Man, I really hate agreeing with potential rapists, but defense attorneys in Arizona are arguing that "John Doe" cases should be voided because of the statute of limitations starts when a crime occurs instead of when a suspect is found. Basically, they state that if DNA is discovered, the statue of limitations starts from that point, instead of when a DNA match is discovered. Unfortunately, I agree with this point.
For example, if I rob a bank, police have to catch me within a period of time starting from the robbery, instead of when they find my fingerprints on the doorway (if it takes years to find the prints). I only use bank robbery as an example, as I don't believe there is a statute of limitations on that particular crime.
Believe me, this is a slap in the face of any person who's been a victim of rape, but this is the way the law is written. Although I wonder, does this mean that if a serial rapist is caught, can prosecutors argue past rapes in a current trial to show a pattern of crime? Can they use this against the defendant at sentencing? Could they ask for an exceptional sentence instead of a standard one because of past rapes? Unfortunately, if this is the case, it means that another person must be raped before the person can stand trial for it. A messy legal problem indeed.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
No comments:
Post a Comment