Last week, the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee heard a bill by state Rep. Senfronia Thompson which would codify an awful suggestion from last year by failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Wendy Davis, to eliminate the statute of limitations on rape. Grits referred to the idea at the time as "misanthropic madness."
Imagine being accused of date rape 25 years ago: How could anyone possibly defend oneself if the state can secure a conviction based solely on the alleged victim's uncorroborated testimony? This would be a recipe for ramping up the number of false rape convictions, which readers will recall is the main category of defendants who populate the state's highest-in-the-country number of DNA exonerees.
Thankfully, judging from testimony at the hearing, Rep. Thompson plans to scale back the bill in a committee substitute to only removing the statute of limitations in cases where DNA evidence existed to corroborate the allegation, particularly referencing the thousands of untested rape kits sitting in backlog at police departments around the state. It would allow prosecution for older "aggravated" sexual assault in addition to "regular" sexual assault in cases where DNA evidence exists, according to testimony by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association's Kristin Etter. That's a compromise I can live with from a protect-the-innocent perspective (though there are other purposes behind statutes of limitations which are still upended by the proposal).
Grits appreciates Rep. Thompson's willingness to revise the bill. She's championed innocence topics over the years with such unfailing vigor that it would have been a particularly harsh blow for her to push through such a terrible idea, borne of cynical political gamesmanship.
Finally, for reasons which escape me, the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Wednesday will hear another bill by Rep. Ryan Guillen proposing identical language. (It'd sure be easier if the committee would hear identical bills on the same day.) Here's hoping he's open to the same compromise.
UPDATE: The committee substitute passed by the committee did NOT adjust the bill the way Etter described, eliminating the statute of limitations in all circumstances. What a terrible bill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
7 comments:
"How could anyone possibly defend oneself if the state can secure a conviction based solely on the alleged victim's uncorroborated testimony? This would be a recipe for ramping up the number of false... convictions."
I couldn't agree more, yet this is the standard in aggravated sexual assault cases involving child victims. There is no statute of limitations in those cases either. I fear that we wrongfully convict many people in this version of the modern day witch hunt.
Prosecutors pull out all the stops in these cases and hold the upper hand in securing convictions because all that is needed is the word of a child. Sadly, there are sometimes ill intentioned adults whispering those
words in the child's ear.
I can't believe Texas would turn away any opportunity to jail more people.
even this modified version would be unconstitutional. Sorry yes you can change it to whatever you want going forward from NOW. But you can't go back and change the rules on old crimes. Not even sex crimes. So far the only reason they squeak by is the so-called "civil" bullshit.
rod, the bill only changes the SOL going forward.
You couldn't be more right 11:44 in your label of "modern day witch hunt". The very word "rapist" or title, "sex offender" both are so repulsive and hated by an uneducated public that legislation which is aimed at them is perceived as good. While those who truly commit a violent sex crime, or any sex crime against a child deserve severe punishment, the truth is that they are only a small percentage of those who are prosecuted for these crimes actually commit the heinous crime perceived. Many are existing wives and girlfriends with an axe to grind, or teenagers who engaged in consentual sex. The problem is that if they are 17 or under they are deemed to be unable to consent. Many youngsters (mostly male) get caught up behind "consentual" sex with their significant other. When they do, prosecuting them is not only easy for the prosecutor, but popular with an uninformed public and often convitable with a jury made up of the same public.
Everyone these days seem to need someone to hate, and who better than a "sex offender". Even terminology these days is more inflammatory for these crimes. When we were young it was "statutory rape". Now it is "sexual assault" usually "aggravated sexual assault of a child", and in the worst case "continuous sexual assault of a child" an enhanced felony 1 which carries a punishment of 25 years to life with no parole. It requires two acts against the victim to be committed within a 30 day period. Unbelieveably, the jury need not agree on the same two acts, only that there were 2. While I understand the spirit of the legislation, rarely is it used in that spirit. It is often charged as a prosecutorial strategy to get the accused to plea out to an unenhanced felony 1, with a long (8-10) year probation, or some "aggravated" jail time requiring the convicted to serve 50% of the time prior to being eligible to parole.
I"ll be surprised if they don't get this passed. "Modern day witch hunt" indeed.
well anon 6:39 might want to read it again.
"Rep. Thompson plans to scale back the bill in a committee substitute to only removing the statute of limitations in cases where DNA evidence existed to corroborate the allegation, particularly referencing the thousands of untested rape kits sitting in backlog at police departments around the state. It would allow prosecution for older "aggravated" sexual assault in addition to "regular" sexual assault in cases where DNA evidence exists, according to testimony by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association's Kristin Etter."
it's not rocket science. if they are talking about BACKLOG cases and BACKLOG kits they are taking about changing the SOL going back BEFORE it's passage. that is unconstutional.
Stogner v. California
Post a Comment