[Puffer Fish]

Michigan to eliminate statute of limitations for lawsuits over sexual crimes

Michigan appears set to pass a new law that would further peal back their state's statute of limitations for sexual crimes, and give victims a much longer period of time to have a lawsuit over sexual abuse that allegedly happened in the past.

It seems to have bipartisan support (supported by both Democrats and Republicans).

But in my opinion, this seems like a terrible terrible idea.
I can't believe politicians could be this stupid. The Democrats on the Left often seem to be wacky when it comes to issues like this, but none of the Republicans are able to see any problem with this?

Those statutes of limitations previously existed for a very good reason.

It seems a lot of emotion is at play.

What we have to remember is that sexual allegations can be weaponized. If a person accuses another person of something that happened in the very distant past, it can be very difficult to impossible for the accused to be able to defend themselves against those allegations, or be able to find or present any evidence that it didn't happen and the accuser is lying.
Under a statute of limitations, the victim is given a certain amount of time after the alleged crime in which they have to bring the allegations, often up to 2 years (though the current statute of limitations in Michigan was much more generous than that).
So the victim has plenty of opportunity to be able to report the crime and get justice. (Of course different rules apply when it is abuse involving children)
The statute of limitations is designed to try to afford some protection and some degree of fairness to the person who is accused.

What is especially outrageous is that they not only want to eliminate the statute of limitations in criminal cases (to punish the accused perpetrator) but they also want to eliminate the statute of limitations for lawsuits based on accusations of sexual abuse. In other words, to require the accused man to pay money to the alleged victim, who claims that man did something to her. They want to eliminate the statute of limitations when it involves the accuser trying to get money.

People are not able to see what it wrong with that?

The accuser in a civil case could often have a very strong motivation to lie and falsely accuse another person. If the court believes her allegations, she is given a very large amount of money!

If the alleged crime happened a very long time ago, it's going to be impossible for the defendant to prove it didn't happen. Security video tapes and records are usually not kept that long, the memories of people fade, people who could be witnesses move away or die. Most people cannot remember the specifics of a situation that happened years ago.
The accuser, though she may be lying, will know there is no chance whatsoever they will be able to prove she is lying, and faces no risk of punishment.

Currently in Michigan I do not believe there is really a specific law saying that victims can sue for money over sexual abuse, but it has become a practice and precedent of the courts to allow and do that.
This new law would seem to give an implicit approval, actually written into law, for the practice of awarding money for claims of sexual abuse.
(Let's remember that before about 1980, lawsuits over sexual abuse did not exist, the courts had not accepted that concept as normal)

The new law would extend the maximum age at which a survivor can file a claim, from 28 to 52, and would also eliminate the statute of limitations for criminal sexual conduct in the second or third degree.

In Michigan, the current statute of limitations for criminal sexual conduct in the second and third degree for an adult victim has (or had) a limit of 10 years or when the victim turns 21 years old, whichever is later.

As you can see, the old law was already very generous to victims.

Michigan lawmakers renew effort to give sex abuse victims more time to sue, Joey Cappelletti, Associated Press, June 6, 2023
Michigan Legislature introduces bill to reform statute of limitations for sexual abuse, Justin Kent, June 6, 2023, WILX channel 10, division of NBC News

In passing this new law, Michigan appears to be following the lead of New York.
related threads:
New York eliminates statute of limitations for sexual crimes (16 Dec 2022)
women get lots of money for sexual harassment (13 Jul 2021)
Jury says Trump has to pay $5 million to woman who accused him of rape (10 May 2023 in North America section)


In my view, the whole idea and concept behind this new law is completely insane. I can't believe people can be this stupid and emotional.
This is not only going to be weaponized against individuals but also against organizations, such as churches, corporations, and universities. Making an organization pay gigantic amounts of money for a terrible ALLEGED crime that they were not even actually the ones who committed.

I feel like this might be another excuse by the Left to pay out large amounts of taxpayer money, to destroy and attack churches, and to enact yet another form of wealth redistribution, with an element of feminism as well because we all know most often the gender of the person who will be paying and the gender of the person who will be getting the money.

I ask for some logic and common sense, for people to stop and think for a little while and examine the details of these laws and what they will do, and have already begun doing.

[Puffer Fish]

Learn from the UK.

A lefty, David Blunkett, when Home Secretary, repealed the Statute of Limitations for sexual offences in the UK. What followed has been nothing less than a witch hunt against old white men. Now, its perfectly true that a lot of the old white men were indeed pedos and did stuff to girls years ago, but it has also been used by many women to make false accusations with no proof whatsoever. We#ve had old men of 90 accused of sexual offences against girls 65 years ago. Its absurd, and whats more, because of the bias now built into the legal system against white men, its virtually impossible to defend against these accusations, the accusers are automatically believed with little fact checking of the accusations.

The worst case was that of Carl Beech, a fantasist who made up a story about a VIP pedophile ring, and made false claims he had been sexually assaulted by members of this ring as a child, and thus triggered a massive police investigation where multiple high level politicians and celebrities were false accused. Some were old men who died whilst still under suspicion, before Beech was exposed as a liar.

Revealed: how Carl Beech, the serial child abuse accuser, became the accused | UK news | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... he-accused

Operation Midland: top public figures falsely accused by 'Nick' | UK news | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ed-by-nick

[Godstud]

Yes, there are false allegations. There are also legitimate ones. It is not a "very stupid bad idea", unless you are worried about your sexual assault being discovered, and charged with it.

[Puffer Fish]

Yes, there are false allegations. There are also legitimate ones. It is not a "very stupid bad idea", unless you are worried about your sexual assault being discovered, and charged with it.

It seems like you want to oversimplify things and are unable to consider the issues because they are too complicated.

Yes, when it comes to accusations there is no inherent guarantee of a correct outcome. But the point I'm trying to bring up goes beyond that. I'm just asking that some logic, thought, and reasonable common sense be used to try to come up with an outline in advance of the type of legal procedures used to decide whether someone should be punished for an allegation.

[Godstud]

It seems like you want to oversimplify things and are unable to consider the issues because they are too complicated.

It's not complicated. What I said makes sense.

People should be punished for crimes, even if they happened in the past.

[Puffer Fish]

People should be punished for crimes, even if they happened in the past.

You are not able to see how your statement there was besides the point?


If we were talking about a murder victim, who did not report the crime because she was dead, and police only found out about it many years later, then you would be correct.

[Godstud]

This is the same case, where someone was afraid to come forward and then did so many years later.

I keep forgetting that you defend spousal rape and sexual assault. You're wrong, as you were so many times before.

[Puffer Fish]

This is the same case, where someone was afraid to come forward and then did so many years later.

So you think if a woman says a man raped her, and with a performance on the witness stand manages to convince a jury that it happened, the man she is accusing should have to give her a huge amount of money?

And not only that but she can say it happened 15 years ago, so there is no possibility anyone will ever be able to prove that she was lying.

[Godstud]

So you think if a woman says a man raped her, and with a performance on the witness stand manages to convince a jury that it happened, the man she is accusing should have to give her a huge amount of money?

Performance? Fuck off. You always seek or defend the criminal and not the victim. You're detestable.

And not only that but she can say it happened 15 years ago, so there is no possibility anyone will ever be able to prove that she was lying.

When the criminal lies it is OK, though, right? You make a stupid assumption that the claims are false, when that usually is not the case.

[Puffer Fish]

Performance? Fuck off. You always seek or defend the criminal and not the victim. You're detestable.

Would you be against a law that would make it completely clear from the start that there should be no possibility of a woman getting money if the only evidence of that specific alleged sexual assault is her accusation?

I think such a law would provide a lot of benefits, and also allow us to be more likely to believe women when they want a man to be punished for a rape they say happened.

[Puffer Fish]

You make a stupid assumption that the claims are false, when that usually is not the case.

We have to consider both possibilities.

I know most people are uncomfortable dealing with uncertainties when trying to rationalise, but the reality is that (in the vast majority of cases) we really have no absolute certainty of what the truth is. There's always a chance she could be lying and always a chance she could be telling the truth.

Contrary to popular opinion, the question is NOT really what is the truth, but what procedure should we have in place for responding to an accusation? How should allegations generally be handled?

[Godstud]

As stated already, in another thread, you do not get money in a criminal case. Can you comprehend what that means?

Would you be against a law that would make it completely clear from the start that there should be no possibility of a woman getting money if the only evidence of that specific alleged sexual assault is her accusation?

That is only in a civil court case. Civil court cases do not send people to prison. Civil court cases seek compensation for injustices. Your knowledge of even a little bit of the justice system might help you not make idiotic claims against it.

There's always a chance she could be lying and always a chance she could be telling the truth.

That is what courts decide. They do so with evidence. Witness testimony is evidence.

Contrary to popular opinion, the question is NOT really what is the truth, but what procedure should we have in place for responding to an accusation? How should allegations generally be handled?

Go read a book on the justice system. Your ignorance is appalling. You have no clue how courts operate.

[Puffer Fish]

As stated already, in another thread, you do not get money in a criminal case. Can you comprehend what that means?

I stated that someone might be incentivised to make a report, and later testify in a criminal case, because of wanting money in a civil case. In the civil case they have to say things, and it will raise eyebrows if they do not say those same things in a criminal case.

You can read this for example:
"Even though filing a police report isn't mandatory, we still recommend that you do so. Having a police report handy is beneficial for your claim. In fact, without a police report, it may be difficult to win a settlement for the damages you've sustained."
https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/do-i-have- ... 0sustained.

The two are actually intrinsically more connected than you may think.

[Puffer Fish]

Go read a book on the justice system. Your ignorance is appalling. You have no clue how courts operate.

I stated the truth is not the issue because most of the time we have to deal with uncertainties. We do not know for certain what the actual truth is.

You claim my ignorance of the justice system is appalling, but you seem to very naively believe they must have some sort of way of figuring out what the truth is.

YOU are apparently the one who believes the man should be put in prison when a woman accuses him. So it's clear you're not dealing with a simple "truth" there.

[Godstud]

Facts are truthful, even if you don't believe in them, @Puffer Fish. You aren't seeking truth, but a lie that fits what you believe.

[Puffer Fish]

Facts are truthful, even if you don't believe in them, Puffer Fish. You aren't seeking truth, but a lie that fits what you believe.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, or how that is relevant to the argument.

Seems like just some wishy-washy platitude.

We don't know what the "facts" are in a case like this. There are just accusations.

Are you saying women should automatically be fully and 100% believed, or something like that?

[Puffer Fish]

Yes, there are false allegations. There are also legitimate ones.

If we don't know whether it's a legitimate one, why should that woman get money?

I mean even if we KNOW that man has raped another woman before, why should this woman automatically be believed and get money?

And you just think it's fine that she can say the supposed rape happened 15 years ago, that she should have the right to wait that long and still get both justice and lots of money.
("justice" for herself, which may not be so fair to the man)

[Godstud]

False allegations are very rare, as we've already demonstrated. You seem to think the majority are false, but that's an assumption not supported by facts or reality.

Justice is fair to all. It is not just fair to the victim but to the person who sexually assaulted them. You seem to have a problem with fairness and justice.

[Rancid]

I really want to know what skeletons @Puffer Fish has in his closet.

The obsession with this subject raises my eye brows.

[Puffer Fish]

False allegations are very rare, as we've already demonstrated.

Even if were true (I think that is false), that is still not sufficient reason to not be very concerned about this.

Let me point out loud and clear to you that just because rates of false allegations may be rare in one statistical pool (time period and region) DOES NOT mean they will be that rare in situations where the accuser has a high chance to get lots of money (in another statistical pool).

The fact that these absurd ridiculous lawsuits are not going on in all parts of the U.S. only weakens your argument, because your statistics are for all of America as a whole.


What a stupid argument, "trust women".
Did you ever step back and actually think about that argument?
I mean step back and see the bigger picture of what you are arguing? I'm going to demand you actually look at and consider the details of your argument, taken together.

A woman who makes an accusation, in order to get a gigantic amount of money, when there's no way to prove she is lying. And she knows it.

She knows there are people like you who just want to believe her, and will vote to order that she get money.

Such a woman can even target a man who is already believed to be guilty of other sexual misconduct against another woman, or whom they know is already being accused by another woman.
And then stupid people think that is "evidence" proving that the recent accuser is telling the truth.


Let me ask this: Do you understand the role a statute of limitations helps play in trying to ensure fairness? Yes or no?

Virtually every state in the U.S. had a statute of limitations on sexual crimes at some time. That was NOT just a coincidence.