Should child sex crimes have a statute of limitations?

[ZombieHorde]

This poll was inspired by the thread contained in the link below this sentence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x245533

[anigbrowl]

1. It depends

For adults molesting children? likely not.

On the other hand, there are also cases that are technically sex crimes in some jurisdictions, like an 18 yo having sex with a 17 yo, or teens sexting each other, which might be illegal but are significantly less harmful. So I don't think a complex issue like this yields to simple yes/no answers.

[gateley]

6. +1 nt

[Odin2005]

14. Those shouldn't be "sex crimes" in the first place.

[anigbrowl]

15. My answer is about things as they are, not as they ought to be. nt

[havocmom]

2. No, because children often do not understand there can be ways to deal with abusers

And often kids will block out a lot of unbearable experiences until they are able to deal with it and get help from resources to do just that.

[kirby]

3. Yes...

Like all crimes, peoples memory fades with time, witnesses die, etc.

However, I think this is a moot question, because most 'heinous crimes' do not have a statue of limitations today.

[MattBaggins]

11. I'm going with this one.

Statue of limitations exist because evidence has a "half life" so to speak. One could argue that statue of limitations could be extended due to the nature of the evidence, for example; DNA from the crime has been found and can be shown to be valid.

Statues of limitation should not be lifted simply for someone remembering something from 40 years ago as that memory is not trustworthy.

[proteus_lives]

4. No. Brand them for the rest of their lives.

[uppityperson]

5. Do you mean filing charges or being prosecuted?

[ZombieHorde]

8. To file a lawsuit. nt

[uppityperson]

9. Now it is you can file until you are 48? That sounds reasonable.

I'm willing to be shown the error of my thoughts though.

[AnArmyVeteran]

7. We need to have a 'VULNERABILITY LAW', like we do for hate crimes.

Special punishments should go into effect if the abuse is against anyone who is particularly vulnerable, like a child, someone who is weak or frail, or with diminished mental or physical abilities. Or in cases where predators like white collar criminals swindle others out of millions.

Anyone who preys on a vulnerable person should get a much harsher punishment. I realize it would be extremely hard to come up with a specific definition for being 'vulnerable' but something more should be done to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There are far too many predators in the world, and even when caught, their punishments or fines are almost never adequate for the crimes they commit, especially against the vulnerable.

And there should be no statute of limitations in a child abuse case. Potential perpetrators would then be put on notice that regardless of how many years went by they would still have to be accountable for their crime.

[WeDidIt]

10. I voted nop, but I have a good reason

I oppose all statutes of limitation.

[MattBaggins]

12. And the loss of evidence is irrelevant to you?

[ZombieHorde]

16. At what point is the evidence lost? What should the statute of limitations be? nt

[Odin2005]

13. NO!!!