Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Your understanding of law is abysmal. Criminal offenses are all very specifically defined by the state. Rape is a CRIME. The law defines it very precisely, as it does all crimes.

If you dont pay a prostitute, is it rape or shoplifting?

I do not know if repressed memories was claimed or not in this case the story did not say however at best it was childhood memories from forty years ago.

How many of us can claimed in middle age that our childhood memories of all events at less then ten years of age are either accurate or relievable enough to send someone to prison?

Statutes of limitations are laws that set the maximum amount of time that can pass after a crime is committed before legal action is taken. Statutes may vary by state and crime, and once the time has expired, it is no longer possible to bring about legal action for that offense. Most states have statutes of limitations ranging from five (5) to ten (10) years. In addition, more and more states are beginning to adopt DNA Exceptions to their statutes of limitations, reflecting the increasing use of DNA evidence to identify perpetrators long after a crime has been committed.

If a significant amount of time has passed since the crime occurred, RAINN still strongly encourages reporting the crime to the police. It may be more difficult for the case to be prosecuted, especially if there is a lack of DNA evidence. However, reporting the crime may lead to an arrest, and thus help get another rapist off the streets.

A possible future presidential candidate has just found himself embroiled in an ugly incest/rape case because he previously granted this man a pardon. The details are lurid, but that is the reality of incest.

Criminal Prosecutions for Sexual Abuse
For criminal cases, a prosecutor may file a charge of aggravated rape at any time, with no limitation (in California, an aggravated rape is rape that involves a weapon, more than one person, or seriously injures the victim). Prosecution for "normal" sexual assault has a statute of limitations of six years. However, there is an exception made for DNA analysis. Since it is a relatively new technology, if a DNA test can conclusively prove the identity of a rapist, prosecution can take place within one year of the discovery.

In regards to child molestation, there has been a series of great upheavals regarding the statute of limitations in California. In the early 1990s, the legislature passed a bill that retroactively waived the statute of limitations for all crimes of child molestation, meaning even people who were previously immune to prosecution could suddenly be arrested. This law was overturned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a recent case, so now the law's retroactive provision is eliminated.

What remains is a 10 year statute of limitations for child molestation. HOWEVER, the crime can also be prosecuted within one year of WHENEVER a victim tells the police (even past the 10 year mark). This sounds rather contradictory, because this means that the 10 year limitation is essentially pointless, but it is the current law of the land. The California legislature is constantly debating about this, so the law may change in the near future. You should talk to a California attorney familiar with these cases for the most up to date information.

Hawkeye I believe off hand this case was in the UK not the US and I can not see how DNA evidence would apply in this case can you

Waiting 40 years to make a rape charge is ridiculous. Even if the charge is true, without a confession how do you prove it?

After looking I can not find where Firefly said that the alleged Richmond gang rapers plied the alleged victim with alcohol, I there-for take back that statement, as well as the post predicated on it.

Where did you get your law degree Firefly as I am sure as a layperson you would not feel yourself qualify to pass judgment on Hawkeye knowledge of the law?

Oh, were you not the one trying to sell the idea that a woman could not be charge with rape under current laws because she does not have a penis on this thread at one point

The case did not involve repressed memories. The woman never forgot the sexual abuse--it went on for years.

The point is that why somebody tells you that the law is XYZ it is a good idea to look see what the loopholes are, and also that we increasingly dont believe in SOL for sex crimes. Me being concerned with mens rights look at this with concern for justice of the accused men.

Men's rights" does not include not being held responsible for crimes. When it comes to crimes, there are no "men's rights" or "women's rights"--there are the "rights of the accused" or the "rights of the defendant", and, sometimes, "victims rights"--gender is irrelevant. Either you are concerned with justice for all in a criminal proceeding, or you're not concerned with justice at all.

When the first woman in this country is charge with the sexual assaults of a drunken man over the consent issue then you might had some little grounds to stand on.