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

[Pat Mustard]

Was reading the other week about the deposition made by a woman for a civil case who said she was raped at thirteen by our hero Donald Trump on the Huffington Post website, and it stated that the statute of limitations in rape cases in NY is five years. How the fuck is this possible, can anybody explain to me.

Over here, all indictable cases (which include rape) have no statute of limitations imposed. That means if the allegation is brought and the Gardaí and Director of Public Prosecutions feel the case is strong enough for trial the only way there's going to be no trial if a) the alleged perpetrator is dead, or b) the judge is satisfied that, after a lot of evidence is brought, usually including expert reports he commissions, the alleged perpetrator is incapable of defending themselves or of standing trial.

Seriously the situation is fucked up if there is a statute of limitiations on rape in the US.

[robvalue]

What, five years? I hope that isn't true. I don't know why there should ever be any SOL for rape.

[thesummerqueen]

Yet people persist in saying that "rape culture" isn't a thing.

[vorlon13]

I'm thinking catholics wrote the law.

[BrokenQuill92]

They get one more year than Ohio here it's 4

[The Grand Nudger]

How would you prove a rape, five years after the fact? Think practically.

@Summer- probably not an example of rape culture, this specific instance.

[Tiberius]

How would you prove a rape, five years after the fact? Think practically.

@Summer- probably not an example of rape culture, this specific instance.

What if someone admitted to it? Would they get prosecuted or would this SOL protect them?

[The Grand Nudger]

An interesting question.  The statute of limitations, most people don't know this, only applies to the states ability to pursue a crime.  If you, of your own free will..confess to a crime, you may open yourself to liabilities which you previously had no risk of.

So, pro-tip criminals; If you get away with some shit...maybe don't open your mouths about it?

The notion that time grants one an out, is fostered by media...and probably a little bit by the system itself.....makes us bold, lol. They will find something, to charge you with, if they can...and that's apart from any civil suit. Remember OJ? Found innocent, still paid damages...and that was a miscarriage of justice, a worst case scenario.

SOL's, though, protect us all. It may be that they protect some, insomuch as they do, who shouldn't be protected, but our system (purportedly) errs on the side of innocence regardless of the crime of which you are accused. Nothings perfect.

[Tiberius]

So going back to your original question, say the rape victim had a rape kit performed which got the DNA of the attacker, but the DNA was unknown. Now 6 years later the attacker is arrested for some other crime and his DNA is sent to the FBI database, where it matches to the earlier sample. Shouldn't that be enough for an investigation and trial?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that would be a great argument for the extension of sol's regarding this offense. Many of them were set at a time when it was difficult to establish a rape the very next day. That;s no longer the case, in every case. Though..one wonders how a longer sol would be applied to a case without such evidence, or when such evidence is inconclusive?

Should we be able bring someone up, 20 years later, on rape charges... over inconclusive dna findings? Pretty easy to get inconclusive dna findings, twenty years later. We do it today, with -some- success, on more recent accusations. Basically using the findings as a pretext to put someones character on trial.