How the fuck is there a statute of limitations for rape in New York?

[Drich]

What fucking world do we live in that you can't prove intent or consent beyond a reasonable doubt? You sure as fuck can. Also...I don't know why people don't know this but you can get around the SoL in most states if you feared for your life or if there are certain reasons that you couldn't report.

Then simply answer the question: how to you prove consent? even a consent agreement/contract can be cohearsed.

Even if you put the whole session on tape on could simply claim "i had to act that way because of XYZ" again consent in an internal psychological state of mind which can change over time.

[Drich]

Here's the difference... Everything you mention in the way of evidence could be considered to be just evidence of sexual intercourse.

Remember the time and culture you live in. genital tears is not my idea of a good time but some would argue against that. the only difference between sex with genital tearing and busing and rape with the same result is consent.

All any of the physical evidence will allow for is to establish sex or penetration occurred.

Rape and sex share ALL the same Physical Evidence. The only thing that separate the two is consent and that may change over time.

There is no evidence for consent. which is why a time limit has been set.

That is the whole of the argument.

A lot of crimes get brought to justice on circumstantial evidence. If a woman is taken to a hospital with genital tears, bruises, cuts, and is in emotional shock, and if all of this is documented in medical records, it may very well lead a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape happened. Even if years later.

That is not what is being discussed, as the hospital will report the rape right away which jives with the SoL. I am talking about a situation that happens and does not get reported in any way shape or form for 5+ years.

[Drich]

The only crime that has no  statute is murder. The reason there are limits on all other crimes isn't to protect the accused but to protect society including the innocent that might might get accused from an over zealous government. Innocent people do end up accused and wrongly convicted

I agree with this in that the reason for the limits is to protect the innocent, not to protect the criminal. But I don't agree that rape should have a limit. I can see instances where the evidence may be there years later.

Ok then please provide a way to prove consent.

5 years after the fact that is iron clad and can not be disproved.

[Catholic_Lady]

A lot of crimes get brought to justice on circumstantial evidence. If a woman is taken to a hospital with genital tears, bruises, cuts, and is in emotional shock, and if all of this is documented in medical records, it may very well lead a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape happened. Even if years later.

That is not what is being discussed, as the hospital will report the rape right away which jives with the SoL. I am talking about a situation that happens and does not get reported in any way shape or form for 5+ years.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they are 2 separate things. A woman can go to the hospital to get treated for rape but opt out of going to the police. I do not believe the hospital reports it to the police if the woman doesn't want that done.

[Catholic_Lady]

I agree with this in that the reason for the limits is to protect the innocent, not to protect the criminal. But I don't agree that rape should have a limit. I can see instances where the evidence may be there years later.

Ok then please provide a way to prove consent.

5 years after the fact that is iron clad and can not be disproved.

I already did.

[Losty]

What fucking world do we live in that you can't prove intent or consent beyond a reasonable doubt? You sure as fuck can. Also...I don't know why people don't know this but you can get around the SoL in most states if you feared for your life or if there are certain reasons that you couldn't report.

Then simply answer the question: how to you prove consent? even a consent agreement/contract can be cohearsed.

Even if you put the whole session on tape on could simply claim "i had to act that way because of XYZ" again consent in an internal psychological state of mind which can change over time.

Aren't you the douchebag who told people to google? Funny you don't know how to do it for yourself. Intent is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in every criminal case that's found guilty and is not a strict liability charge. Lack of consent is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in every rape case where the defendant is found guilty. You don't need to prove anything for a fact to try a case. You need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The best way to do this is going to be directly after the crime when rape kits and psych evals and suspect interrogations take place. Years later this is typically done with reliable witness testimony.

Where is your brain? If this wasn't possible we would never have a single criminal conviction apart from strict liability crimes that do not require a proof of mens rea

[Drich]

No. Hate him as you may (and trust me, I was mad too), he is still a human being and should be recognized as such.

He's a human being in name only.  He may have the same organs as us, skin, liver, pancreas, but he doesn't seem to be capable of things most humans are, feelings, compassion, empathy.  And he justifies it all with his bible.  His God doesn't give a shit about a lot of people, so neither does he.*  Anything remotely resembling humanity is missing.

*Actually, it's probably more like he doesn't give a shit about a lot of people, so neither does his God.

Where have I justified any of what I said here with book chapter and verse? this isn't a bible study. this is off topic stuff/news current events.

I used logic, the rule of law concerning the statutes of limitations, quotations from other members, and my collective experiences to construct my argument.

what I omited is the BS and the pity party that seems to be the customary offering to a victim. That crap is poison to anyone who want to be more than the sum total of the bad that has happened to them. So I offered it to them if they wanted to be a perceptual victim. I gave them an option.

Who are you to say that is wrong?

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok then please provide a way to prove consent.

5 years after the fact that is iron clad and can not be disproved.

I already did.

Medical records, witnesses accounts, and video evidence are a few that come to mind. Not saying they will all be legitimate every time, but I do believe things like that can warrant a trial, even years later. Beyond that, it's up for the jury to decide.

[Catholic_Lady]

No. Hate him as you may (and trust me, I was mad too), he is still a human being and should be recognized as such.

He's a human being in name only.  He may have the same organs as us, skin, liver, pancreas, but he doesn't seem to be capable of things most humans are, feelings, compassion, empathy.  And he justifies it all with his bible.  His God doesn't give a shit about a lot of people, so neither does he.*  Anything remotely resembling humanity is missing.

*Actually, it's probably more like he doesn't give a shit about a lot of people, so neither does his God.

To be fair, he never mentioned God or his faith in this argument. I don't believe his opinion on this has anything to do with his religious beliefs. I am a Christian also, and I don't believe a statute of limitations on rape is warranted.

[Tiberius]

Courts and juries aren't required to find "proof", they are required to find "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", and there is a big difference.

So take into account the fact that:

1) The woman arrived at hospital, battered, bruised, in emotional shock, claiming to have been raped.
2) DNA in the form of sperm was found in her vagina.
3) Most woman who claim to have been raped, were in fact raped.

With those facts in mind, if the DNA was found to match some man in the future (say, 10 years later), and he was known to have been in the area where the woman was raped at the time, would those facts be enough to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt? Most people I think would say yes. No, it doesn't prove with absolute certainty that he raped her, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that he did, given the circumstances.