Should there be a statute of limitations on rape?

I don't think so. So I could commit rape, hide out for that certain amount of time.. then walk free?

No, because rape is a crime no matter how long ago it happened.

No, becuase some people are really nervous about coming forward. These people need time to relize what has happened, and this may not occur until many years later.

I'm curious as to who voted "Yes."

Here in MA there is a 40-year-old fighting extradition on 25-year-old murder charges. Had he faced these charges 25 years ago he would almost certainly have been tried as a minor. These days, however, it has become fashionable to try 15-year-olds as adults. This is just one of many examples of how societal attitudes towards particular crimes have changed, and along with them the likely outcome at trial. To my mind the purpose of the statute of limitations is not so much a presumption that the defendant has reformed in the meantime, but rather to protect the idea that one should be tried in the societal context within which one's alleged crimes took place.

Checked out the Adv. Stats. Why am I not surprised that both the people who voted Yes are men?

Rape yes, incest no.

Rape no. Incest yes.

**Brian: I am one of the (currently three) people who voted yes. Your snide comment as to the sex of the voters makes me think that you are operating under the misapprehension that my views on statutes of limitations are unique to rape. This is incorrect. I favor statutes of limitations on many crimes, for substantially the same reasons as phi.

Frankly, I don't understand the point of having a statute of limitations on any crime. I imagine that if a past crime had become irrelevant due to the passage of time, a prosecutor would likely exercise his or her discretion not to pursue it. Statutes of limitation seem as dumb to me as mandatory sentencing.

No, I think they should be tried for the crime regardless of how long ago the crime was committed.

Brian: we're now up to 3 men and 2 women saying "yes"...

Which is it vos?

The second one.

Vos: Why do you think there should be a statute of limitations on incest? The child may be grown, but the crime still took place.

Oscar: I think I keep reading the question wrong... thatīs why I answered twice. Now I read it again, I mean that incest should always be suable, so thatīs no statute of limitations, right?
This is confusing for me, sorry.

4 men and 2 women. I voted yes, because after time the memories of witnesses becomes increasingly questionable. Most people can't remember where they left their keys fifteen minutes. How could I expect anyone to remember where they were on July 17th 1981.

Rape, yes. Incest, NO. I guess it depends on kind of rape it is. Date rape, yes. Rape by stranger, no. Personally, I think alot of what I hear about date rape, I just wonder. The accusation of rape does bother me sometimes. My husband had a friend many, many years ago, because he had rejected a girl, she and her friend cried rape and he was taken into jail. Later the girls recanted their stories. If I were a man, I would feel like I had to walk on thin ice all the time. Real rape, I'm sure is horrible, but I sometimes have my doubts about the "date rape."

No...

Jeanne: Doubts about date rape? You're kidding right?

If you're going to have some kind of statute of limitations, then it should apply equally to all crimes that are considered equally severe. If rape and murder are considered equally severe, then the SoL should apply equally to both.

However, my personal opinion is that there should not be a statute of limitations on serious crimes of violence, which includes rape. I'd prefer it if it was only lesser crimes that got officially "forgotten" after a set period of time.

Brian, the term "date rape" has the effect of applying the charge of rape to a wider range of behavior that it traditionally meant. Everything from acts that I'd simply call rape where the rapist happened to start the night off as the girl's date to the girl deciding a few days later that she kinda wished she'd said "no" instead. Not to mention the ease of false accusation that Jeanne brings up. Of course people have doubts about date rape.

That's ok vos. Saying that it should always be sueable is NO statute of limitations.

I am sure there is a point beyond which the crime can no longer be proven.

If she says 'no', its rape. No matter when she says it, who she says it to, or what the actual question was in the first place.

Men *do* walk on thin ice all the time. We're just lucky that most women aren't doublecrossing conniving snakes.

drdt: LOL!

Just because some people abuse the legal system it doesn't mean that others should not get a fair trial. "Date rape" happens. People make up arson attacks so they can get their insurance money, but it doesn't mean that all arson attacks are committed by the property owner.

no, I don't think so

natsim: I agree completely. It seems that every day smart people have to suffer for the actions of the stupid. Stupid women cry "rape" in lew(sp?) of wolf, and smart decent woman that ARE raped are disbeleived and looked at as a fraud.

**Brian: The word you're looking for is "lieu".
Re: date rape: why do we need an additional classification? It seems to me that the current definition of rape is sufficiently broad to include anything that you'd want to be illegal. Is this not the case? Is there some action that you feel should be counted as rape that currently isn't?

It is a good thing most women are not conniving snakes, but having the whole 'no' thing mean so much makes me feel so much safer. But you know, some men still don't know the meaning of it.

What makes me feel safer is that so many men have actually absorbed the message of "no means no." They can repeat it in their sleep. It seems like it's actually penetrated down into the primal instinct part of the brain for a lot of them. It gives me big warm fuzzies to see people like drdt laying down the law--and it gives me hope that at least some of the feminist movement's messages are actually making it through.
Now let's try "equal pay for equal work." Repeat after me...

Enhudanna: If women really want to break the back of male domination, they should do the following things;

1: Take the reigns. You're 52% of the electorate for christ sake!
2: Take back control of your bodies from the Right-To-Life movement,
3: Get together and collectively cut us off. Deny us sex en masse. The Great American Poke Out. If you thought Renfield was blidnly allegant(sp?) to Dracula, we will be the Stepford Penises.

Brian: that tactic only reaches the diehard straights among us.

Brian: if only it were that simple...
As for point #2, remember that a big chunk of that 52% of the electorate is also part of the Right-To-Life movement. It is not only men who reinforce male domination.

...and it is not only women who will stop it.

I don't understand statutes of limitations well enough to answer the question. Why exactly is it that certain cases are no longer considered prosecutable after some time has passed. Is it only to make space on the shelves for new material at the police station? In that case, I would answer that the statute should be in place if the number of cases requires it - and for murder this should also be the case. If the cops can't work on new murder (or whatever) cases because there are so many fifty year old cases sitting around, I guess we should throw out the old ones.

joachim: here in Boston the cops are working on the old cases because the murder rate has dropped so far that they don't have enough current cases to work on.

Unfortunately, sex sometimes is held over men's heads. A woman scorned can claim rape. If I were a man, I would probably feel like I would have to walk on thin ice with women, especially in today's world.

As daver said, why put a label on it, as in "date" rape. Rape is rape. However, I do not think there is such a thing as rape in a marriage. Remember the case a fews years back about the wife that claimed her husband raped her. Bullfeathers! A woman's body is her husband's and a husband's body is his wife's.

From a woman's point of view, if a woman allows passion to get out of hand, she invites problems. If a woman scantily flaunts herself, teases a man, she can get into trouble. The woman is the helm of this situation. Some women should be more responsible with their behavior.

Stranger/incest rape should be prosecuted to the strongest degree.

Jeanne: No means no. If a wife doesn't want to get hit, says so and her husband still beats her, that's abuse. If a wife doesn't want to have sex, says so and her husband still screws her, that's sexual abuse (aka rape). Like you said, rape is rape. It doesn't matter what the relationship is, married, friend, or total stranger.

Jeanne has something of a point about risk. If, to take an example from another survey, I park a Ferrari on the street in a bad neighborhood, leave it unlocked, and put the keys in the glove box, I shouldn't be surprised when it gets stolen, nor should I expect a lot of sympathy from the cops. However, if they take basic commonsense precautions like locking the doors when they park or not asking sailors if they want a "date", I don't think people should have to stay out of bad neighborhoods while driving Ferraris any more than I think they should have to stay out of bad neighborhoods while wearing sundresses.

phi: on one hand, I certainly understand your point. But on the other hand, I can't count the number of times I see a man looking at me, and do a quick mental check of what I'm wearing to see if someone might say I was inviting rape. You know me, you know how I dress; would you say that's ever the case? I'm not talking about bad neighborhoods, either -- Cambridge and Somerville, the T stop or the street. And yet it's a *constant* fear -- not even so much the rape itself as being blamed for it myself.

Jeanne: After reading that post, I've gone from disliking to flat out hating you. A woman's body is her husbands? WRONG! A person's body is THEIRS! Theirs, and only theirs! No means no, no matter who you are. And there is such a thing as a wife being raped by her husband. Didn't you ever see "What's Love Got To Do With It?"

gilly: I wonder if you missed the "don't" in my comment above.

Phi: You sort of talk on both sides in your comment. On the one hand, if you park a Ferrari and leave it unlocked etc... on the other hand you shouldn't have to stay out of bad neighborhoods entirely. Guess I read more into the first part than I should have. Still, I think it's important to point out that even though we shouldn't have to stay out of bad neighborhoods while wearing sundresses, many women I know have the same fears I do.

Brian: I sympathize, really I do, but please don't hate. I say that sincerely and hopefully constructively. Your hatred hurts you far more than it does your enemy.

Hate has its place. or it wouldn't exist.

I think the term date rape has been useful to change the definition of of rape from "forced sex with a stranger" to "forced sex with anyone, even that nice person you just saw a movie with". I think it's still useful in that sense. I don't think there is any difference legally, is there?

This is a conservative woman's view or explanation of her perception of what the word rape is....

I want to preface by saying, I appreciate all your comments. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

When I hear the word rape, I think of stranger attack. This rape is rape.

A person who is married, I feel cannot be "raped." There can be spousal abuse, but not rape. I am quoting from the Bible when I made the statement about a husband's body belonging to his wife, and a wife's body belonging to her husband.

As for date "rape," I think many women through embarrassment that "it went too far," the only way they can vindicate themselves, they cry "date rape", sometimes months and months later. Women have to protect themselves and one way is, don't allow themselves to get into compromising positions. Men should have self control themselves.

The say still stands today "a woman should be a lady and say no, a man should be a gentleman and not ask."

Ultimately, a woman has to protect herself, as she is the person that can get pregnant. She is the one that should have the wit about her to not get into situations that will hurt her. Men and women should respect each other and not impose themselves on each other.

Again, if I were a man today, I would feel as though I had to walk on thin ice as far as women in today's world. Men should equally protect themselves in more ways than I can say.

Brian, I am truly sorry you have to feel the hate you do, but I am not the reason for your hate. Look into your life and try to solve and come to terms with the problems in your life that makes you feel so intense, so angry. Your health is at risk. Anger can ultimately affect the heart. Take care of yourself.

II'm sorry you feel that way about a "wife's body." I feel that your body belongs to only one person. You. Mine belongs to me, yours belongs to you, ad infinitum. If I woke up one day and all women acted the way you believe they should, I would never get any sex, because I find submissive June Cleaver type women a major turn off. There's not enough Viagra in the world to get past that repulsion.

Jeanne- "date rape" is absolutely the same thing as rape. Rape is a need for power, not sex. Why would a woman cry rape? why? Most woman who are legitimately raped still don't come forward out of shame, so to say it happened when it didn't would be preposterous. It is never a womens fault that she is raped. One can't always avoid a compromising situation. More often than not, rape is committed by someone whom the victim knows and trusts. Boyfriends and husbands and such may have to walk on thin ice, but that shouldn't be too hard. When the women says "no", stop! It's that simple. I sincerely don't think that very many women actually "cry rape", as you imply.

Brian: I think you're missing Jeanne's point, she was not saying that women have to be "submissive June Cleaver types." She was saying that she believes in a definition of sexual rights in a marriage that is more communal than you or I happen to believe in.

and that's fine if the woman going into the marriage agrees and knows that her husband can take what he wants whenever he wants it and is ready to submit even when she is ill, unhappy, in pain, pregnant, menstruating...etc.....

Jeanne would you agree that if a husband wants to take his wife against her wishes that he can do so violently and forcefully?
You see, not all men are gentleman like your husband.

Should the woman then have no recourse legally if her husband is a violent man who attacks and rapes her?

You seem to be coming from the sense that all men are kind and gentle and loving. This is not the case in some situations.

if my ex husband had pinned me down and forced his penis into me when I was not willing to accept it...and continued to TAKE me as I struggled and cried out in pain and screamed no, should I have just realized that that was a part of being a good wife?
Luckily that never happened, of course. But if it had...to me, it would have been rape.

No, I don't understand why there are statutes of limitation on anything. If you commit a crime, why should you get off just because a certain amount of time has elapsed?? Do we teach our children that if they do wrong, we won't punish them unless the wrong occurred recently? This is crazy.

Brian: You have the right to your own preferences in women. There are many men who would like women like June Cleaver. Brian, I want to ask you, why is a June Cleaver type woman so intimidating to you? I get this impression by what I have read from you. Has there been a woman such as this in your life?

Jane: You stated that a woman is never responsible for her rape. In some circumstances, I would agree with you, however, I still think that a woman should not allow herself to get into a position that she can be harmed. If she thinks, after petting and getting the man "charged", that she can just say no, she is responsible for what happens next. I am not saying it is right, but she has to take some responsibility for the act. Women are in the unique position of having to take extra care because she bears the child. I do feel that men should also think, "hey, I could get this girl pregnant." True, I think men should take responsibility in controlling themselves, however, they do have a stronger sex drive than a woman and ultimately the woman is the one that can get pregnant.

Jonathan: Thank you for clarifying.

Twistermine: I think if a man loves his wife, he would be considerate of her enough not to ask her for sex during illnesses, in her period, pregnancy,(however, I thought sex during pregnancy was great), etc. However, for the first 20 years of our marriage, I never refused my husband under any circumstance (my choice). Many years later, and generally only in my menopause years, did I bow out. He was not a happy camper, but he eventually accepted it.

I think when a man beats his wife into submission for sex, to me, is first of all a louse, and has committed spousal abuse. If a husband beats his wife, she should call the police and file charges against him. I agree with you, not all men are kind.

Jeanne: Have I had a June Cleaver type woman in my life? I'm proud to say no, and I hope to continue to say no until the day I die. I mean, you may define a wife as someone who bows to her hsuband's will, but I see a wife as someone who keeps her husband from doing something stupid. Why do you think we call you the better half? The woman is usually the brains of the operation. Nothing saddens me more than a stupid woman. It seems like such a waste to me. Stupididty is the ultimate turn-off. Let me put it to you this way. If it takes her more than 15 seconds to tell me what 10 times 10 is, I know then and there it just won't work out.

"Ward, I think you were a little hard on the beaver last night" - June Cleaver

Will someone please tell me who June Cleaver is? Is she related to Meat Cleaver?

Of course there had to be a website for the show - http://www.leaveittobeaver.org

Jeanne: "If she thinks, after petting and getting the man `charged', that she can just say no, she is responsible for what happens next." I disagree. Sex is not an all or nothing thing. There is no reason why one can't be involved in some sex play and still have boundaries, and no reason on earth why a person should not be able to respect their partner's boundaries. I've never been a guy, and I have been told (by a friend who's been both) that their sex drive is different, more compelling and immediate, but I still can't believe that means they can't stop if they try. I think male society has played up that excuse far too much to relieve themselves of responsibility.

Damn! why don't the I meet these guys with compelling and immediate sex drives, stronger than women's!?!?! >

Jeanne- I simply think that most women are in a position where they trust their significant other, enough to be able to kiss and make out and expect him to stop when she says so. If her SO doesn't stop, then he is breaking the law and taking advantage of her. It is not her fault. Women shouldn't have to live in fear, worrying that if they want to fool around they have to worry about rape. It's unreasonable. Babies are not just a womens responsibility, so they shouldn't be the only ones concerned about getting pregnant. A stronger sex drive is not an "excuse" for rape, because rape is about power, not sex.

Baby things change!

Yes, but it should be a reasonably long period of time. I say yes because I can't imagine a situation where after 30 or 40 years, they could effectively try the case. People's memories aren't that accurate. There wouldn't likely be any physical evidence...etc.

No offense intended but with great passages of time; memories change and proof wanes. Please don't waste our time and tax dollars on water long past under the bridge and unlikely to convict. The court system can’t even properly handle the load it currently has.