Statutes of limitations serve an important purpose. You only need to look at how the Democrats tried to assassinate the character of Kavanaugh with ancient and clearly false claims from some left wing activists hag to understand why the law says "if you aren't going to complain about something bad that happened to you within X years, we aren't going to believe you anymore. obviously you didn't care enough to do anything about it at the time, so you must be motivated by ulterior motives now."
Current law is 10 years, or discovery +3 years, whichever is later. This is an extremely long SOL. For example, defamation is 1 year, breach of oral contract or negligence is 2 years.
It's annoying how dumbass politicians keep virtue signaling by pushing the statutes of limitations on sexually related things to the point of them becoming indefinite. The only result is that you will end up with more and more feminist weaponization of FALSE and POLITICALLY MOTIVATED sex related allegations.
This is about civil claims. If there is rock-solid proof that someone dunnit, for example video, what is the justification for going easy on the rapist?
I'd agree in that scenario but the evidence in rape cases is almost always nothing more than "he dun did it to me sobs", so extending the statute of limitations for it is almost certainly going to do a lot more harm than good.
Also, "sex crimes" is a lot more expansive than just rape - poked a female coworker in the butt 15 years ago when everyone in the workplace was being silly, before PC culture infested it? OFF TO JAIL YOU GO
I'd agree in that scenario but the evidence in rape cases is almost always nothing more than "he dun did it to me sobs", so extending the statute of limitations for it is almost certainly going to do a lot more harm than good.
If that is the case, that seems a bigger problem than the statute of limitations. Hell, if you can just accuse based on literally nothing, then why not make your accusation fit the limitations?
They've made a habit of siezing power from men who earned their position with the same formula over and over.
1. Get a woman to make sexual accusations against him
2. Get him fired/removed/forced to resign with those accusations
3. Reward a woman who orchestrated it from frim behind the scenes with his job/salary/etc.
That's what they did with the new york givenor. That's how eliminated that guy that started employees $70k/year as punishment. That's what they tried to do with kavanaugh. That's how got rid of boris and replaced a with a white woman and a no-white-men cabinent in the UK. Typically, this allows them to "install" people who aren't even elected.
Rape isn't a crime that generally has financial damages. The only purpose in this would be to cast the witch-hunt net wider.
But it's ok to knowingly infect someone with HIV.
And fucking minors is okay too if you're young enough.
Californication
Statutes of limitations serve an important purpose. You only need to look at how the Democrats tried to assassinate the character of Kavanaugh with ancient and clearly false claims from some left wing activists hag to understand why the law says "if you aren't going to complain about something bad that happened to you within X years, we aren't going to believe you anymore. obviously you didn't care enough to do anything about it at the time, so you must be motivated by ulterior motives now."
Current law is 10 years, or discovery +3 years, whichever is later. This is an extremely long SOL. For example, defamation is 1 year, breach of oral contract or negligence is 2 years.
It's annoying how dumbass politicians keep virtue signaling by pushing the statutes of limitations on sexually related things to the point of them becoming indefinite. The only result is that you will end up with more and more feminist weaponization of FALSE and POLITICALLY MOTIVATED sex related allegations.
Poor rapists.
Remember that time when you raped me in January 2009?
Evidence? Don't worry, you won't need that in jail.
He claims he "doesn't remember" where he was 13 years ago on the night in question. Obviously that means he's guilty.
This is about civil claims. If there is rock-solid proof that someone dunnit, for example video, what is the justification for going easy on the rapist?
I'd agree in that scenario but the evidence in rape cases is almost always nothing more than "he dun did it to me sobs", so extending the statute of limitations for it is almost certainly going to do a lot more harm than good.
Also, "sex crimes" is a lot more expansive than just rape - poked a female coworker in the butt 15 years ago when everyone in the workplace was being silly, before PC culture infested it? OFF TO JAIL YOU GO
If that is the case, that seems a bigger problem than the statute of limitations. Hell, if you can just accuse based on literally nothing, then why not make your accusation fit the limitations?
"if"
lmao
There's never rock-solid proof for rape?
There rarely is, considering a common defense of a rape accusation is "it was consensual".
You basically have to have video of the rape happening for it to be "rock solid".
They've made a habit of siezing power from men who earned their position with the same formula over and over.
1. Get a woman to make sexual accusations against him
2. Get him fired/removed/forced to resign with those accusations
3. Reward a woman who orchestrated it from frim behind the scenes with his job/salary/etc.
That's what they did with the new york givenor. That's how eliminated that guy that started employees $70k/year as punishment. That's what they tried to do with kavanaugh. That's how got rid of boris and replaced a with a white woman and a no-white-men cabinent in the UK. Typically, this allows them to "install" people who aren't even elected.
Rape isn't a crime that generally has financial damages. The only purpose in this would be to cast the witch-hunt net wider.
why would you expect better from that guy?
The last time he did something noteworthy he offered the entirety of r/kia2 as a sacrifice just to suck some more mod dick on r/kia.
Oh come on, you know me better than to expect better.
But I do wonder why someone who can proved to be a rapist, demonstrably so, should be exempted from any sort of damages because 10 years have elapsed.