Lately there has been a lot of lawsuits, covered by the news, where the misdeeds that spawned the suit took place as long as 60 years in the past. In some cases the people who are being accused of the misdeeds have been dead for a long time, as long as 37 years. It seems unreasonable to me, if the defendant was known at the time of the supposed misdeed, to let the statue of limitations go past a few years. How can someone or an organization reasonably be expected to defend themselves over something that may have happened 60 years ago?

Recently, the Catholic Church, Ohio State, the University of Michigan, Bill Crosby, Harvey Weinstein and Boyscouts of America all have or had suits brought against them, that were very old. I am not saying that wrongs were not committed, just that it seems like the defendant, whether guilty or not, would have a hard time defending themself, after so much time has passed.

What should the statute of limitations reasonably be, when the defendant is known?

Keith

I think its a crying shame when someone Commits a crime and then Gets away with it because of a technicality.

For a pedophile death is more than reasonable. And church coverups fall in the same category.

Parties responsible for a cover up should suffer the same penalty as the criminal guilty of the act itself.

Worse. What kind of individual covers up a crime of that nature to save the institutions reputation.

I have to agree with ALL the above statements. JMO

No statute of limitations, but the standard of proof has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously in old cases, it's pretty much he said-she said type situations, which most likely doesn't meet that burden of proof, and the benefit of the doubt has to go to the accused.

And anyone caught faking a crime/ knowing making a false report (a-la jussie smollet) should face the same punishment as someone would had they actually committed the fake crime.

Why is there even a statute of limitations?

What difference does it make if they are well know?

Hate to say it, but it is all about THE MONEY!!! Boy Scouts filed for Bankruptcy and a bunch of Catholic Dioceses filed for Bankruptcy over the years ; because of all the lawsuits brought about after the coverups were exposed. Many of the people that caused that mess , are long dead. They can only sue the Organization , which, often offers pennies on the Dollar for the years of abuse. They split up the Organization into separate entities , making it often difficult to know which one to sue.


Now, they will get even less once the Bankruptcy goes through.

Send them Cuomo’s to that Cali prison so that guy they let have a cane can give them a welcome.

If you have cancer from Asbestos 40 years after handling it should the company just be able to shrug and point to the statue of limitation?

in Wisconsin other than murder that is never up the longest statute of limitations is sexual assault of a minor in which case the victim has till they turn 45 years of age to file.

learned this will working on a ordinance to set guide lines for police department records destruction.

Statute of limitations isn't for the "well known", it's a standard of the law, like no double jeopardy, witnessess can't give a reliable statement sometimes minutes after a crime, people lie, they don't want to get involved, etc.
Now imagine trying to get evidence, statements and proof 7 years or more later, it'd be a circus.
As much as you may not like it, there must be proof beyond a doubt before you can convict , and how do you prosecute an organization? who's the perpetrator?

Yes the crime is terrible, sometimes cases fall through the cracks, no system is perfect, doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but you must go by the law, not your feelings. Prosecuting an entire organization is just a money grab.

That is a totally different situation because you don't know you suffered harm until 40 years after the harm initially occurred. Where as if you're sexually assaulted as an adult, you probably almost always know it as its happening, unless drugs or something else impairs your judgment.

I think there should be a longer statute of limitations for children who were abused, because they may not understand what's happening until they are older. 60 years though seems excessive, especially when the accused has been dead for 37 years. There is no reasonable way to defend it in civil court.

Keith

If the organization took part in a cover up, or aided the misdeed, they should be liable for their part civilly.

If an organization took reasonable care and took no part, they should not be liable.

Keith

I'm for that!

Amen on that. There is a LOT of false rape/sexual assault claims lately.

I am all for protecting real victims , but the amount of false claims are just skyrocketing. This is why the 'Pence rule' has become part of our lingo.

The statue of limitations varies by type of crime and whether it is a criminal charge or civil proceeding. We have federal law and state law. One size does not fit all.

If someone doesn't want to get hit with a rape charge don't have sex with someone you don't know very well. Keep a consent form in your wallet for them to sign. Don't worry about getting it notarized.

With the accuracy of DNA testing now. I don't think there should be any limitation set.

I think a lot of this is being fueled by excessive monetary judgements and maybe that is a problem that should be looked at