Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

AG Madigan wants GA to eliminate statute of limitations for felony criminal sexual assault and sexual abuse crimes against children

Posted in:

Illinois

* In the wake of Dennis Hastert’s sentencing yesterday, this press release landed in my in-box…

Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault (ICASA) [yesterday] called on Illinois lawmakers to eliminate the statute of limitations for felony criminal sexual assault and sexual abuse crimes against children.

Madigan and ICASA’s Executive Director Polly Poskin have long supported the removal of the current statute of limitations for sexual assault crimes against children. Illinois law should allow children who have been victims of sexual assault and abuse the time to come forward and report their crimes. Survivors of sexual assault crimes during their childhood should be afforded the time it takes to process their assault and come forward to report their crimes to authorities.

“Sexual assault continues to be pervasive in society, affecting far too many children and families across Illinois,” said Madigan. “When a prosecutor cannot indict an offender for these heinous acts because the statute of limitations has run, it raises serious moral, legal and ethical questions. We have long supported extending the time period for prosecutors to file sexual assault and abuse charges, and we urge the Legislature to eliminate the statute of limitations on all sex crimes involving children.”

“What is most important in these cases - the offense or the time that has passed?” Polly Poskin said. “If people understood the devastating and debilitating impact that sex crimes have on someone, then they would understand why it’s so hard to step forward, especially when the perpetrator is someone in a position of trust, like a teacher or coach. These victims need justice in order to heal – even decades after the
abuse.”

Your thoughts?

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:23 am

Comments

OK by me, but I’d expect some opposition from the Archdiocese.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:26 am
http://www.chicagocac.org/gov-quinn-signs-law-to-remove-statute-of-limitations-for-child-sexual-abuse-ensuring-survivors-no-longer-run-out-of-time-to-seek-justice/

Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:27 am
Lisa Madigan for governor.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:27 am
While I support the idea, lets have a conversation about it before we enact something like this and make sure we get it right.

Comment by Del Clinkton Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:29 am
re: crazybleedingheart

“The bill removes the statute of limitations for child sex abuse that occurs on or after January 1, 2014. The legislation is not retroactive; survivors are subject to the law that was in place at the time of their abuse.”

Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:33 am
Thanks to
= crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:27am =
Seems that the Catholic church already has its protection in place by the limit of charges only applicapable when the abuse occurred after 2014.
Did the other bill become Law? (Granting prosecution when the victim was under 18, regardless of time of the crime?)
As far as advancing the cause….
AG could moved to have legislation like this last year when revelations about Hastert were swirling.
It would have been easy to support and probably adopted.
In this case though….the horse is out so closing the barn door now doesn’t really help.

Comment by northernwatersports Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:34 am
CBH, that law only applies to offenses that occurred after Jan. 1, 2014. What Lisa wants is to be able to go back before that date.

Comment by JT 11505 Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:34 am
My concern would be that it really impairs the ability of the accused to defend himself in court against the charges. How would one remember potential alibi witnesses etc.

Comment by TominChicago Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:36 am
crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:27 am:

That legislation was not retroactive and only covered offenses that occurred from Jan 1, 2014 on. I would imagine this would alter that legislation to be inclusive and retroactive.

Comment by carbaby Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:37 am
I don’t care how we get them, I just want them got.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:38 am
I’m all for eliminating statute of limitations for all sexual abuse situations. This type of abuse and rapes can leave a person scared for life. if and when caught they may then realize the error of their ways.

Comment by WETHEPEOPLE Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:39 am
As long as they call it the “The Hastert Law”…

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:40 am
might be creating more problems than it would solve. I know it’s not popular to argue from the defense perspective in the current environment, but how does one defend oneself against an allegation from 20-40 years ago. I see a lot of room for abuse here.

Comment by jim Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:40 am
Political opportunism.
Statutes of Limitations prevent wrongful convictions. Defending against a sex-crime allegation already is harder than defending against a Murder charge. This would only make it worse.

Comment by IRLJ Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:41 am
@Tom,

Then that should apply to all crimes. Should someone accused of murder 30 years after the fact still be held accountable?

But if we’re going to pick and choose, then I’d rather crimes with devastating effects, particularly those against children, have no SOL.

Comment by Ferris Wheel Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:43 am
Of course, most anyone would see this law as common sensical. And in light of the Speaker’s result, the impetus is understandable.

HOWEVER, as a commentator made clear yesterday, how does one “defend” against a charge about something that happened 5 years ago? 10? 20? The accused has to have some likely ability to defend and participate in her/his defense.

That said, perhaps there are ways to address the serial nature of certain predators, again, like the Speaker. Or, perhaps creating civil opportunities for legislation would allow for some redress.

Comment by Choosing Anonymity Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:43 am
I knew of a teacher who was falsely accused. The experience was a nightmare. So, the only concern I have is if a child (or adult) decides to get back at their teacher (or other profession) because they want revenge. Then who becomes a victim??

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:44 am
Currently, Illinois law allows 10 years after the alleged victim turns 18 in order to file criminal charges. That is lots of time.
In fairness, there must be some limit on time. Does an alleged victim get to wait until age 40+ and take no action at all and then expect the accused to be able to gather evidence for a defense?
I approve the current provisions. The Limitations should never start running on a minor, but 10 years after that is plenty. Or make it 15 if that makes sense, but not just open ended for life.

Comment by Politically Incorrect Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:44 am
===Should someone accused of murder 30 years after the fact still be held accountable?===

Murder has no statue of limitation.

Please, keep up.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:45 am
In the abstract I think allowing prosecutions from so long ago is a good thing, but worry about the reliability of things like repressed memories, etc. Evidence becomes less clear over time. Take the McMartin case as a notorious example. That said, if concrete proof is available I don’t see why the passage of time should save such degenerates.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:45 am
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:45 am:

+1

Comment by Jimmy H Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:55 am
I have mixed feelings about this. I am in complete agreement with the notion of getting child molesters. Who wouldn’t be? The issue for me is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. How can someone mount a defense after 30 years? 40 years?

Denny Hastert was a clear situation in that it was clear he was paying hush money for these specific crimes. But that doesn’t mean that every person so accused after so much time is guilty.

Equally prevalent in our desire to get those who break the law should be the desire to afford those accused the ability to mount a defense. Anyone who has been falsely, or worse - mistakenly, accused knows that you can’t prove a negative. You can’t prove you didn’t do something. That problem seems exponentially harder when you remove any statute of limitations.

I don’t know what the right answer is. But if we still adhere to the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ - then we have to be concerned with how much harder this would make it for an innocent person to mount a defense.

this is not a defense of Hastert or any other proven child molester. I feel terrible for Scott Cross and anyone else impacted by the shame and horror of what they went through. No child, or even adult, should have to endure it. I just feel that in our desire to mete out justice to actual perpetrators of the crime, we may be making it harder for those who are innocent to defend themselves. It will take a far wiser man than I to parse the nuances of law and craft a solution.

Comment by Name Withheld Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:55 am
Another overly emotional solution to an alleged problem. DH victims were all past puburty and the APA tip toes around the extent of damaged s in this age group.

Comment by Critic Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:59 am
==- IRLJ - Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:41 am:==

Statutes of limitations do not prevent wrongful convictions.

Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:59 am
This was specifically discussed last night on Chicago Tonight and some interesting explanations were given for why our law system has statute of limitations.

Comment by Just Me Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:02 am
I know in civil cases, a potential defendant obtains a constitutional right once the statute of limitations ends and it can’t be taken away by the legislature passing a new law. Not sure if the same can be said of criminal defendants, but there are lots of similarities.

Comment by My button is broke... Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:02 am
==crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:27 am:

That legislation was not retroactive and only covered offenses that occurred from Jan 1, 2014 on. I would imagine this would alter that legislation to be inclusive and retroactive==

You can’t retroactively change the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2003. See Stogner v. California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stogner_v._California

Comment by so... Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:03 am
“===Should someone accused of murder 30 years after the fact still be held accountable?===

Murder has no statue of limitation.”

That was my point. Some heinous crimes (like murder) have no SOL. Therefore it’s not unreasonable to suggest another heinous crime (like molestation) should not have SOL either.

Comment by Ferris Wheel Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:04 am
I agree that this is an emotional response to this situation.

Comment by Del Clinkton Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:06 am
Murder arson and treason no statute of limitations. Make civil lawsuits possible at anytime and leave criminal penalties alone. As Politically Incorrect said plenty of time.

Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:07 am
Precinct Captain, and others, the US Supreme Court ruled in Stogner v California that extending the Statute of Limitations retroactively is an unconstitutional ex post facto law. So not sure if Illinois can go further than Jan. 1, 2014. (And that case also happened to be related to extending the SOL retroactively for sexual abuse of a minor). You would also have to go back and determine specifically what the laws were in the 1970s, since it is enitrely conceivable that the crimes Hastert committed were not treated with the same appropriate level of severity that they are today.

Comment by Juice Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:08 am
Another great idea from Cap Fax commenter “Siriusly” (okay fine I only said it yesterday)

47 - ouch

Comment by siriusly Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:09 am
Del - yes this is a response to a specific situation. But is there a valid policy rationale to having a statute of limitations on a crime like this?

is there a statute of limitations on other crimes that have serious impact on a victim? Murder? Rape?

I am genuinely asking. I don’t understand the basis for these statutes of limitation.

Comment by siriusly Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:11 am
===47 - ouch===

I know, but I recently saw Spotlight and it made me physically ill. I’m a Catholic, but the sins committed by the church to cover up these crimes are almost unforgivable. They are definitely unforgettable.

Never again.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:13 am
OK-but if we drop SoL on crimes vs children, let’s get it right as others have commented. There are some good reasons for SoL and minds blur after passage of time.

Comment by justacitizen Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:19 am
I support this because I think there would have to be proof the crime took place, not just the word of the victim. Obviously, this becomes easier in cases with multiple victims. This does not mean an automatic conviction for the accused, as is true in other cases without a statute of limitations. The law is needed for the worst offenders like Hastert. They can’t stop themselves.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:22 am
“I don’t understand the basis for these statutes of limitation.”

As some have said above, they are a societal determination that at some point prosecutions for certain crimes should be cut off due to the unreliable nature of evidence over time and to protect the ability of a defendant to mount a defense. Memories get fuzzy and inadvertently get replaced with fiction, physical evidence deteriorates, witnesses die. All of these can result in a wrongful conviction. Also these statutes for lesser crimes provide an opportunity for the perpetrators to get on with their lives after a certain point and stop looking over their shoulder. For the most heinous crimes, like murder and some sex crimes, society has determined that there should be no similar escape.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:23 am
====crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 10:27 am:

That legislation was not retroactive and only covered offenses that occurred from Jan 1, 2014 on. I would imagine this would alter that legislation to be inclusive and retroactive==

You can’t retroactively change the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2003. See Stogner v. California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stogner_v._California==

Something one would think the AG would address in a news release.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:24 am
I should add that these statutes also relate to the legal maxim that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent man.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:26 am
I’m completely biased in this as my spouse was sexually abused as a child, but I can tell you that I’ve seen the effects of that abuse impacting his life now - 20 years later. He is still in therapy, he lives a good life, but he will never be “over it.” So, my sympathy for those that harmed him and there ability to mount a defense is zero. However, that might be why I should take myself out of the equation because I’m admittedly totally biased. But, I think sex crimes are different in lots of ways from other crimes. His abusers were never prosecuted, they were family members. He felt he had no one that he could trust to confide in, he felt going to authorities would make him less safe. He may have been wrong on this, but he was a child. When he became an adult, 18, he was blaming himself and felt that he was to blame for everything and couldn’t bare the shame of telling others what happened to him. There are completely understandable reasons why someone would not be emotionally ready to confront abusers until years later. No easy answers here.

Comment by Dread Pirate Roberts Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:27 am
Very, very dangerous. There are excellent reasons for having statutes of limitations, and eliminating them, based on emotional reactions to egregious cases like Hastert’s, risks increasing the number of erroneous convictions.

Comment by JoanP Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:28 am
I think it’s a bad idea.
Some years back I did a bunch of genealogy work on my family and you wouldn’t believe how many times documentary evidence ran completely counter to what relatives remembered. What I am saying is people’s memories and recollections change over time. It is simply impossible to go back 30 or 40 years and know you have the absolute truth about something that old based solely on peoples memories. Whoever was involved may or may not have memories clouded by time, societal changes, changes in sexual mores, and a whole host of other things.

This does not mean that I am advocating for sexual offenders. It only means, that we are walking on very thin ice when it comes to accusing or convicting people based on 40 year old memories.

train111

Comment by train111 Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:30 am
47 +1

I support this. I want us to be able to prosecute serial child molesters even if things come out decades down the road. I think juries can sort through whether memories in a particular case are proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comment by Earnest Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:32 am
“I don’t understand the basis for these statutes of limitation.”

Hypothetical: I genuinely believe you are the person who hit me with a baseball bat 14 years ago. I go to the police accusing you of battering me. I show them photograph of someone who looks a lot like you attacking me. I tell them a very detailed account of what happened when the crime occurred. And as the victim of a violent crime, I seem to remember that night like it was yesterday.

By contrast, when the police talk with you about it, you don’t remember what you did on that evening at all. Because of my earnest account of the crime, my certainty that it was you, the brutality of the crime, and your “I don’t know what I was doing that night”, you’re charged with battering me.

How would you defend yourself? How could you defend yourself? Good luck!

One would hope that the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt standard would insure your freedom, but it I sure wouldn’t want to bet on it.

The difficulty in mounting a defense against charges of crimes alleged to have occurred in the remote past is the rationale for statutes of limitations. (Whether one finds that rationale sufficiently compelling is another matter.)

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:35 am
Murder is different because the victim, by definition, cannot come forward and the proof must necessarily be by other means. In sexual assault cases, the outcry by the victim is a key fact. As others have pointed out, 10 years past the age of majority gives the victim ample time to come forward and protects against abusive false accusations.

Comment by Crim defense Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:36 am
Statutes of limitations are part of our legal heritage. What’s next? Getting rid of statutes of limitations on jaywalking? Parking tickets? Politicians who commit crimes in office but have yet to be caught?

Comment by Steve Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 11:36 am
“10 years past the age of majority gives the victim a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ time to come forward and protects against abusive false accusations.”

I respectfully concur, in part, and dissent, in part.

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:01 pm
Anybody remember the Fells Acres Day Care Center cases in Massachusetts?

Link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fells_Acres_Day_Care_Center_preschool_trial

I’m quite sure nobody would want something like this to happen in IL, but when you remove the statute of Limitations, well, stuff can happen.

Unintended consequences to reactive, poorly thought out legislation.

Comment by Judgment Day Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:04 pm
- Politically Incorrect -

I agree the current law seems reasonable, or some variation of it. Memories fade, possible witnesses move or die, potential evidence disappears. Taking those circumstances into account, there should be a finite limit.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:06 pm
Ferris Wheel
“Then that should apply to all crimes. Should someone accused of murder 30 years after the fact still be held accountable?”

Valid point except that a murder charge brought say 30 years after the fact probably would not rely on testimony but rather some physical evidence. In the case of child molestation, the evidence almost necessarily would be limited to the testimony of the victim. In case that someone decides for whatever reason to falsely accuse another of child molestation 30 years later, how would the accused defend himself?

Comment by TominChicago Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:07 pm
==“10 years past the age of majority gives the victim a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ time to come forward and protects against abusive false accusations.”==

Well, our law is 20 years or life, not 10 years, so are you proposing to reduce our SOL?

Lisa Madigan isn’t.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:18 pm
With all sympathy for those who have been abused, by age 28, it is reasonable to expect that the person will no longer be in a vulnerable position with respect to the perpetrator. And most will be beyond college, entry into the work force, and establishing themselves into a mature adult life. While the person may still struggle emotionally, it does not seem unreasonable to put age 28 as the balancing point between the victim and the rights of the possibly innocent accused.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:18 pm
basically, treat it the same as murder. makes sense to me. both horrible crmes against society and people.

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:21 pm
Guys. It’s not 28, except for misdemeanors.

It’s 38-to-life for felonies. Life for a case like Hastert’s.

720 ILCS 5/3-6(j)

Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:23 pm
A sane criminal justice system doesn’t treat a misdemeanor like murder.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:24 pm
Good explanation MJM. Thanx.

Comment by Del Clinkton Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:26 pm
um a sane person knows that by definition a felony is not a misdemeanor

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:36 pm
The statute of limitations should have been eliminated on these matters when it became apparent that DNA testing could identify perps decades later. It needs to be done, the ball needs to be moved forward. It should have been done years ago. The burden is on the State, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Repressed memories would not be enough without independent corroboration.

Comment by burbanite Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:36 pm
I have not followed the allegations closely, but generally fondling would be a misdemeanor. Aggravated to a felony where the person was in a postition of authority. Again, age 28 or age 38 would not be an unreasonable time to expect a person abused as a minor to come forward. The burdens of defending against such an old accusation are already formidable.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:40 pm
What about a small child who is sexually abused by a parent? The child feels powerless if the other parent does not want to believe it happened. In a case like this, I think a child should be allowed to seek justice 20 years after the fact.

Comment by Mama Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:40 pm
==The statute of limitations should have been eliminated on these matters when it became apparent that DNA testing could identify perps decades later.==
It was.

==It needs to be done==
It was.

==the ball needs to be moved forward.==
It is.

==It should have been done years ago.==
It was.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:44 pm
It would be highly unlikely that there would be any DNA for a fondling. And the Criminal Code has already removed limitations for cases where there is such physical evidence. It’s the cases where the victim never came forward, never had any rape kit done, and then makes an accusation based only on memory where there is a huge risk of wrongful conviction. Statute extending limitations where physical evidence exists states: (j) (1) When the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the offense, a prosecution for criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, or felony criminal sexual abuse may be commenced at any time when corroborating physical evidence is available or an individual who is required to report an alleged or suspected commission of any of these offenses under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act fails to do so.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:44 pm
This state’s problem with sexual abuse/assault is not that the 2013 law isn’t punitive enough.

It’s with Hastert’s 41 letters. Period.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:52 pm
Anonymous feliny butden of prrof is beyound a teasonable dou t. thats on the state. Defending would get easier over time, not harder, for mostly the reasons you mention. But its the same issue in murder. We decided as a matter of social policy that certain crimes should create accountability whenever they can be proven, and the butden is very very high.

I dont see a societal benefit for creating a safe harbor for those who victimize children. Traumatic events perpatrated on children shape how they handle the future, its not a chain that magically goes away when you hit 30, but instead it is one the grows ever longer and heavier with the passage of time.

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 12:56 pm
The offenses of Forgery and Arson have no statute of limitations. If we can prosecute someone 30 years after the fact for forging your name on your check or burning down your garage, then surely we should be able to prosecute them for sexually abusing your son or sexually assaulting your wife 30 years after the fact.

Comment by Tommydanger Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 1:04 pm
Your son or your wife?!?!

These aren’t property crimes, Tommydanger.

And kidnapping is 10 years.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 1:07 pm
==Statute extending limitations where physical evidence exists states: (j) (1) When the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the offense, a prosecution for criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual abuse, or felony criminal sexual abuse may be commenced at any time when corroborating physical evidence is available or an individual who is required to report an alleged or suspected commission of any of these offenses under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act fails to do so. ==

My point is a child would not know about laws in place to protect him/her.

Comment by Mama Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 1:17 pm
Crazybleedingheart: Exactly, so if you can prosecute someone for a property crime 30 years after the fact, why shouldn’t you be able to prosecute them for sexual assault 30 years later.

Comment by Tommydanger Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 1:28 pm
Train111

+1

Comment by gg Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 1:30 pm
Thanks Crazy Bleeding Heart for reading the actual law. 20 years past majority for minor victims, unlimited if there is DNA and now other corroborative physical evidence, unlimited for civil suits, ex post facto prohibited.

Comment by Joe Cannon Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 1:30 pm
I know of a case where the victim of a sexual assault, knowing she was unable to defeat the assault, prevailed upon him to use a condom, which he did. Training for women for such attacks encourages them to do just that, in order to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

The attacker was subsequently arrested and prosecuted in part due to his failure to get rid of the condom.

How perverse it would be for a woman facing an inevitable sexual assault to successfully convince her attacker to use a condom which would likely result in no DNA being recovered. The effect of which would dramatically reduce the time during which her attacker could be prosecuted.

Comment by Tommydanger Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 2:06 pm
The limitations does not begin to run until the child becomes an adult. So a child not knowing the law is already incorporated into the law. And ghost, unless the murder victim makes a ghostly apparition, no murder case would ever have the victim’s word against the defendant’s word with no other proof. Corpus delicti also limits murder prosecutions based on testimony alone.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 2:09 pm
If I was a woman raped by a man using a condom, I wouldn’t be very happy if the State’s Attorney could delay that prosecution for 40 or 50 years while the man had opportunity to rape others. Statutes of limitations encourage timely prosecutions which helps protect the public in these cases of serial offenders.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 2:13 pm
The Repressed memories scam in the 1990s should give everyone pause. I have no sympathy for perpetrators, but I do have empathy for innocent people who are falsely accused. False sexual assault allegations are as old as the Bible. (See Genesis describing how the wife of Potifer, an Egyptian official, falsely accused Joseph of assult.

Comment by anon Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 2:17 pm
Obviously I did not know that thanks Crazy Bleeding heart.

Comment by burbanite Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 3:34 pm
CRITIC: You need to understand this issue from a psychological perspective before you make the ridiculous assertion that sexual abuse is not traumatic after puberty.

Comment by Menard guy Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 4:11 pm
This is not about repressed memories. It’s about fear, shame, and self-depreciation by the victims, and guilt for somehow deserving of the criminal act. I don’t believe a time stamp can be applied, where your accusations go from acceptable to unbelievable. Not for something like this.

Is the threat of false, unprovable accusations more important than justice for true victims after a certain date? I’ll leave that up to your conscience. We all praised the bravery of Hastert’s victims in court yesterday. But, many stop at giving them legal recourse here.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Apr 28, 16 @ 4:18 pm
Federal court practitioners, help me out here. I glanced at the federal law on a civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person. Could the US Attorney seek to have Hastert civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person after he serves his sentence based on his propensity shown by prior incidents even though the limitations perior has run for any criminal prosecutions/civil suit?

Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 2, 16 @ 1:35 pm