In NY, Power of DNA Spurs Call to Abolish Statute of Limitations for Rape

It was his eyes. She was flipping through a newspaper, and suddenly his eyes were staring at her from a police photograph in the crime pages. Even before she read the headline, she felt shock. Then nausea.

.......

The man's photograph, published last April, brought it all back in an instant for Stefanie Aubry, the victim. It brought back her agonizing decision to submit silently so he would not harm her two young daughters, asleep in the same room. It revived her furious anger - even though the crime happened more than three decades ago.

Ms. Aubry learned from news accounts that the man's name was Fletcher A. Worrell and that he was accused, based on DNA evidence, of a strikingly similar rape in the same area of Manhattan just seven months after her attack. Certain that he was the one who had assaulted her, Ms. Aubry called the Manhattan district attorney.

.......

But the only thing certain at this point is that Mr. Worrell, 59, who has never been a suspect in any of those attacks, can never be prosecuted for them. New York's five-year state statute of limitations for rape has long since run out. The victims will not get a chance to prove their suspicions in court, nor will Mr. Worrell get a chance to prove them wrong.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/nyregion/02rape.html

This is not a women's or men's issue, it's an issue of assault and torture. With DNA evidence the way it is with a rape, it will definitely be much more trackable than it was in the past.

PS - I beleive in cases of rape where the rapist was knowingly spreakding an STD or such that they should face potential castraton.

You really can't castrate anybody constitutionally. But there are some interesting things, such as the state offering voluntary "chemical castration" which leaves the person entact but gets rid of all testosterone, and having the decision to undergo this affect sentencing.

but the issue of the statute of limitations is one that has to do with ensuring that people accused of such a crime are not forced to defend themselves long after witness memories of the crimes have faded. It is hard to work up enthusiasm for the rights of accused rapists, but when the rights of accused people are diminished, the dangers of the punishing the wrong people increases.

The CSI/TV show-inspired idea that DNA evidence resolves all issues of guilt can lead us to place irrational faith in such "scientific" claims. From fingerprint and hair analysis to speed trap-cameras, false claims by "experts" of accuracy have wrongly convicted people of offenses.

In my view, the issue about altering or elimination a ststute of limitation on a crime should concern not the awfulness of the crime, but the possibility of fair and just trials of those accused.

Arguing against the clarity of memory is a valid defense, but it seems to me that a jury should decide, especially when technology, as related to this crime, has developed to the point that it could impact a fair hearing for the victim.

Are you arguing against the validity of DNA evidence altogether?

They know evidence can only be reliable if the people are extremely rigorous and uphold the highest standards of integrity. When they do not, bad things happen. It is used as a plot issue.

That's why it really annoys me when people are saying "CSI ruining criminal justice". Just like today's "Drudge ruined Kong". By heavily quoting people who said it was on track for a record opening, apparently. And then saying it didn't meet lofty expectations. Hollywood's now trumpeting that those expectations belonged to Drudge alone and were his sole invention. Suuuuuure.

CSI is ruining criminal justice because people believe it is real and then as jurors and then refuse to convict if we do not have all of the CSI-like evidence. For example: I saw a show in which a hair was found in the basement of a home from a 10 year-old crime. The home was on it's second owner since the crime. And it had been burnt down.

CSI is ruining criminal justice because it gives people a higher expectation than is the reality of crime scene investigation.

But WHATEVER. I'm well aware CSI is not real, I'm just saying that even CS bleeping I does not claim what people are claiming it promotes. Whatever people invent to shove onto the show that it does not broadcast by itself using its own mouthpiece characters isn't the show's fault in any direct way.

Nonetheless, I think that bashing CSI is not a constructive step towards raising the level of typical forensic science used in criminal cases. I would think that is a worthy goal but, I realize there are some who think that there is a level that is just good enough to convict people, and not good enough to create doubt that would aquit people, and we shouldn't aim to go higher than that. (Not getting personal, but I have seen that attitude a lot, and that's how you get stories of FBI crime labs messing up forensics.) Bashing unreasonably high standards ought not be an excuse for embracing low standards. Again, not saying you're advocating that whatsoever. But some do, and I disagree.

I must have come in on the middle of a conversation and missed part of it. CSI is something that must be addressed at trial due to the misconceptions about forensic science gleaned from watching those shows.

Where I live the crime-labs have extremely high standards. What I am saying is that because of CSI and the like, some people believe those extremely high standards are not enough and that if they don't find the 10 year-old hair from the fire damaged basement they won't convict.

No one is bashing unreasonably high standards. I am suggesting that CSI is not "unreasonably high standards" CSI is not real. CSI is as real as spider-man.

No one is embracing low standards. Insisting on viewing the reality of technology is not advocating low standards.

Sounds like your heart and head are in the right place. But yes, there's been a TON of CSI bashing in recent months since about oh, mid-2005? that basically advocates the acceptance of half-assed evidence because that's the maximum the American people should be prepared to accept when they sit in juries. You say no one is. I accept you are not, but I don't accept that "no one" is, because otherwise why phrase arguments in such a way as to argue that half-assed evidence is okay?

Now, unwillingness to accept clear and accurate evidence is not right. It's just that having said that, the jury system exists to protect defendants from being convicted by razzle-dazzle that can't be explained to a citizen of reasonable intelligence. That is indeed a high standard, and forensic scientists are only one part of vaulting that hurdle; much depends on the credibility of the prosecuting attorneys as seen by the jury. However, it is still a standard that is important to meet without asking juries to accept science on blind faith, either. I understand the frustration, but I feel compelled to raise a voice of contrariness when I hear what amounts to a broad theme of, "If it wasn't for those damned CSI-watching juries!". Accepting evidence blindly is no better. Trials simply must find the truth - regardless of which side benefits - as best they can. That's the closest thing to justice western jurisprudence can achieve.

about innocent people being accused long after a crime such as rape, however, I disagree with your position.

If a crime investigation is done correctly, if evidence is gathered properly, and if the police have taken accurate witness accounts and other documentation, an innocent person would have nothing to worry about ultimately.

Any innocents would be eliminated with a first wave of investigation with proper DNA evidence. Simply said, semen produces enough DNA to throw out possible suspects quickly. If the rape did not produce such evidence, an investigation would move to other sources of DNA evidence: fingernail scrapings, saliva, hair, etc. If there is sufficient such tangible proof, no innocent would suffer from accusation.

However, if there is not enough proof of either rape or assault, the waters get murky. Perhaps this is where a new law could be introduced: those cases with sufficient evidence could be considered "open" without any statute of limitations, and those which have insufficient evidence could be considered "cold cases" with the option to reopen them if new evidence is found. If they are reopened, they will no longer be under any statute of limitations.

It really is dependent, I think, on the criminal himself (herself as well in some cases!). Does this person continue to rape others over a period of time? Or was his rape of the particular victim a one time thing, perhaps as an act of revenge or some other reason? If this is so, it's unlikely that the criminal will pop up in any registry of sex offenders or other criminal databank. However, if the criminal is a serial rapist, there might be more current instances of assault and rape for which they could be prosecuted.

As with murder, I agree that there should be no time limit on rape crimes. Any crime where a victim is hurt, threatened, or harmed is often a precursor to a murder case. There are dangerous people out there whose crimes need to be stopped.

Many men don't understand the true impact of a rape. Not only is it a violent crime, but it is the ultimate crime that most women fear most. It is an indignity, it is a violation, and it harms most women in ways that can resurface mamy years later. Many women end up in therapy which doesn't always help. Mny women commit suicide as well, or end up trying to commit it. It's equivalent--if not worse--than PTSD. Rape is never fun in any way. A woman who is being raped is never sure if the criminal is going to kill them or not. Fear of the unknown makes it worse. We hear varying and far different strategies from different sources on how women should handle a rapist, from kicking, screaming and trying to mark their attacker, to the opposite extreme of giving in so that they aren't killed. Once a woman has been raped, they often enter a period where sexual intercourse, even with a loved one, is difficult and often impossible. Many women will no longer trust any man, and they will often go into deep depression from which many escape only many years later.

In this case, where it has taken years for the woman to find the man who raped her, the victim should be able to get justice done, even though it was many years ago. Since many of the advances in forensics have happened only in the past ten or fifteen years, we can only hope, however, to keep bastards like her rapist from inflicting such pain and misery on any future victims. In that process, any innocents can and would be exonerated long before proper justice is served.

You say that rape is equivalent, if not worse, than PTSD. Well, rape is a major CAUSE of PTSD. You don't have to be a shell-shocked veteran to suffer from PTSD. You can be a woman raped by her great-uncle when she was 15, a battered spouse, or a 10-year-old growing up in an inner-city neighborhood where gunshots are your nighttime lullaby. It's the same disease, just caused by different stimuli. Your brain function is permanently changed nonetheless.

What about a scenario where a guy gets a call from a lawyer saying my client is very happy that you have a nice family, two young kids and your business is doing so well that it was featured in the newspaper recently.

You may not remember my client, but you had a sexual encounter with her 17 years ago. She has thought much of that encounter recently and said she is still harmed by that date rape.

Perhaps you should have an attorney call me before Tuesday as my client will be approaching the police on Wednesday to ask for your arrest on rape charges.

__________________________________________________________________

Should there have to be DNA evidence taken at the time and a police report filed for a long ago claim to be prosecuted? Perhaps this is aleady part of the proposal.

It seems like there should be some limit to the amount of time a woman should be able to come forward with a date rape accusation.

...in which a victim was raped 9 years ago. WA requires those convicted of crimes to provide a DNA sample. We had a cold hit from the data bank on the 9 year old case. The statute of limitations runs in WA at 10 years.

Believe me, the victim had no faded memory of the crime. And she, for 9 years lived in fear that he would return. She stated that she has not slept through the night since the attack (he crawled through a bedroom window). She stated that she gets afraid when walking down the street or sitting at a restaurant.

Because of the conviction, she finally had some closure and because she knew he was in prison, she said she felt free for the first time since the attack.

WA is also attempting to change the statute of limitations on rape and child molestation. I agree that, like murder, there should be no statute of limitations.

Men are being released after many years in prison on the strength of new DNA evidence. Why shouldn't the guilty also be convicted many years after the crime on the strength of the same evidence?