…now that we have DNA? Statutes of limitation for rape are usually between 1-10 years. From everything I have read, these statutes were put in place for rape because “memories fade” (and other such reasons). But now that DNA science is here, it’s another ball game and the victim’s memory is far less critical to a successful prosecution. So why aren’t the statutes of limitations for rape repealed? There are a few states (Cal, Id, NY, etc) who have a “DNA exception” clause to the statute, but it appears that all that does is extend the statute for a few more years. Why?
This came to mind because I saw a crime show last night about a serial sex offender and when he was caught (11 years after raping the first victim), they could not prosecute him for rape, in spite of a DNA match, because the statute was up.
DNA is not exactly a new science, so why haven’t all these statutes been repealed? Is there some other reason to keep them in place that I’m not considering?
This probably should be moved to GD, but to add a factual answer is that
a) The statutes have not been repealed or modified because it either didn’t come up yet, or there are reasons not to
which leads to
b) DNA is not a magic bullet – it is not irrefutable and is most often partial match on a partial sample (sorry, no cite). You still need a suspect, and most likely other evidence for support.
Oh sorry, I’m new. Mods: can you relocate this to the appropriate forum?
It came up in the case I was referring to…and oddly enough, no one seemed to question it. They just looked for other crimes the dude comitted that had no statute and ultimately charged him with kidnapping (not sure why the ‘fading memory’ limit was never applied to that crime).
And if “there are reasons not to” repeal the statute, I would be very interested in hearing them since I can’t come up with any.
Of course you need a suspect, but what if you don’t find him for 20 years? Then he gets off scot-free? That seems horribly unjust imo.
It does seem rather paradoxical. There are no statutes of limitations for murder (at least to my knowledge), and yet with murder the argument that memories fade and become unreliable would seem to be even stronger when a man’s life might depend on the accuracy of those memories.
DNA is evidence of, um, “presence” at the scene of the crime, but it’s not, ultimately, conclusive evidence of guilt by itself. In any rape case, there is going to be raised a question of “forcible rape” vs. “consensual sex.” That’s why you have to worry about the parties’ memories fading.
There are three basic defenses to the charge of rape:
[ol]
[li]The act never happened[/li][li]The act happened, and it was me, but it was consensual[/li][li]The act may have happened, but it wasn’t me doing it[/li][/ol]
(Number three is what we used to affectionately call the SODDI defense: Some Other Dude Did It.)
DNA plus a medical exam produces evidence that is useful in prosecuting (1) and (3). But if the defense is consent (often with a claim of “she liked rough sex” to rebut any medical finding of abrasions, tearing, or bruising) then DNA does no good.
But if a DNA match is made ten years after the fact, and it really WAS consensual sex, the accused is going to have a tough time. Can you find your friends who knew you were dating this girl in 1998? Or the friends who saw you leave the club with the chick you just picked up, and how she was all over you? It’s easy to find those friends from your hook-up in April… but from ten years ago?
In SOME cases that might be true, but I can think of lots of scenarios where that statute would obstruct the delivery of justice. For example: suppose DNA from an unknown male was found in the vagina of a 12 year old after she had been abducted by a masked man. Sure the DNA is circumstantial evidence, but there is no such thing as consensual sex with a 12 year old. And the victim’s fading memory of the assailant is of little consequence since she couldn’t see him…or maybe she was given a date rape drug and had no memory of the attack at all. Now when the victim is 18, the DNA is matched to someone…but the statute of limitations for rape was up after 5 years. I’m sure they could charge him with other offenses, but why shouldn’t he be accountable for the rape?
And when I say the DNA was a match, I am talking about a full profile (not a partial).
Well those aren’t the people making laws. You can try pitching it to your local state legislature representative as a bullet point for their re-election platform.
Don’t know over what span the hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits in the country were collected, but if and when they are tested, it would be nice to know that something could actually be done with the evidence.
As an informational thing as much as anything, Statutes of Limitations are not based solely on the “memories fade” concept.
Another element of it is that even criminals should be able to go on with their life at some stage. Hence for certain crimes, such as murder, we don’t have a statute of limitations; but most people would agree an 85 year old should not be looking over his or her shoulder in fear of arrest for stealing a candy bar while in high school.
I’d fall on the side of including forcible rape in the muder category, to the extent that its seriousness exempts the perpetrator from repose. But it is, as said earlier, a very hard crime to prosecute in many cases, and the exculpatory evidence is likely to disappear over time.
I think many jurisdictions have already repealed the statue of limitations for sex crimes commited against children or made it so the clock doesn’t start running out until the victim is 18.
Yeah, you are right that the consensual sex defense would be a problem if a long time had elapsed since the incident…but I still think the DA should at least have the opportunity to press charges and let a jury decide it.
But let’s say you are 18 years old and violently attacked and raped in the state of Arizona. They do a rape kit and recover DNA, but don’t match it to someone until you are 26…the dude can’t be charged with rape (the statute of limitations is only 7 years with no DNA exception).
It just strikes me as odd that Victims’ Rights groups aren’t up in arms over this (or if they are, I haven’t heard anything about it).
I wouldn’t be surprised if they can’t find a single willing poster child. People want to move on, and not be pestered five years later by a victim’s rights group.
If putting people in jail is more important than a fair trial, it does. Otherwise it’s up for debate. Personally I’d put the statute of limitations at about 15 years maximum for felonies, but remove any statute of limitations for civil law, but then again I’m weird.
A recent Los Angeles Time article on the subject: How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects? A discovery leads to questions about whether the odds of people sharing genetic profiles are sometimes higher than portrayed. Calling the finding meaningless, the FBI has sought to block such inquiry.
By Jason Felch and Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers - 20 July 2008
Synopsis:
DNA samples are matched, not on the full DNA, but on a limited number of locations (aka loci). Many states (in 2001) looked at 9 loci matches though now it’s common to compare 13 loci for matches.
A nine out of thirteen loci match was supposed to show that the two samples came from the same person with odds of a coincidental match being 1 in 108 trillion (according to FBI estimates). But, in a 20-year-old rape/murder defense case in California, defense attorney Bicka Barlow recalled reading of an “unusual” match between two unrleated people, and contacted state crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer who who had discovered the unusual match between unrelated people in the Arizona DNA database. Kathryn Troyer told Bicka Barlow that since her initial discovery she had found several other matches for different people at 9 or 10 loci. Bicka Barlow subpoenaed a new search of the Arizona DNA database with this surprising result: With a sample size of 65,000 criminals, 122 pairs matched at 9 of 13 loci; 20 pairs matched at 10 loci; one pari matched at 11 and one pair at 12, but those two turned out later to be relatives. The number of matches was much higher than you would expect, if you accepted the FBI estimates (1 in 108 trillion.)
The article then goes on to say that the FBI estimates may be overstating the accuracy of DNA test results, but that the FBI is disputing the methods and trying to prevent more DNA statistical analysis that is done via finding matches in statewide DNA databases.
Does the “DNA exception” also include fingerprints? e.g. Fingerprints are found at the scene on an object that was used during the rape, and years later someone is found with the same fingerprints. Can the suspect be tried?
