New York eliminates statute of limitations for sexual crimes - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15259208
New York eliminates statute of limitations for sexual crimes

This is a terrible terrible idea and just shows how progressives don't think things through before they enact new policies, and just ignore the likely unintended consequences.
There were good reasons these statute of limitations existed before. And now they just want to totally eliminate them and call it "progress"?
What about the protections for the accused?

"New York's criminal law is about to undergo a major change following the legislature's elimination of the statute of limitations for rape cases."
State Removes Statute Of Limitations For Rape Cases (gothamgazette.com) - November 2022
https://www.gothamgazette.com/1381-stat ... tions-for-

"And under the law, victims now have 20 years in which to bring a civil suit for the offenses."
"In August, Governor Cuomo signed legislation extending the statute of limitations for employment sexual harassment claims from one year to three years.
And in February, Cuomo signed into law the Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of child sexual assault to pursue criminal felony charges until they turn 28, and file a civil lawsuit before age 55."
New state law extends the statute of limitations for rape in New York | CNN - September 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/18/us/new-y ... index.html

"There has been an ongoing and pervasive culture of sexual harassment and abuse in our society, and it is made worse by the fact that victims of second- and third-degree rape only have five years to bring a legal claim against their attacker," Cuomo said in a statement. "Five years is an insult to these survivors and today we’re providing them more time to come to terms with the trauma they experienced and to seek justice. This new law recognizes the injustice that has gone on for far too long and honors all the women who have suffered this pain and all the advocates who had the courage to come forward and tell their story so that other women may be spared the pain."

Yeah, just sounds like b(*)(*)(*)s(*)(*)(*) emotion. "We want to be Pro-Women". Guess New York Democrats are really desperate for the votes, have to show they are "doing something".
I can't believe anyone could be this stupid, not to see the obvious problems with this.

And this is especially troubling because now the courts in these progressive states are allowing women to sue men for money for alleged rape, get money when the only evidence is the testimony of the alleged victim. This didn't even used to be a thing several decades ago. The idea that women are entitled to getting money for being raped or suffering sexual harassment is very new.

Imagine a woman tries to sue you for something that allegedly happened 10 years ago, but for whatever reason she decided not to report at the time. Good luck trying to pull up any evidence that might help exonerate you. I bet most of you have no memory of where you were on a day 10 years ago, so it would make it all but impossible to be able to come up with any alibi. All because a woman decided to wait 10 years to sue you. Very unfair. That's why they normally have a statute of limitations in the law, but now several states are removing them.
#15262030
late wrote:Rape victims often have PTSD in a big way. It can take years to put things back together.

Have fun getting accused of rape that allegedly happened 10 or 15 years ago, when it's just her word against yours, and the woman is automatically believed.

(Some people are actually naive and uninformed not enough to realise that they DO commonly put men in prison based on the woman's accusation when there is no other evidence)

Are you uninformed enough not to understand why these statutes of limitations existed in the first place?
#15262039
ingliz wrote:@Puffer Fish

Why does this worry you?

The only reason I can think of is you are either the office sex pest, a rapist, or a kiddie fiddler.

Salem Liberal alert!

There are very good reasons to be concerned about this. And this is the typical Salem Liberal response. Anyone questioning of the trial of witches is immediately accused of witchcraft themselves. Now I personally am very much in alignment with the liberal principle of women's bodily autonomy. It not going to happen, but if there was a Provisional IRA style armed struggle for women's abortion rights it would have my unconditional support. But being supporter of women's bodily autonomy does not mean we need to pretend that huge issues don't exist in protecting that autonomy, in enforcing that principle.

It can be difficult enough to get to the truth of male female physical interactions even hours after they happened, asking men to answer for events or alleged events years or decades after they happened is extremely problematic.
#15262044
Puffer Fish wrote:(Some people are actually naive and uninformed not enough to realise that they DO commonly put men in prison based on the woman's accusation when there is no other evidence)


Please note that no one has ever provided a credible example of that.

The one time you did, it was all an unsupported and highly doubtful story told by the person accused of rape, who is admittedly very biased.
#15262321
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that no one has ever provided a credible example of that.

I've already provided three examples of that in this forum, posted threads about stories.

I know you have seen them, so you must have forgot.


Convenient Links to 2 of those threads:
"Take a look what a false rape accusation can do"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=182114&p=15229025
"Man falsely accused of rape"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=183070
#15262338
Puffer Fish wrote:I've already provided three examples of that in this forum, posted threads about stories.

I know you have seen them, so you must have forgot.


Convenient Links to 2 of those threads:
"Take a look what a false rape accusation can do"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=182114&p=15229025
"Man falsely accused of rape"
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=183070


Please note that in the first example, the man was hot charged. Are we going to find the same with the other two?

Edit: the second one is not credible. That means it seems like it not true.
#15262361
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that in the first example, the man was hot charged. Are we going to find the same with the other two?

Wait, what? "hot charged"? What does "hot charged mean"?
Or did you mean "not charged"? Because that's totally not true. The man was put in prison. He was totally lucky things finally turned out to show his innocence, that usually doesn't happen.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Edit: the second one is not credible. That means it seems like it not true.

You simply do not want to believe it.

Do you think it's enough evidence to put a man in prison if two women accuse a man of separate sexual assault encounters, and one of those alleged encounters was 12 years ago? (Not an unusual situation)
And both those women are also trying to sue the man for money for the sexual assaults. Let's say he's a rich celebrity. (We've seen a couple of these type of stories in the news)
#15262375
Puffer Fish wrote:Wait, what? "hot charged"? What does "hot charged mean"?
Or did you mean "not charged"? Because that's totally not true. The man was put in prison. He was totally lucky things finally turned out to show his innocence, that usually doesn't happen.


It is a typo.

I meant to say he was not convicted.

You simply do not want to believe it.

Do you think it's enough evidence to put a man in prison if two women accuse a man of separate sexual assault encounters, and one of those alleged encounters was 12 years ago? (Not an unusual situation)
And both those women are also trying to sue the man for money for the sexual assaults. Let's say he's a rich celebrity. (We've seen a couple of these type of stories in the news)


I explained why it is not believable.

So no, you have not presented even one verifiable story of a man convicted solely on a woman's testimony.
#15263043
A woman is suing famous boxer Mike Tyson for $5 million under New York's Adult Survivors Act, claiming he raped her in the early 1990s.

So she is claiming he raped her about 30 years ago and is now coming forward and wants money.

The woman, who is seeking $5 million in damages, stated in a signed affidavit that Tyson invited her into a limousine in Albany, New York, under the pretext of bringing her to a party. Once in a limousine, she says Tyson began to kiss her, ignored her pleas to stop, pulled her pants off and "violently raped" her.

Tyson had previously been convicted of rape in February 1992 in Indianapolis. He was sentenced to six years in prison and was released on parole after three years.
The fact that he served so little prison time suggests that not much evidence existed in that case.

Jan 24, 2023
https://www.khon2.com/sports/sports-ill ... -incident/
#15263129
Potemkin wrote:That’s not how that works, @Puffer Fish.

Oh? How do you think it works?

It looks like the only evidence was that she said he did it.

"In July 1991, Tyson met Desiree Washington at a rehearsal for the Miss Black America pageant in Indianapolis. Washington accompanied Tyson back to his hotel room, where, in the early hours of July 19, Washington claimed he raped her. Tyson claimed the sex was consensual. The world-famous fighter was indicted by a grand jury in September of that year and convicted in February 1992. He was released, after serving three years, in March 1995."
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... auty-queen

Since he was born in June 1966, Tyson would have been 25 years old at the time of the alleged crime.

It looks like only about four months after he began serving his prison sentence, the woman filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court trying to get money for the alleged rape.

Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard University law professor handling Tyson's appeal, had this to say:
"We couldn’t be happier because it finally gives us a vehicle for bringing out the whole truth, for deposing Desiree Washington and for exposing her for what she is: a money-grubbing phony who has done this--as we suspected right from the beginning--for the money."

"Tyson Is Sued for Damages by Rape Victim : Jurisprudence: Attorney says she files lawsuit because boxer has shown a glib attitude and lack of remorse for crime.", Los Angeles Times, June 23, 1992
#15263130
written by Bob Garrett, former USA Boxing Certified Coach

This was not the first time Desiree Washington accused somebody of rape.
According to a legal affidavit signed by high school friend Wayne Walker, she accused Walker of raping her in October 1989. It was complete nonsense. It takes a lot of hutzpah to make false rape accusations.

Millions of dollars were spent to prosecute Tyson. Nobody knows what Washington got out of it.

I believe the motivation for Desiree was a false hope Mike Tyson might use his millions to pay her off—to recant her accusations to save him from prosecution.

Mike called her a lying, money hungry, reptilian creature. He said she was a very bad person who tried to take advantage of him to make herself rich. Tyson has always maintained his innocence. He never changed his opinion of Washington.

Desiree’s story about Tyson is one of the fishiest lines of malarkey ever told.

There were people in the next room to where Tyson and Washington had sex. They didn't hear anything. They heard no crying, no protests, no screaming, no nothing. You could hear creaks and pops, and even conversation in the next room.

Three witnesses said she had her legs wrapped around Tyson as they came into the lobby in the wee hours of the morning. They were not allowed to testify because the judge thought their testimony might prejudice the jury.

Why would Tyson rape somebody? Women were throwing themselves at him. He didn't need to rape anybody. Why would a woman go to his room at 3 in the morning, kissing and making out with him on the way to the hotel?

Tyson said they were kissing and making out, got undressed, had consensual oral sex first--after that they had consensual vaginal sex. He was very tired and had to get up very early. He wanted to get a couple hours of sleep. Desiree Washington made several trips to the bathroom which locked from the inside. She had a phone. She made no calls. She was free to leave at any time. She asked Tyson to escort her down to his car to take her back to her hotel. He said he was extremely tired and needed to grab some sleep and she should find her way down to the car.

Washington didn’t say anything to anyone in the lobby, didn't call the police, didn't say anything to the driver. She didn't call the police until many hours later and after she went through a dance routine and other parts of her schedule.

What she exhibited is not the behavior of a rape victim.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-di ... on-trial-1


But it looks like the woman may have gotten some money.

"Mike Tyson has settled the civil suit filed against him by the beauty contestant he was convicted of raping four years ago, the boxer's lawyer said Wednesday. Nathan Dershowitz would not say how much money - if any - the settlement involves. Desiree Washington filed the civil suit against Tyson in federal court in June 1992, seeking unspecified damages for assault, battery, false imprisonment and emotional distress. Trial had been scheduled for July 24. Tyson was released from prison in March."

Tyson Settles Civil Lawsuit Filed by Woman he Raped - Orlando Sentinel, June 21, 1995
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os ... story.html
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

"Pооtin the Great Loser" is rapidly sen[…]

@Rancid Maybe mercenary groups should hire or […]

January 30, Monday President Lincoln issues a […]

The Police Murder of Tyre Nichols

What evidence do you have that systemic racism oc[…]