Should There Be A Statute Of Limitations On Sexual Assault And Rape Cases?

The #MeToo movement took the late 2010s by storm, with numerous women from within Hollywood and the entertainment industry coming out and sharing their experiences with sexual abuse and assault at the hands of men with great influence, as well as demanding justice and visibility for victims of sexual assault. It was meant to create a sense of support and camaraderie for all women who have suffered something so vile, whether they had a platform or not.

Trigger warning: article references sexual assault cases.

Things have changed significantly since then. There have been cases of supposed #MeToo moments, where the truth later came to light that the "abuser" wasn't guilty, and the "victim" was, in fact, the abuser. One recent, prominent example of this is Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Outside the celebrity world, one English woman accused several men of raping and trafficking her, going so far as to share photos of self-inflicted injuries in order to raise thousands of British pounds for her cause. The accusations were made years ago, and she's only now beginning to face justice.

If our intention, as a nation based on law and order, is to adhere to the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty, then this automatically calls into question how we deal with accusations of rape and sexual assault. Public perception, and therefore human bias, is swayed in favor of accusers. We saw it with Amber Heard, and we're seeing this now with Nevada lifting their statute of limitations, and nine women subsequently coming forward and accusing Bill Cosby of sexual assault.

While it's absolutely important to empower victims to come forward and bring justice to assailants, false accusations can irreparably ruin someone's reputation and life and diminish the gravity of true victims' experiences. The removal of all statutes of limitations when it comes to sexual assault empowers both real victims and those who merely claim to be victims alike. So which is the right way to go?

The Not-So-Arbitrary Nature of the Statute of Limitations

Statutes of limitations define how much time two parties have to initiate legal proceedings when some sort of crime has been committed. While it may be someone's first inclination to believe that there shouldn't be an expiration date on justice, they are necessary if we're to uphold any integrity within our justice system.

Statutes of limitations are necessary for crimes that rely on majority eyewitness testimony and/or physical evidence.

Statutes of limitations are necessary for crimes that rely on majority eyewitness testimony and/or physical evidence. A typical person's memory can become foggy or unreliable over time, and physical evidence can fade away or be tampered with to the point of uselessness in an investigation.

Picture a case of robbery in a pre-cellphone and pre-security camera era: Someone gets their house broken into, and several items of value are stolen, but they don't choose to pursue legal action until 50 years later. It could be difficult to gather eyewitnesses if the attack happened in a small housing community that has since turned into a large neighborhood with completely different people living there. Along with that, it could be difficult to gather eyewitnesses that are even still alive, let alone remember details about the night of the robbery. The plaintiff may not remember the extent of what was stolen, and the damages to the house could have long been repaired or tampered with by people other than the robber. With that, there's no way to pursue a resolution, since we need to be able to prove that the defendant definitely committed the crime before making them face consequences.

Robbery isn't without its emotional consequences. It can create a sense of violation in your own home, with your personal space and property having being intruded upon and disrespected. But robbery isn't the crime in question here.

Some Crimes Are Worse Than Others

Crimes like rape and sexual assault are far more impactful, and can even lead to a gruesome and painful death. Violent penetration can lead to lethal damage to internal organs, and if a victim was gagged in order to be held down, they may die by asphyxiation or ruptured blood vessels.

Physically weaker victims can fight for their life and still be pinned down, and have their attacker's will forced upon them. Although that's never their fault, it can shatter their dignity, confidence, and self-esteem; it can make them feel dirty or unworthy of love or respect. Nothing can ever erase the memory of fighting in vain, and losing.

Victims who were assaulted while in a vulnerable state can suffer the same negative emotions, and recall wanting to fight, while being unable to do so.

Victims who were assaulted as children may recall feelings of helplessness, of having their idea of love warped if the assailant was someone who was supposed to love and care for them and be their advocate. Their trust in people and self-perceived ability to love may be damaged for a very long time.

Rape may very well be one of the worst crimes that can be made against someone on both a physical and psychological level, and there are some who would prefer death over having the memory of the trauma and reliving it when they try to move on with their day-to-day life.

With how damaging rape can be, it makes sense why some states have completely done away with their statute of limitations for the crime. After all, if someone was raped when they were 5 years old, they can't reasonably be expected as a 10 year old to pursue legal action if the statute of limitations for felonies at the federal level is five years. It would make sense if a child didn't come forward at all until adulthood, especially if they didn't have a strong support system to help them come forward sooner.

Some critics may concede that the statute of limitations for rape could be lifted if the crime occurred when the victim was a child, but there is still some validity to lifting the statute of limitations of rape accusations when the victim is a legal adult. A victim could have been raped by their boss, or someone in a position of power or influence over them that could easily dismiss the victim (even if their accusations are true) and inflict damaging repercussions upon them. If they feared for their safety or their ability to pursue fulfillment or happiness, it’s understandable that they wouldn't immediately report the rape.

At all ages, the shame of rape may delay the reporting of it. For many, having a statute of limitations may minimize the gravity of the crime, adding further cruelty to the victim’s situation. A victim may be too paralyzed with fear or anxiety to place themselves in a logical place of understanding "I need to move forward with this as soon as possible," especially when they may be faced with skeptics (brought on in no small part by the numerous false accusations over the years) or apathetic law enforcement or medical staff who may blame them for what happened to them.

Some Radical Middle Ground

There's really no surprise that people sympathize with rape victims and look at alleged perpetrators with repulsion and disdain, and thus we see why our justice system and public sentiment are the way they are when it comes to accusations of rape or sexual assault. Still, if we go purely off empathy and emotion, all alleged rapists would be in prison, or worse. This is no way to conduct justice, especially when it's all too easy to get support for false accusations.

So, if we can't discount all rape testimonies, and we can't just blindly believe all victims (especially when rape can be quite difficult to prove the more time has passed), then what middle ground is there?

No matter which way we try to accommodate a statute of limitations for rape, there are too many potential nuances. Whether it be age, physical or mental state during the crime and how it affected a victim's ability to process or move forward, or perceived negative consequences for moving forward, it's too difficult to come up with all the "if-when-then" scenarios.

At the same time, we can't just believe all supposed victims, since this implies they have no capacity to lie, which all people do, and no desire to hurt another person, which people may have from time to time.

If we keep track of sex offenders via a national registry, the same treatment should be given to those who make false accusations.

The difficulty with believing victims comes from the fact that there have been false accusations that made it all the way to the accused being wrongfully imprisoned for decades. In other cases, the wrongfully accused even attempt suicide. While some of these lying women face legal repercussions, the media doesn't highlight this at all, and in some cases, will double down and insist all women should still be believed.

Johnny Depp countersued Amber Heard, and in some ways repaired his reputation, but not all who are falsely accused can be so fortunate. Some are still convinced that Johnny Depp is an abuser, and Amber Heard still has people who believe her when she says she's the one who's been wronged. If a high-profile man isn't safe, what does this mean for non-celebrity men?

To remedy this, equal repercussions must be given to those who make false accusations. If someone falsely accused another of rape, the accuser should be given the same consequences that the accused would have been given if guilty. If they were meant to go to prison for 10 years, then the accuser should be given a 10-year sentence. If we keep track of sex offenders via a national registry, the same treatment should be given to those who make false accusations. It would be in the best interest of anyone who wishes to involve themselves romantically or professionally with them to be aware of their past, so the false accuser has that on their reputation in a similar way as the falsely accused.

Closing Thoughts

If this solution sounds extreme, it's only because rape is serious, and accusations of it shouldn't be taken lightly. If someone willfully lies about rape, it can break apart an innocent person's family, professional life, and mental health. If they end up facing time in prison, that's years of life they can never get back, and a complete disruption of their life. It also diminishes people's willingness to believe others who come forward as victims, even when their accusations are honest. In the end, false accusations hurt everyone that movements like #MeToo were supposed to help. 

Support our cause and help women reclaim their femininity by subscribing today.