Nevada first state to pass Cosby-themed anti-rape legislation

[Nevernose]

They've changed the statute of limitations for outcries from four years to twenty. It's named the Lise Lublin Act (or something similar) after one of Cosby's victims, and Cosby was specifically mentioned during the debate.

Even a (temporarily) conservative legislature can get it right once in a while, it seems.

[Nevernose]

1. Kick

I feel shitty for kicking my own post, but I think it's amazing that Bill Cosby got enough people pissed off that an entire state changed its laws just to say "fuck you" to Bill Cosby.

[Beringia]

2. I think that is great

Something positive came out of all the accusations. Too bad cannot make it retroactive.

[UTUSN]

5. That answers my question ("cannot make it retroactive") n/t

[Skittles]

3. I have always thought Cosby is a creep and have no doubt he is a pervert / rapist

but it seems odd to specifically name someone who has never been charged (yes, I understand this legislation aims to address that)

[Nevernose]

4. It was named after a victim of his

Cosby's name just came up in the deliberation.

Even assuming that 90% of women lie about being raped (which is totally untrue, obviously), that STILL leaves at least two women harmed by Bill Cosby, conviction be damned.

Besides which: this is Nevada, and nothing is normal here.

[NV Whino]

6. Good

I hope other states follow their lead.

[Jim Lane]

7. What would you do if you were an innocent defendant in this situation?

You answer the knock on your door. It's the police. They have a warrant for your arrest. It's alleged that you committed a crime on June 1, 1995.

Do you have an alibi? Are there any witnesses who can back it up? Can you find them, or even remember their names?

Do you remember the specifics of June 1, 1995 well enough to explain that you didn't know there was cocaine in the glove compartment, or that it's a case of mistaken identity, or that there was sex but it was consensual, or that on the day of the robbery in your neighborhood you happened to be visiting family hundreds of miles away?

I have a better-than-average memory, and I'd be totally fucked. Alibi? I have no idea where I was or what I was doing that day.

Merely uttering the name "Cosby" doesn't mean that any measure that strengthens the prosecutor's office is a good thing.

There's an old saying about how people view the scope of the powers that should be given to the authorities in a criminal investigation: A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. If you care about fairness, you must consider a 20-year statute of limitations from the point of view of crime victims who, for various reasons, didn't come forward earlier, but you must also consider it from the point of view of the defendant, who's entitled to the presumption of innocence.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. You make those points to the jury.

I find it hard to imagine how you would prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone committed rape 20 years ago, and unless the prosecution can do so the jury should obviously vote to acquit, and the judge should stress that to them.

But in those very rare cases where it is possible to prove it, I think people should be convicted.

[Jim Lane]

9. I think you're wrong about "reasonable doubt"

First, you assume that jurors understand and actually apply the standard. I don't care how much the judge stresses it -- I think there's still a lot of "The police wouldn't have arrested him unless he'd done something wrong."

Second, you assume that one witness's testimony isn't enough. Let's take the Cosby accusers, since that's the case that apparently sparked this law, only put aside the number of accusers and the celebrity of the alleged perpetrator. One ordinary man is arrested and charged with rape. The evidence against him is the sworn testimony of a woman who says he raped her 20 years ago. She can't produce any physical evidence. He says he never raped anyone, but other than that he has no idea where he was or what he was doing on that long-ago date. If the jury believes her, not him, is that enough evidence for a conviction?

I don't do criminal law, but my guess is that a guilty verdict, on that record, would be upheld on appeal. If it would not be, then this law, being lauded by so many in this thread, is just political pandering that won't actually change anything, except in "very rare cases".

[LanternWaste]

10. It seems each of your numerated points are as relevant to the previous four year limit

It seems each of your numerated points are as relevant (or irrelevant, as the case may be) to the previous four year limit as they do to the newer window.

[Jim Lane]

11. A statute of limitations always represents a balancing of competing interests

Whether it's civil or criminal, a statute of limitations may be so short that it bars some legitimate cases, or so long that it unfairly prejudices a defendant.

Any particular time limit could have both problems. As you point out, even four years will be too long on occasion. Some defendants will be unfairly prevented from mounting a full defense.

As you shorten or lengthen the statutory period, though, the corresponding problem gets worse. For example, in some rape cases, the issue is consent. Can a defendant remember the names of and locate witnesses who were at the party, or who saw me walking hand-in-hand with the woman the day after the alleged rape? (I know this doesn't conclusively disprove the charge but it's certainly evidence that I'd be entitled to introduce for the jury's consideration.) Doing so after four years may be difficult but it will be a lot easier than trying to go back 20 years.