We need to STOP giving alleged rape victims any money

It already is under the law. A criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. Under a Civil Trial, the burden of proof is a little lower, if it goes to trial. But the plaintiff, the one who files the suit, has the burden of proof to prove their claim. That proof is generally as follows: "A party must persuade you [the jury], by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is required to prove is more likely to be true than not true." This is referred to as “the burden of proof.” So, most avoid trial, settle, and take the deduction for paying the lawsuit.

 

There is good reason to make the statute of limitations apply to both criminal and civil cases. Yes, it's true more is at stake in a criminal case, but on the other hand, there is more incentive for false claims to be made in a civil case.

At the very least, a statute of limitations should apply when no solid evidence exists and it is only the victim's testimony.
(I might be okay making some limited exception if the victim was a child, or had some other very valid reason for why she couldn't come forward earlier, but even in those cases it is still not essential that the woman should get money)

 

That should not include the woman's testimony all by itself.
When it does, then there is a problem.

I'm just asking to change the law to clarify this.

 

There are already statutes of limitations in place among the various states. The general rule is two years. But how they define the incident is not as concrete as the point of fact. For instance, a young girl is raped by an older person. But in her mind, it did not occur until she was much older when she finally realizes what actually happened and began to process the pain, anguish, disgust, etc. At that time, when she realized she was raped at 15, and now she is 25, and just remembering, that is when the two-year statute of limitations starts.

https://www.jenniferhorwitzlaw.com/...xact nature,prosecuted for that alleged crime.

https://www.rainn.org/articles/statutes-limitations-sex-crimes

https://www.rainn.org/state-state-guide-statutes-limitations

 

I see your point, but if that is your reasoning then I think there should be a change in law to clarify that there cannot be a civil lawsuit if there has already been a criminal trial for the same alleged act, and also that if the woman does win her lawsuit, the money has to be returned if the man is later convicted in a criminal trial.
(Maybe the money could be held in an escrow account and she would not be allowed to spend most of the money until 2 years later, giving the government time to launch a criminal case, and even then she would only be allowed to access a certain percentage each year)

I might be okay with a civil lawsuit after a criminal trial if it could be demonstrated that the prosecutor in the original trial did something very negligent that caused the government not to win its case.

 

They usually don't. Think medical experts from psychologists and to therapists, and includes friends, family, acquaintances, etc. But it usually centers on her though

 

We are looking at two different court systems, and thus no double jeopardy is entailed.

 

And New York has just decided to remove their statute of limitations.

"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

 

It's putting the man on trial twice. Once to try to take his freedom, and then again, all over again in another trial, to try to take a large amount of his money.

And if that's not bad enough, sometimes he can be subjected to another criminal trial, since there are both state and federal courts.

And then even if he has already been convicted, they can sue the employer for the crime he committed.

Many on the Left don't seem to see any problem with all these lawsuits.

 

You do realize certain criminal violations have no statute of limitations, right? They include murder, criminal fraud, and a few others, depending on the state.

However, I am not surprised by NY state doing this. But with criminal cases, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and it will not impact it much IMO.

 

Oftentimes that includes only the alleged victim's testimony and nothing else.

Yes, for those of you naive enough not to know this, men do get convicted of rape all the time based on only the accusations of a woman who says he raped her.

Heck, just a woman's accusations alone are often enough to extort a large settlement payment out of a wealthy male celebrity.

 

Like OJ Simpson? But it does not go into double jeopardy under the legal definition. Putting a person on trial twice is all about the definition of double jeopardy, as set forth in the US Constitution, under the 5th amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy

 

Thanks. Yes, I see you did understand my point.

Could favour or relinquish the responsibilities of the rich, either way.

There's no perfect system (yet).

 

Sure, but you still have to prove that case by a reasonable doubt/ proponderance of evidence. Nothing could be easier for defense council to plant into a jurors mind in a case that goes back ten to twenty years. The cross and closing statements write themselves. If a defense attorney can't manage to get a single juror out of 12 to doubt the prosecution's case, under circumstances you are basically talking about, when all the state has is a he said/she said and no forensic/ physical evidence on a matter from over a decade ago, he deserves to lose his license.

 

related thread: Jury says Trump has to pay $5 million to woman who accused him of rape (posted May 9, 2023 in Latest US & World News)