This is a terrible terrible idea and just shows how progressives don't think things through before they enact new policies, and just ignore the likely unintended consequences. There were good reasons these statute of limitations existed before. And now they just want to totally eliminate them and call it "progress"? What about the protections for the accused? "New York's criminal law is about to undergo a major change following the legislature's elimination of the statute of limitations for rape cases." State Removes Statute Of Limitations For Rape Cases (gothamgazette.com) - November 2022 "And under the law, victims now have 20 years in which to bring a civil suit for the offenses." "In August, Governor Cuomo signed legislation extending the statute of limitations for employment sexual harassment claims from one year to three years. And in February, Cuomo signed into law the Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of child sexual assault to pursue criminal felony charges until they turn 28, and file a civil lawsuit before age 55." New state law extends the statute of limitations for rape in New York | CNN - September 2019 "There has been an ongoing and pervasive culture of sexual harassment and abuse in our society, and it is made worse by the fact that victims of second- and third-degree rape only have five years to bring a legal claim against their attacker," Cuomo said in a statement. "Five years is an insult to these survivors and today we’re providing them more time to come to terms with the trauma they experienced and to seek justice. This new law recognizes the injustice that has gone on for far too long and honors all the women who have suffered this pain and all the advocates who had the courage to come forward and tell their story so that other women may be spared the pain." Yeah, just sounds like b(*)(*)(*)s(*)(*)(*) emotion. "We want to be Pro-Women". Guess New York Democrats are really desperate for the votes, have to show they are "doing something". I can't believe anyone could be this stupid, not to see the obvious problems with this. And this is especially troubling because now the courts in these progressive states are allowing women to sue men for money for alleged rape, get money when the only evidence is the testimony of the alleged victim. This didn't even used to be a thing several decades ago. The idea that women are entitled to getting money for being raped or suffering sexual harassment is very new. Imagine a woman tries to sue you for something that allegedly happened 10 years ago, but for whatever reason she decided not to report at the time. Good luck trying to pull up any evidence that might help exonerate you. I bet most of you have no memory of where you were on a day 10 years ago, so it would make it all but impossible to be able to come up with any alibi. All because a woman decided to wait 10 years to sue you. Very unfair. That's why they normally have a statute of limitations in the law, but now several states are removing them.
Why is the Progressive Left so obsessed with it? They are the ones changing the law and changing how the courts deal with these cases, setting new precedents that never used to exist 60 years ago.
A woman is suing famous boxer Mike Tyson for $5 million under New York's Adult Survivors Act, claiming he raped her in the early 1990s. So she is claiming he raped her about 30 years ago and is now coming forward and wants money. The woman, who is seeking $5 million in damages, stated in a signed affidavit that Tyson invited her into a limousine in Albany, New York, under the pretext of bringing her to a party. Once in a limousine, she says Tyson began to kiss her, ignored her pleas to stop, pulled her pants off and "violently raped" her. Tyson had previously been convicted of rape in February 1992 in Indianapolis. He was sentenced to six years in prison and was released on parole after three years. The fact that he served so little prison time suggests that not much evidence existed in that case. Jan 24, 2023 https://www.khon2.com/sports/sports...es-5-million-rape-lawsuit-for-1990s-incident/
Concerning Tyson's prior rape conviction, it looks like the only evidence in that case was that she said he did it. "In July 1991, Tyson met Desiree Washington at a rehearsal for the Miss Black America pageant in Indianapolis. Washington accompanied Tyson back to his hotel room, where, in the early hours of July 19, Washington claimed he raped her. Tyson claimed the sex was consensual. The world-famous fighter was indicted by a grand jury in September of that year and convicted in February 1992. He was released, after serving three years, in March 1995." https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/boxing-legend-convicted-of-raping-beauty-queen Since he was born in June 1966, Tyson would have been 25 years old at the time of the alleged crime. It looks like only about four months after he began serving his prison sentence, the woman filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court trying to get money for the alleged rape. Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard University law professor handling Tyson's appeal, had this to say: "We couldn't be happier because it finally gives us a vehicle for bringing out the whole truth, for deposing Desiree Washington and for exposing her for what she is: a money-grubbing phony who has done this--as we suspected right from the beginning--for the money." "Tyson Is Sued for Damages by Rape Victim : Jurisprudence: Attorney says she files lawsuit because boxer has shown a glib attitude and lack of remorse for crime.", Los Angeles Times, June 23, 1992
written by Bob Garrett, former USA Boxing Certified Coach This was not the first time Desiree Washington accused somebody of rape. According to an legal affidavit signed by high school friend Wayne Walker, she accused Walker of raping her in October 1989. It was complete nonsense. It takes a lot of hutzpah to make false rape accusations. Millions of dollars were spent to prosecute Tyson. Nobody knows what Washington got out of it. Tyson never offered her a penny to recant her accusations. I believe the motivation for Desiree was a false hope Mike Tyson might use his millions to pay her off--to recant her accusations to save him from prosecution. Mike called her a lying, money hungry, reptilian creature. He said she was a very bad person who tried to take advantage of him to make herself rich. Tyson has always maintained his innocence. He never changed his opinion of Washington. Desiree's story about Tyson is one of the fishiest lines of malarkey ever told. There were people in the next room to where Tyson and Washington had sex. They didn't hear anything. They heard no crying, no protests, no screaming, no nothing. You could hear creaks and pops, and even conversation in the next room. Three witnesses said she had her legs wrapped around Tyson as they came into the lobby in the wee hours of the morning. They were not allowed to testify because the judge thought their testimony might prejudice the jury. Why would Tyson rape somebody? Women were throwing themselves at him. He didn't need to rape anybody. Why would a woman go to his room at 3 in the morning, kissing and making out with him on the way to the hotel? Tyson said they were kissing and making out, got undressed, had consensual oral sex first--after that they had consensual vaginal sex. He was very tired and had to get up very early. He wanted to get a couple hours of sleep. Desiree Washington made several trips to the bathroom which locked from the inside. She had a phone. She made no calls. She was free to leave at any time. She asked Tyson to escort her down to his car to take her back to her hotel. He said he was extremely tired and needed to grab some sleep and she should find her way down to the car. Washington didn't say anything to anyone in the lobby, didn't call the police, didn't say anything to the driver. She didn't call the police until many hours later and after she went through a dance routine and other parts of her schedule. What she exhibited is not the behavior of a rape victim. How much money did Desiree Washington make from the Mike Tyson trial? - Quora But it looks like the woman may have gotten some money. "Mike Tyson has settled the civil suit filed against him by the beauty contestant he was convicted of raping four years ago, the boxer's lawyer said Wednesday. Nathan Dershowitz would not say how much money - if any - the settlement involves. Desiree Washington filed the civil suit against Tyson in federal court in June 1992, seeking unspecified damages for assault, battery, false imprisonment and emotional distress. Trial had been scheduled for July 24. Tyson was released from prison in March." TYSON SETTLES CIVIL LAWSUIT FILED BY WOMAN HE RAPED - Orlando Sentinel, June 21, 1995 "After the trial was over, rumors started to emerge that Tyson had to pay upwards of $200,000 for the case. However, it has not been disclosed how much Tyson paid Desiree Washington in damages from the lawsuit." Desiree Washington Net Worth & Wiki: How Rich is She Actually? (exactnetworth.com)
I am concerned about this. I definitely understand the problem this seeks to address, but its virtually impossible to get credible evidence from decades prior, and it invites jurors to give more credibility to witness testimony than the passage of time warrants - because its virtually the only evidence anyone is likely to have. The reason we have statutes of limitations is to ensure that memories are fresh, witnesses are alive and available, documentation and forensic evidence has a clear and readily established path from the crime scene, through the police custody to the lab . None of those problems are solved because the accused has had PTSD for a decade, and the results of any trial have to be suspect. I am not adamantly opposed to any prosecutions of this nature, but the kinds of cases a prosecutor brings have to be very narrowly tailored to specific fact patterns that do not rely on hardly anyone's direct testimony of the events that go back that far. How in hell do I prove an alibi from over a decade ago, unless it happens to have just the perfect paper trail which of course I kept neatly in a binder longer than I keep my tax return receipts.
