Statutes of LimitationUnder the law, many, possibly most, criminal charges must be filed within certain closely defined windows of opportunity. An attempt to file charges too late will usually result in dismissal of the case and legal exoneration for the defendant. There are a number of very good reasons to enforce these kinds of limitations on prosecution. Of primary concern is the quality and availability of evidence, both for and against the defendant. Over time, people pass away, witness memory fades, DNA samples degrade, locations are altered, law enforcement officers are promoted or even retire, and both perpetrators and their victims mature and – to the extent possible – move on with their lives. In civil cases, insurance policies expire or are renegotiated based on past performance, businesses books are settled, staff turns over, new investments made and old risks calculated. These lists could go on ad infinitum, but what should be clear is that trying cases becomes increasingly difficult as the facts supporting the case age.
On a more sinister note, allegiances and personal perspectives can also change over time; often dramatically. Lovers fall out, children grow up, employees are fired, and business deals turn sour. While reliable statistics are hard to compile, it is likely that the majority of sexual assault allegations have merit. Whether, in a particular case, the correct perpetrator has been identified, the extent of the offense properly defined, or the factual circumstances accurately recorded; however, is an open question. Unfortunately, these details can, and sometimes are, affected by the personal relationships at stake in a case; individual perspectives can change over time.
To help guard against degradation of the evidence or the possibility of unfairly changed perspectives, statutes of limitation cap the time in which charges must be brought. These limitations serve to provide some measure of finality to society and to protect against abuse of the legal system.
Time to RecoverOn the other side of the equation, victims of sexual assault, particularly children, undeniably need time to heal. Medical research suggests that in many cases individuals have difficulty remember the specifics of a traumatic incident, or even that an incident occurred at all. Psychologists tell us that this memory block is a defense mechanism employed by our brains to help victims move on and heal after an attack. To further complicate matters, many victims are stuck in a nightmare of continuing abuse and totally lack any power to seek justice against their abusers. Young children may suffer at the hands of an abuser for years before ever realizing that they can tell someone about the attacks. Such victims may need many years to recover enough to report the abuse to the legal system and sometimes much longer still to fully appreciate the extent of the physical and emotional damage done to them by the attack(s).
A legal system insensitive to this reality will be unfairly stacked against the very people the system is designed to protect. For this reason, unduly short statutes of limitation cut off the possibility of persecution before victims have had a time to get their bearings after an attack or attacks and give perpetrators of sexualized violence a “get out of jail free” pass by virtue of the very abuse they have committed. Striking the right balance isn’t easy.
Senate Bills 926 and 924Enter the California Senate. Two bills currently under consideration that would dramatically alter the current system of limitations on prosecution and civil lawsuits against perpetrators of sexual violence. Current law gives victims of childhood sexual abuse until their 28th birthday to report the abuse to authorities and until their 26th birthday or three years after the damage from the abuse is recognized medically to file a civil lawsuit. Introduced by Senator Jim Beall, SB 926 and 924 would raise these caps to 40 years old and five years from the discovery of damage from the abuse respectively. This isn’t the first time the Senator has tried for this change. In the last legislative session a similar package of bills passed both houses of the legislature with wide margins enjoying support from both political parties; it was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown who took the time to write an uncharacteristically long signing statement describing his reasons for the veto.
“there comes a time when an individual or organization should be secure in the reasonable expectation that past acts are indeed in the past and not subject to further lawsuits,” given that evidence can be lost, memories can fade and witnesses can become unavailable over time. “This extraordinary extension of the statute of limitations, which legislators chose not to apply to public institutions, is simply too open-ended and unfair.”
There are some distinct differences between the vetoed bill and the current effort including the extent to which the changes would apply to the past and exactly which entities could face the revised guidelines (the new bills are not retroactive and apply equally to both public and private entities) and so it remains unclear exactly how the bills will fare in this session or whether, if passed, they too will face a veto action.