goes " S&^t runs downhill", but in this case, it is running UPhill - it's only a small matter of time.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=h691
US House passed amendment to H.R. 5072: FHA Reform Act of 2010. Those convicted of a sex crime against minors will not qualify for a FHA loan. Sponsors say tax payers should not have to finance pedophiles.
Congress does not understand that not all those convicted of a sex crime against a minor are pedophiles (Romeo/Juliet). This amendment also does not ban other felons from FHA loans (drug dealers, people convicted of felony fraud...).
This has not passed the US Senate. Please contact your state's US Senators.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=h691
US House passed amendment to H.R. 5072: FHA Reform Act of 2010. Those convicted of a sex crime against minors will not qualify for a FHA loan. Sponsors say tax payers should not have to finance pedophiles.
Congress does not understand that not all those convicted of a sex crime against a minor are pedophiles (Romeo/Juliet). This amendment also does not ban other felons from FHA loans (drug dealers, people convicted of felony fraud...).
This has not passed the US Senate. Please contact your state's US Senators.
Arod99k said...
Its not about justice, its about putting as many men through the court system as possible. This is done to keep the Prison Industrial Complex growing.
Jun 16, 2010 8:41:00 PM
Another campaign in the war against/on men and boys.
Our "justice" system is merely a reflection of popular misandrist, women-on-a-pedestal prejudices, not an impartially operated scale that hands down punishments fairly. It's an estrogen-powered engine that grinds up the innocent and guilty with equal relish.
Post a Comment