After decades of silence, Dylan Farrow, the adopted daughter of actress and activist Mia Farrow and director Woody Allen, has stepped forward to publicly assert that Allen sexually assaulted her when she was 7 years old. The assault came after what she describes as a number of disturbing behaviors that sound like grooming, a term for the process predators use to initiate an abusive dynamic with victims, to encourage secrecy and test how much abuse they can get away with disguising as love. For instance, Dylan wrote of Allen putting his thumb in her mouth, of resting his head in her naked lap, and making her get under the covers with him while he was in his underwear.
In an open letter published on a New YorkTimes blog, Dylan wrote of a childhood spent frightened and silent and hiding in small, dark spaces, under beds and in closets, trying to avoid her alleged assailant. “He always found me,” she wrote.
It’s a dangerous situation to turn a particular case into a metaphor for a typical case, but as so often happens when recognizable names publicly wrestle with contentious issues, the Farrow-Allen dynamic is now a divisive flashpoint. For many, Dylan has become a symbol—a stand-in speaking the rage of countless victims of childhood sexual abuse who never saw justice, while Allen’s the stand-in for every abuser who ever got away with it.
There are way too many people represented on both sides of that equation. Imagine any other violent crime where so few survivors saw justice. It’s not an accident, though. It is, in part, by design.
It’s obviously not my place to say if Woody Allen is guilty or not. But when the charge is child sex abuse, “he wasn’t convicted” hardly means “innocent.” Our criminal justice system may be based on the presumption of innocence in the absence of contrary evidence in court, it’s also built with laws designed to stop childhood sexual abuse victims from getting into a courtroom.
Historically, statutes of limitation (SOLs) on childhood sex abuse, the parameters for how long a victim has before criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit, have been set so short that by the time an abused child becomes an adult, the option is gone.
A 7-year-old, as Farrow was, had until age 14 to pursue a court case.
How many 14-year-old kids do you know who would be able to not only recognize abuse that has been packaged as love, but be ready for the fallout?
Getting to that point is a psychologically and emotionally difficult process that often takes years—decades, even. In many cases, it’s simply logistically impossible for a survivor to pursue a legal case.
In 2002, Connecticut’s SOL had been extended, reflecting the trendacross the country ofdragging out, or even abolishing, statutes to reflect what we are learning about how survivors process trauma. (Check your state law here.)
We now know, for example, that childhood victims of sexual abuse often don’t inform authorities, or anyone, about their abuse for years, especially when the abuser is a well-respected authority figure or family member.
We know, too, that children most scared of the consequences of reporting their abuse sometimes deny or recant their story, and that doesn’t mean they’re lying. A study that examined 250 cases of substantiated sexual abuse found that approximately 25 percent of the children recanted at some point, and the kids most likely to waver were the ones abused by a family member.
We also know that many victims don’t disclose childhood abuse at all until adulthood, when they first experience the tentacles of that monster reaching out to destroy relationships because they can’t trust, and destroy their bodies because they self-medicate with alcohol or drugs as they discover that commanding themselves to “get over it” doesn’t work, no matter how hard they try.
Sometimes it “clicks” after a triggering event, such as a friend’s revelation, or a big story like the Jerry Sandusky or Jimmy Savile case. Or, as Dylan wrote, when your assailant is so rich and famous and beloved that the world routinely stands up and claps for him at ceremoniesthat he doesn’t deign to attend—all after marrying your adopted sister.
Even though SOLs have been extending, they don’t apply retroactively, so they will most benefit future victims. In general, the law that existed during your abuse is the law that applies to your case. Just last August, for example, charges filed against a Connecticut school psychologist accused of sexually assaulting a middle-school boy were abruptly dismissed once the court learned the alleged rapes took place in 2000 and 2001, before the statute granted victims the right to come forward up to age 50.
In that case, as with all survivors who discover they’ve run down a clock they didn’t know was ticking, the boy has suffered because of both his assailant and the special interests that have consistently fought against extending SOLs.
In fact, SOLs on child sex abuse seem to help everyone but the survivors.
All in all, the odds are so stacked against survivors that only 3 percent of rapists ever spend a day in jail. There is a heavy thumb on the scales of justice. It is well-documented. To trot out “but he wasn’t convicted” as definitive proof of innocence of child rape against the backdrop of this system amounts to willful ignorance, a cheap attempt to exploit what should be a sacred tenet of our legal system in an effort to dignify the rape culture myth that says victims are presumed to be lying until proven otherwise in a court of law—and by the way, good luck getting there.
Dylan Farrow’s allegations of sexual abuse by her adoptive father, Woody Allen, merit calm consideration, because the charges give us all a close look at what is wrong with our flawed legal and cultural handling of child sex abuse.
As has been widely reported, the prosecutor who investigated the claims in 1993 says that he had insufficient evidence then, though he did not doubt her story. But those criminal claims are barred now by the statute of limitations.
One can fairly ask: How is that so?
Under the law in 1993, Farrow had until age 20 to file criminal charges against Allen. That legal limit covers her criminal claims — and so, now that she is 28, she is barred. Connecticut extended the statute to age 48 in 2002, but that extension did not apply to criminal acts that occurred before that year.
Many are wondering, I am sure, how, if her allegations are true, it was possible that the prosecutor did not have adequate evidence when this young woman first came forward? Sadly, it happens all the time.
Two factors are at play: actual evidence and the disinclination of prosecutors to go after celebrities except in slam-dunk cases.
When victims come forward as children, there is often inadequate evidence for prosecutors to prove an assault beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no physical evidence unless they come forward far more quickly than most children can.
Victims are instinctively ashamed and confused, but also don’t understand what happened, and often don’t even know that it was wrong. You need a certain level of maturity to comprehend what sex is, and what is appropriate. This is especially true when the perpetrator is a trusted adult.
These crimes are even harder to prove because adults invariably assault children in private. If there are other victims who could corroborate the charges, the child has little chance of knowing it, let alone proving it.
In the 1990s, also, many still assumed that sexual abuse was not a very common crime. The incorrect assumption was that we should all be more concerned with Stranger Danger than with fathers, boyfriends or other relatives.
What more of us know now is that the vast majority of sexual abuse happens at the hands of family or close associates.
Without corroborating evidence, and sometimes even with it, prosecutors do not pursue these cases lightly. There is always a concern about how the child will hold up under questioning, even if the prosecutor is certain the abuse occurred.
Another problem lies in the fact that the prosecutor is an elected official who wants to offend powerful public figures — particularly when they have resources to hire the best attorneys — about as much as vampires love garlic. This is Woody Allen we are talking about; an ordinary prosecutor would want bulletproof evidence, not just evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, to charge him with such heinous crimes.
As always happens when a powerful man is alleged to have sexually abused a child, battle lines have been drawn in the wake of these allegations. On one side is the survivor community, many of whom will tell you they were unable to come forward until adulthood, and that they were shut out of the legal system, too. Many are already on social media declaring they believe Farrow.
On the other side are those who have known Allen for years and either can’t believe it is true, or who don’t want to attack him because of the sway he holds in Hollywood. Either way, there are always adults who will stand up for alleged child sex abusers. This is painful for survivors, but it is invariably what happens in these cases.
And we cannot forget: The American system rightly has enshrined the presumption of innocence as a core value.
As adults, we tend to trust our instincts about people, even when we are told by the experts that those who commit child sex abuse tend to be the “nice guys” whom everyone likes, not the malevolent criminal in a shady minivan. But remember: The former is common; the latter, very rare.
That is how Jerry Sandusky, and the teachers at Horace Mann and Poly Prep, along with scores of priests, rabbis and pastors — not to mention many more family members everywhere — have gotten away with abuse over the centuries. Adults trust adults more than they trust children. On this issue, that is a mistake.
According to the most respectable social science, children rarely concoct child sex abuse stories. It is not that it never happens, but that it is relatively rare. Given that Farrow reported it when she was younger, the social science would back her up. But that is not enough to know with certainty who is telling the truth.
All is not lost in the legal arena for Farrow, though. Under Connecticut law, the statute of limitations for civil claims will not expire for 20 more years. She cannot put Allen behind bars, but she does have the option to seek justice, including civil damages, and, as many victims demand, an apology.
Hamilton holds the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, and is author of “Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children.”
http://i1.wp.com/sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-05-at-9.55.24-AM.png?fit=723%2C864864723SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2014-02-05 14:55:572014-02-05 14:55:57The law vs. child sex abuse victims (NY Daily News)
California educator accused on YouTube of sexual abuse charged with 16 felonies
By Steve Almasy, CNN
updated 12:18 PM EST, Tue February 4, 2014
YouTube vid leads to teacher sex charges
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: There’s no statute of limitations on the most serious charges, DA’s office says
Andrea Cardosa is expected in court on Thursday, could face life in prison if convicted
Authorities say she is the educator accused in a YouTube video of sexual abuse
“Our justice system requires more than a YouTube video,” her attorney says
(CNN) — A California educator who authorities say is the person accused in a YouTube video of sexual abuse by a former student was charged Monday with 16 felony counts of child sex abuse, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office said.
Andrea Michelle Cardosa was charged with five counts of aggravated sexual assault on a child and 11 counts of lewd acts on a child, the DA’s office said.
Cardosa was arrested Monday evening by sheriff’s deputies and is expected to be arraigned Thursday. She faces possible life in prison if convicted of the aggravated sexual assault charges.
Cardosa’s lawyer, Randy Collins, said in a written statement that in the face of “very public claims of abuse,” it would be his task “to see that justice prevails in the midst of the media wildfire.”
Woman confronts alleged sexual abuser
He added, “Fortunately, our justice system requires more than a YouTube video to determine the facts of a case. As we proceed, I am certain that evidence will shed new light on all charges filed by the D.A.’s office against my client.”
Collins said Cardosa was grateful for the “outpouring of support from her family, friends, colleagues, and students during this difficult time.”
Earlier, he said Cardosa’s legal team planned to challenge the filing against the statute of limitations and challenge the bail motion to reduce the amount from $5 million. But John Hall, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said there is no statute of limitations on the most serious charge — aggravated sexual assault on a child under 14.
The second alleged victim, now 18, has filed a complaint accusing the Val Verde Unified School District in Perris, California, of negligence.
David Ring, lawyer for the older woman, said, “She is very gratified that the DA has brought charges against this perpetrator. She hopes justice is done in the criminal case and that Cardosa admits to what she’s done, which she already admitted to in the phone call — that she ruined her childhood.”
Cardosa resigned January 17 from her most recent job as an administrator at Alhambra High School in Southern California after the first accusation was uploaded on YouTube, according to the school district.
The video features the alleged victim on camera and what is said to be the teacher’s voice on a phone conversation. In the video, the teacher can be heard acknowledging the abuse claim.
The first alleged victim said the abuse took place “off and on” for her between the ages of 12 and 18. She said she didn’t come forward as a teenager because the teacher had brainwashed her.
“She told me that my family didn’t love me. She told me that nobody cared about me and that she was the only one that loved me and the only one that was there for me,” she said. “She made me believe that she was my only friend, and that I could trust her.”
The alleged victim said she didn’t want a physical relationship, but she said the teacher threatened her multiple times.
“She said that she would kill herself if I ever left. And I believed that,” the alleged victim said.
CNN first learned of Monday’s charges on Twitter.
http://i2.wp.com/sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-04-at-9.14.13-PM.png?fit=672%2C658658672SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2014-02-05 02:11:552014-02-05 02:15:00California educator accused on YouTube of sexual abuse charged with 16 felonies
LAT had wool pulled over their eyes
Should have read the brief:
1. RFRA did not pass unanimously. It was unanimous consent. Fn xx
2. RFRA does not impose a prior standard but rather makes one up out of whole cloth Pg. xx (Where we
Cite croson)
3. Congress does not have the power to overrule the Supreme Court or to give benefits solely to religious actors.
Let’s have this debate based on facts rather than the religious lobbyists’ talking points.
Marci A. HamiltonPaul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
PHONE: 215-353-8984
FAX: 215-493-1094
E-MAIL: hamilton.marci@gmail.com
February 3, 2014
FOR IN-PERSON DELIVERY/EMAIL SUBMISSION
Hon. Sen. Steve Sodders. Chair
Senate Judiciary Sub Committee
Iowa Statehouse
Des Moines, IA 50319
RE: Iowa S.B. 3112 (extends criminal and civil statute of limitations for child sex abuse to 25 years after majority)
Dear Chairman Senator Sodders:
I commend the Committee for taking up S.B. 3112, which would extend the statute of limitations for civil and criminal actions brought by minor victims of sexual offenses to twenty-five (25) years from majority. Statute of limitations reform is the one tried and true means that will identify the many hidden child predators who are grooming children in Iowa right now. If passed, S.B. 3112 will dramatically improve justice for children who were sexually abused in Iowa.
This bill is a sunshine law for children. There is an epidemic of child sex abuse around the world. At least one in four girls is sexually abused and about one in five boys. Historically, 90% of child victims never go to the authorities and the vast majority of claims expire before the victims are capable of getting to court. Most victims are abused by family or family acquaintances. This bill would protect the children of Iowa by making it possible for victims to come forward and identify their perpetrators in a court of law. Given that most child perpetrators abuse many children over the course of their lives,[1] SOL extension does far more than create justice for today’s victims. It also forestalls future abuse of tomorrow’s children by identifying perpetrators to the public.
By way of introduction, I hold the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, where I specialize in church/state relations and constitutional law. My recent book, Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge University Press 2008, 2012), makes the case for statute of limitations reform in the child sex abuse arena. I am the leading expert on the history and constitutionality of retroactive statutes of limitations with respect to child sex abuse and have advised many child sex abuse victims on constitutional issues, and testified in numerous states where SOL reform is being considered. I also track the SOL movement in all 50 states on my website, www.sol-reform.com.
There are three compelling public purposes served by the removal of SOLs for child sexual abuse:
(1) It identifies previously unknown child predators to the public so
children will not be abused in the future;
(2) It gives child sex abuse survivors a fair chance at justice; and
(3) It cures the injustice wreaked by the current unfairly short statute of
limitations that protect child predators and silence child sex abuse
victims.
I have been involved in statute of limitations reform in numerous states. This is the only tried and true method of identifying the many hidden child predators. As Professor Timothy Lytton has documented, civil tort claims have been the only means by which survivors of clergy abuse have been able to obtain any justice. Timothy Lytton, Holding Bishops Accountable: How Lawsuits Helped the Catholic Church Confront Sexual Abuse (Harvard University Press, 2008).
This is a vibrant national movement to protect our children. Legislative reform for statutes of limitations for child sex abuse victims is on the rise. Criminal SOL elimination has become the norm, with Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and the Territory of Guam having already eliminated their criminal SOL for at least some child sex crimes.[2] Although the 2014 legislative session has just begun, 2013 made more progress in opening up abuse victims’ access to justice in 2013 than at any point in history. Sixteen states introduced bills to increase victims’ access to justice by scaling back the SOLs.[3] In 2013 alone, SOL reform was enacted in Arkansas, where the state eliminated the criminal SOL;[4] Illinois, where the civil and criminal SOLs were eliminated;[5] Vermont, where the SOL was increased for certain sex crimes against children;[6] Nevada, where the criminal statute of limitations was extended;[7] and Minnesota, which removed its SOL for child sexual abuse and enacted a 3-year retroactive civil “window.”[8]
Bills were introduced for at least the second time in Pennsylvania (window; civil and criminal elimination);[9] New Jersey (window and extension of discovery rule);[10] and Massachusetts (civil extension to age 55 with a window).[11] They were also introduced in New York (window; civil and criminal elimination);[12] Missouri (elimination of civil and criminal);[13] Oregon (elimination criminal for certain sex crimes against minors);[14] Washington (extension of criminal to 30);[15] and Wisconsin (elimination of civil with a window).[16]
On the civil side 2013 was a continuation of the progress made in previous years; Hawaii extended its SOL and enacted a 2-year civil “window,” which went into effect in April 2012.[17] Guam’s bill removing the statute of limitations, and creating a two-year “window” was signed into law by Governor Calvo on March 10, 2011.[18] Delaware eliminated both the civil and criminal SOLs and enacted a two-year window, from July 2007 to 2009.[19] Virginia[20] also enacted legislation extending its civil statutes of limitations in 2011, while Florida eliminated the civil statute of limitations for sexual battery of a child in 2010.[21] Minnesota, Illinois, Florida, Guam and Delaware thus join Alaska,[22] Connecticut[23] and Maine,[24] all of which have eliminated their civil statutes of limitations for child sex crimes.
Already, in 2014, Sen. Jim Beall has introduced bills which would extend the civil and criminal SOL in California[25] and Assemblywoman Markey has reintroduced her bill to eliminate the SOL and create a 1 year civil “window” in New York.[26]
SOL reform has very few detractors other than the Roman Catholic bishops, who have misleadingly argued that reform is unconstitutional on the theory that it “targets” the Church. SOL reform does not target any particular perpetrator or organization. Indeed, the majority of victims are victims of incest. A federal trial court in the Ninth Circuit persuasively upheld the first California window against such an argument. See Melanie H. v. Defendant Doe, No. 04-1596-WQH-(WMc), slip op. (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005).
Child sex abuse victims suffer from many negative effects.[27] Researchers in various studies have found — specifically in men who were sexually abused as children– that long-term adaptation will often include sexual problems, dysfunctions or compulsions, confusion and struggles over gender and sexual identity, homophobia and confusion about sexual orientation, problems with intimacy, shame, guilt and self-blame, low self-esteem and negative self images and increased anger. There is also an increased rate of substance abuse, a tendency to deny and de-legitimize the traumatic experience, symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and increased probability of fear and depression.
Hundreds of research studies have shown conclusively that sexual abuse can alter a child’s physical, emotional, cognitive and social development and impact their physical and mental health throughout his or her lifetime. A 2002 study looked at same sex twin pairs where one of the twins was sexually abused as a child and one was not.[28] According to the study, a person with a history of childhood sexual abuse has an increased risk of the following: major depression, suicide attempt, conduct disorders, alcohol and/or nicotine dependence, social anxiety, rape after the age of 18 years old, and, divorce. [29]
Typically, it takes years for the victim to suffer these negative outcomes:
Some of the effects of sexual abuse do not become apparent until the victim is an adult and a major life event, such as marriage or birth of a child, takes place. Therefore, a child who seemed unharmed by childhood abuse can develop crippling symptoms years later. . . .[30]
Iowa pays the price of abuse in several ways. First, the state suffers from reduced productivity from victims, because they have been disabled by the abuse. To the extent that they are not made whole, they are producing less tax-generating income. The fact that Iowa shuts off prosecution and civil claims before victims are ready to come forward means that many victims have no chance to achieve justice and, therefore, are more likely to suffer serious depression and illness. Second, Iowa bears the cost of divorces, broken homes, and suffering children, which are a sadly prevalent fact in many survivors’ lives. This creates a drag on local school districts that must provide counseling and guidance for troubled youth, the state agencies that deal with troubled families, and local authorities. Third, the survivors’ medical bills generated by the abuse, whether psychological or physical, are likely to have to be subsidized by state and federal medical programs and funds.
Once again, I applaud you and the Committee for considering this legislation which will help childhood sexual abuse victims. Iowa’s children deserve the passage of statute of limitations reform to protect children today and in the future, and to achieve justice for the many victims suffering in silence. S.B. 3112 represents a huge step forward for Iowa’s children.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions regarding statute of limitations reform, or if I can be of assistance in any other way.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
[1] Kenneth V. Lanning, Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis 10, 52 (5th ed. 2010) available at http://www.cybertipline.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf. (“Except for child prostitution, most sexual-exploitation-of-children cases in the United States involve acquaintance molesters who rarely use physical force on their victims. . . . Although a variety of individuals sexually abuse children, preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children. A preferential-acquaintance child molester might molest 10, 50, hundreds, or even thousands of children in a lifetime, depending on the offender and how broadly or narrowly child molestation is defined. Although pedophiles vary greatly, their sexual behavior is repetitive and highly predictable.”)
[2] Ala. Code § 15-3-1; Alaska Stat. § 12.10.010, Alaska Stat. §11.41.427; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-107; Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-5-401; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-193(a); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 § 205(e); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.15(13); Ga. Code Ann. §17-3-1(d); Idaho Code §19-401; Ind. Code § 35-41-4-2; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 500.050; La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 571; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A § 8; Clark v. State, 774 A.2d 1136, 1144 n.8 (Md. 2001); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 277, § 63; Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.24(1); Minn. Stat. § 628.26(e)-(f); Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49; Mo Rev. Stat. § 556.036(1); Neb. Rev. St. § 29-110; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-8; N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10(2); State v. Johnson, 167 S.E.2d 274, 279 (N.C. 1969) (“In this State no statute of limitations bars the prosecution of a felony”); R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-12-17(a); S.C. Judicial Dep’t, Summary Court Judges Bench Book, Criminal(A)(2) (2000-2013) (“South Carolina does not have a general statute of limitations for criminal actions”), http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/CriminalA.htm; S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-42-1; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., art. 12.01; Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-301; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 4501; Comm. v. Gouge, 1983 WL 210243, at *1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Feb. 24, 1983) (noting “the crime charged was a felony for which there was no statute of limitations”); W. Va. Code § 61-11-9 (felonies other than perjury not mentioned in enumerated list); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 939.74; Boggs v. State, 484 P.2d 711, 714 (Wyo. 1971) (“Wyoming has no statute of limitations as to the commencement of criminal proceedings”); Guam P.L. 31-06 & 31-07.
[3] Marci A. Hamilton, 2013: The Year in Review for Child Sex Abuse Victims’ Access to Justice, Justia
[17] Hawaii Act 068 (12), formerly S.B. 2588, 2012 Leg. Sess. (Haw. 2012) (enacted April 24, 2012) (extended and tolls statute of limitations for civil actions brought by minor victims of sexual offenses; and reviving via a civil “window” for two (2) years some actions for which the statute of limitations had previously lapsed).
[18] Bills No. B033 & B034-31(COR), Acts To Amend § 11306 Of Article 3, Chapter 11, Title 7 Of The Guam Code Annotated; Relative To The Statute Of Limitations For Civil Actions Involving Child Sexual Abuse, removing the statute of limitations and establishing a two-year window of opportunity for child sex abuse victims whose claims have expired under the Guam statute of limitations to bring their civil claims, now Public Laws No. 31-06 & 31-07 (2011); Erin Thompson, Sex Abuse Bills Now Public Law, Pacific Daily News (Mar. 10, 2011), available at http://www.guampdn.com/article/20110310/NEWS01/103100301/Sex-abuse-bills-now-public-law.
[19] Del. Code Ann. 10 § 8145 (a)-(b) (2007) (civil); 11 Del. Code Ann. 11 § 205 (criminal).
[20] Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(D) (2011), formerly H.B. 1476, 2011 Gen. Assemb., 2011 Reg. Sess., (enacted) (extending the limitations period for actions for sexual abuse committed during the infancy or incapacity of the abused person from two years to 20 years from the time of the removal of the infancy or incapacity or from the time the cause of action otherwise accrues).
[21] Fla. Stat. Ann. § 95.11(9) (2010) (enacted) (eliminating statute of limitations for sexual battery if victim was under 16 years old, for claims not barred as of July 2010).
[22] Alaska Stat. § 09.10.065 (no SOL for claims arising out of for felony sex abuse/assault of minor, felony exploitation of minor).
[23] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577e (no SOL if events forming the civil claim led to conviction for first-degree aggravated sexual or sexual assault).
[24] Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 752-C (1) (no SOL for any actions based on sex acts against minors).
[25] California Senate Bill 926 and Senate Bill 924, 2013- 2014 Reg. Sess. (Ca. 2014), available at, http://sol-reform.com/News/california/#pending . See also, “Senator Beall Calls for Giving Victims More Time to Seek Prosecution or File a Lawsuit,” Website of Sen. Jim Beall (D-CA15) (Jan. 29, 2014), http://sd15.senate.ca.gov/news/2014-01-29-senator-beall-calls-giving-victims-more-time-seek-prosecution-or-file-lawsuit (“Senate Bill 926 would reform the criminal statute of limitations by raising the age at which an adult survivor of childhood sex abuse can seek prosecution from 28 to 40 years. The bill would affect sex crimes against children including lewd and lascivious acts, continuous sexual abuse of a child, and other offenses. The bill has co-authors from both parties. A second bill, SB 924, proposes to reform the two standards that now govern the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits by:
• Increasing the age deadline to file to 40 years old from 26. This existing deadline is currently used when the victim makes his or her causal connection to their trauma before they reach their 26th birthday.
• Increasing the time from the date of discovery of their trauma to child sex abuse to five years from the current standard of three years. Additionally, it stipulates the five-year period starts when a physician, psychologist, or clinical psychologist first informs the victim of the link between their adult psychological injures and the abuse”).
[27] Elliot Nelson et. al., Association Between Self-reported Childhood Sexual Abuse and Adverse Psychosocial Outcomes: Results From a Twin Study, 59(2) Archives of General Psychiatry, 139, 139-45 (2002).
http://i0.wp.com/sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-04-at-4.40.09-PM-e1394233414404.png?fit=200%2C177177200SOL Reformhttp://sol-reform.com/News/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hamilton-Logo.jpgSOL Reform2014-02-04 21:43:242015-02-03 00:43:06Professor Marci A. Hamilton Testimony in favor of Iowa SB 3112 (SF 2109)
When ‘He Wasn’t Convicted’ Doesn’t Mean ‘Innocent’
/in Connecticut, New York /by SOL Reformhttp://rhrealitycheck.org/
When ‘He Wasn’t Convicted’ Doesn’t Mean ‘Innocent’
February 5, 2014 – 9:05 am
After decades of silence, Dylan Farrow, the adopted daughter of actress and activist Mia Farrow and director Woody Allen, has stepped forward to publicly assert that Allen sexually assaulted her when she was 7 years old. The
assault came after what she describes as a number of disturbing behaviors that sound like grooming, a term for the process predators use to initiate an abusive dynamic with victims, to encourage secrecy and test how much abuse they can get away with disguising as love. For instance, Dylan wrote of Allen putting his thumb in her mouth, of resting his head in her naked lap, and making her get under the covers with him while he was in his underwear.In an open letter published on a New York Times blog, Dylan wrote of a childhood spent frightened and silent and hiding in small, dark spaces, under beds and in closets, trying to avoid her alleged assailant. “He always found me,” she wrote.
It’s a dangerous situation to turn a particular case into a metaphor for a typical case, but as so often happens when recognizable names publicly wrestle with contentious issues, the Farrow-Allen dynamic is now a divisive flashpoint. For
many, Dylan has become a symbol—a stand-in speaking the rage of countless victims of childhood sexual abuse who never saw justice, whileAllen’s the stand-in for every abuser who ever got away with it.There are way too many people represented on both sides of that equation. Imagine any other violent crime where so few survivors
saw justice. It’s not an accident, though. It is, in part, by design.It’s obviously not my place to say if Woody Allen is guilty or not. But when the charge is child sex abuse, “he wasn’t convicted” hardly means “innocent.” Our criminal justice system may be based on the presumption of innocence in the absence of contrary evidence in court, it’s also built with laws designed to stop childhood sexual abuse victims from getting into a courtroom.
Historically, statutes of limitation (SOLs) on childhood sex abuse, the parameters for how long a victim has before criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit, have been set so short that by the time an abused child becomes an adult, the option is gone.
Under Connecticut law, children assaulted in 1992, the same year
that Dylan Farrow says she was abused by Allen, had seven years from the time of the assault, or two years after turning 18, whichever is shorter. (Farrow and Allen were in Connecticut at the time she says she was assaulted.)A 7-year-old, as Farrow was, had until age 14 to pursue a court case.
How many 14-year-old kids do you know who would be able to not only recognize abuse that has been packaged as love, but be ready for the fallout?
Getting to that point is a psychologically and emotionally difficult process that often takes years—decades, even. In many cases, it’s simply logistically impossible for a survivor to pursue a legal case.
In 2002, Connecticut’s SOL had been
extended, reflecting the trend across the country ofdragging out, or even abolishing, statutes to reflect what we are learning about how survivors process trauma. (Check your state law here.)We now know, for example, that childhood victims of sexual abuse often don’t inform authorities, or anyone, about their abuse for years, especially when the abuser is a well-respected authority figure or family member.
We know, too, that children most scared of the consequences of reporting their abuse sometimes deny or recant their story, and that doesn’t mean they’re lying. A study that examined 250 cases of substantiated sexual abuse found that approximately 25 percent of the children recanted at some point, and the kids most likely to waver were the ones abused by a family member.
We also know that many victims don’t disclose childhood abuse at all until adulthood, when they first experience
the tentacles of that monster reaching out to destroy relationships because they can’t trust, and destroy their bodies because they self-medicate with alcohol or drugs as they discover that commanding themselves to “get over it” doesn’t work, no matter how hard they try.Sometimes it “clicks” after a triggering event, such as a friend’s revelation, or a big story like the Jerry Sandusky or Jimmy Savile case. Or, as Dylan wrote, when your assailant is so rich and famous and beloved that the world routinely stands up and claps for him at ceremoniesthat he doesn’t deign to attend—all after marrying your adopted sister.
Even though SOLs have been extending, they don’t apply retroactively, so they will most benefit future victims. In general, the law that existed during your abuse is the law that applies to your case. Just last August, for example, charges filed against a Connecticut school psychologist accused of sexually assaulting a middle-school boy were abruptly dismissed once the court learned the alleged rapes took place in 2000 and 2001, before the statute granted victims the right to come forward up to age 50.
In that case, as with all survivors who discover they’ve run down a clock they didn’t know was ticking, the boy has suffered because of both his assailant and the special interests that have consistently fought against extending SOLs.
Who would fight against justice in this way? Well, besides Hollywood’s elite, the Roman Catholic Church.
The reasons come with a lot of zeroes at the end: It’s no wonder, for example, that the Catholic Church has been fighting SOL reform in Pennsylvania, given the forthcoming civil suits from the sex abuse crisis and the fact that not one priest identified in the 2005 grand jury reporting investigating the Philadelphia archdiocese was prosecuted, all thanks to SOLs. SOLs helped Sandusky as well.
In fact, SOLs on child sex abuse seem to help everyone but the survivors
.All in all, the odds are so stacked against survivors that only 3 percent of rapists ever spend a day in jail. There is a heavy thumb on the scales of justice. It is well-documented. To trot out “but he wasn’t convicted” as definitive proof of innocence of child rape against the backdrop of this system amounts to willful ignorance, a cheap attempt to exploit what should be a sacred tenet of our legal system in an effort to dignify the rape culture myth that says victims are presumed to be lying until proven otherwise in a court of law—and by the way, good luck getting there.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/
The law vs. child sex abuse victims (NY Daily News)
/in Connecticut, New York /by SOL ReformThe law vs. child sex abuse victims
We don’t know whether Dylan Farrow is telling the truth about Woody Allen, but we do know that the cards are stacked against survivors
BY MARCI A. HAMILTON / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2014, 4:30 AM
As has been widely reported, the prosecutor who investigated the claims in 1993 says that he had insufficient evidence then, though he did not doubt her story. But those criminal claims are barred now by the statute of limitations.
One can fairly ask: How is that so?
Under the law in 1993, Farrow had until age 20 to file criminal charges against Allen. That legal limit covers her criminal claims — and so, now that she is 28, she is barred. Connecticut extended the statute to age 48 in 2002, but that extension did not apply to criminal acts that occurred before that year.
Many are wondering, I am sure, how, if her allegations are true, it was possible that the prosecutor did not have adequate evidence when this young woman first came forward? Sadly, it happens all the time.
Two factors are at play: actual evidence and the disinclination of prosecutors to go after celebrities except in slam-dunk cases.
When victims come forward as children, there is often inadequate evidence for prosecutors to prove an assault beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no physical evidence unless they come forward far more quickly than most children can.
Victims are instinctively ashamed and confused, but also don’t understand what happened, and often don’t even know that it was wrong. You need a certain level of maturity to comprehend what sex is, and what is appropriate. This is especially true when the perpetrator is a trusted adult.
These crimes are even harder to prove because adults invariably assault children in private. If there are other victims who could corroborate the charges, the child has little chance of knowing it, let alone proving it.
In the 1990s, also, many still assumed that sexual abuse was not a very common crime. The incorrect assumption was that we should all be more concerned with Stranger Danger than with fathers, boyfriends or other relatives.
What more of us know now is that the vast majority of sexual abuse happens at the hands of family or close associates.
Without corroborating evidence, and sometimes even with it, prosecutors do not pursue these cases lightly. There is always a concern about how the child will hold up under questioning, even if the prosecutor is certain the abuse occurred.
Another problem lies in the fact that the prosecutor is an elected official who wants to offend powerful public figures — particularly when they have resources to hire the best attorneys — about as much as vampires love garlic. This is Woody Allen we are talking about; an ordinary prosecutor would want bulletproof evidence, not just evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, to charge him with such heinous crimes.
As always happens when a powerful man is alleged to have sexually abused a child, battle lines have been drawn in the wake of these allegations. On one side is the survivor community, many of whom will tell you they were unable to come forward until adulthood, and that they were shut out of the legal system, too. Many are already on social media declaring they believe Farrow.
On the other side are those who have known Allen for years and either can’t believe it is true, or who don’t want to attack him because of the sway he holds in Hollywood. Either way, there are always adults who will stand up for alleged child sex abusers. This is painful for survivors, but it is invariably what happens in these cases.
And we cannot forget: The American system rightly has enshrined the presumption of innocence as a core value.
As adults, we tend to trust our instincts about people, even when we are told by the experts that those who commit child sex abuse tend to be the “nice guys” whom everyone likes, not the malevolent criminal in a shady minivan. But remember: The former is common; the latter, very rare.
That is how Jerry Sandusky, and the teachers at Horace Mann and Poly Prep, along with scores of priests, rabbis and pastors — not to mention many more family members everywhere — have gotten away with abuse over the centuries. Adults trust adults more than they trust children. On this issue, that is a mistake.
According to the most respectable social science, children rarely concoct child sex abuse stories. It is not that it never happens, but that it is relatively rare. Given that Farrow reported it when she was younger, the social science would back her up. But that is not enough to know with certainty who is telling the truth.
All is not lost in the legal arena for Farrow, though. Under Connecticut law, the statute of limitations for civil claims will not expire for 20 more years. She cannot put Allen behind bars, but she does have the option to seek justice, including civil damages, and, as many victims demand, an apology.
Hamilton holds the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, and is author of “Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children.”
POST A COMMENT »
California educator accused on YouTube of sexual abuse charged with 16 felonies
/in California /by SOL ReformProfessor Marci A. Hamilton: “Of course she is raising SOL! Typical defense on technicality in child sex abuse cases….”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/
California educator accused on YouTube of sexual abuse charged with 16 felonies
YouTube vid leads to teacher sex charges
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
(CNN) — A California educator who authorities say is the person accused in a YouTube video of sexual abuse by a former student was charged Monday with 16 felony counts of child sex abuse, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office said.
Andrea Michelle Cardosa was charged with five counts of aggravated sexual assault on a child and 11 counts of lewd acts on a child, the DA’s office said.
Cardosa was arrested Monday evening by sheriff’s deputies and is expected to be arraigned Thursday. She faces possible life in prison if convicted of the aggravated sexual assault charges.
Cardosa’s lawyer, Randy Collins, said in a written statement that in the face of “very public claims of abuse,” it would be his task “to see that justice prevails in the midst of the media wildfire.”
He added, “Fortunately, our justice system requires more than a YouTube video to determine the facts of a case. As we proceed, I am certain that evidence will shed new light on all charges filed by the D.A.’s office against my client.”
Collins said Cardosa was grateful for the “outpouring of support from her family, friends, colleagues, and students during this difficult time.”
Earlier, he said Cardosa’s legal team planned to challenge the filing against the statute of limitations and challenge the bail motion to reduce the amount from $5 million. But John Hall, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said there is no statute of limitations on the most serious charge — aggravated sexual assault on a child under 14.
Two women have come forward in connection with the case. The first woman, now 28, posted a YouTube video in which she accused the educator of abusing her at age 12.
The second alleged victim, now 18, has filed a complaint accusing the Val Verde Unified School District in Perris, California, of negligence.
David Ring, lawyer for the older woman, said, “She is very gratified that the DA has brought charges against this perpetrator. She hopes justice is done in the criminal case and that Cardosa admits to what she’s done, which she already admitted to in the phone call — that she ruined her childhood.”
Cardosa resigned January 17 from her most recent job as an administrator at Alhambra High School in Southern California after the first accusation was uploaded on YouTube, according to the school district.
The video features the alleged victim on camera and what is said to be the teacher’s voice on a phone conversation. In the video, the teacher can be heard acknowledging the abuse claim.
The first alleged victim said the abuse took place “off and on” for her between the ages of 12 and 18. She said she didn’t come forward as a teenager because the teacher had brainwashed her.
“She told me that my family didn’t love me. She told me that nobody cared about me and that she was the only one that loved me and the only one that was there for me,” she said. “She made me believe that she was my only friend, and that I could trust her.”
The alleged victim said she didn’t want a physical relationship, but she said the teacher threatened her multiple times.
“She said that she would kill herself if I ever left. And I believed that,” the alleged victim said.
CNN first learned of Monday’s charges on Twitter.
National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence Newsletter
/in California /by SOL ReformMore on CA SOL Reform!
National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence Newsletter
LAT had wool pulled over their eyes
Should have read the brief:
1. RFRA did not pass unanimously. It was unanimous consent. Fn xx
2. RFRA does not impose a prior standard but rather makes one up out of whole cloth Pg. xx (Where we
Cite croson)
3. Congress does not have the power to overrule the Supreme Court or to give benefits solely to religious actors.
Let’s have this debate based on facts rather than the religious lobbyists’ talking points.
Thanks!
http://touch.latimes.com/#
Professor Marci A. Hamilton Testimony in favor of Iowa SB 3112 (SF 2109)
/in Civil Extension Testimony, Iowa, Iowa Testimony, Testimony, Testimony: Iowa /by SOL Reform02/10/14: View updated Professor Hamilton Testimony to reflect bill name change from SB 3112 to SF 2109
View/Save PDF: Iowa SB 3112 Testimony
PHONE: 215-353-8984
FAX: 215-493-1094
E-MAIL: hamilton.marci@gmail.com
February 3, 2014
FOR IN-PERSON DELIVERY/EMAIL SUBMISSION
Hon. Sen. Steve Sodders. Chair
Senate Judiciary Sub Committee
Iowa Statehouse
Des Moines, IA 50319
RE: Iowa S.B. 3112 (extends criminal and civil statute of limitations for child sex abuse to 25 years after majority)
Dear Chairman Senator Sodders:
I commend the Committee for taking up S.B. 3112, which would extend the statute of limitations for civil and criminal actions brought by minor victims of sexual offenses to twenty-five (25) years from majority. Statute of limitations reform is the one tried and true means that will identify the many hidden child predators who are grooming children in Iowa right now. If passed, S.B. 3112 will dramatically improve justice for children who were sexually abused in Iowa.
This bill is a sunshine law for children. There is an epidemic of child sex abuse around the world. At least one in four girls is sexually abused and about one in five boys. Historically, 90% of child victims never go to the authorities and the vast majority of claims expire before the victims are capable of getting to court. Most victims are abused by family or family acquaintances. This bill would protect the children of Iowa by making it possible for victims to come forward and identify their perpetrators in a court of law. Given that most child perpetrators abuse many children over the course of their lives,[1] SOL extension does far more than create justice for today’s victims. It also forestalls future abuse of tomorrow’s children by identifying perpetrators to the public.
By way of introduction, I hold the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, where I specialize in church/state relations and constitutional law. My recent book, Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge University Press 2008, 2012), makes the case for statute of limitations reform in the child sex abuse arena. I am the leading expert on the history and constitutionality of retroactive statutes of limitations with respect to child sex abuse and have advised many child sex abuse victims on constitutional issues, and testified in numerous states where SOL reform is being considered. I also track the SOL movement in all 50 states on my website, www.sol-reform.com.
There are three compelling public purposes served by the removal of SOLs for child sexual abuse:
(1) It identifies previously unknown child predators to the public so
children will not be abused in the future;
(2) It gives child sex abuse survivors a fair chance at justice; and
(3) It cures the injustice wreaked by the current unfairly short statute of
limitations that protect child predators and silence child sex abuse
victims.
I have been involved in statute of limitations reform in numerous states. This is the only tried and true method of identifying the many hidden child predators. As Professor Timothy Lytton has documented, civil tort claims have been the only means by which survivors of clergy abuse have been able to obtain any justice. Timothy Lytton, Holding Bishops Accountable: How Lawsuits Helped the Catholic Church Confront Sexual Abuse (Harvard University Press, 2008).
This is a vibrant national movement to protect our children. Legislative reform for statutes of limitations for child sex abuse victims is on the rise. Criminal SOL elimination has become the norm, with Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and the Territory of Guam having already eliminated their criminal SOL for at least some child sex crimes.[2] Although the 2014 legislative session has just begun, 2013 made more progress in opening up abuse victims’ access to justice in 2013 than at any point in history. Sixteen states introduced bills to increase victims’ access to justice by scaling back the SOLs.[3] In 2013 alone, SOL reform was enacted in Arkansas, where the state eliminated the criminal SOL;[4] Illinois, where the civil and criminal SOLs were eliminated;[5] Vermont, where the SOL was increased for certain sex crimes against children;[6] Nevada, where the criminal statute of limitations was extended;[7] and Minnesota, which removed its SOL for child sexual abuse and enacted a 3-year retroactive civil “window.”[8]
Bills were introduced for at least the second time in Pennsylvania (window; civil and criminal elimination);[9] New Jersey (window and extension of discovery rule);[10] and Massachusetts (civil extension to age 55 with a window).[11] They were also introduced in New York (window; civil and criminal elimination);[12] Missouri (elimination of civil and criminal);[13] Oregon (elimination criminal for certain sex crimes against minors);[14] Washington (extension of criminal to 30);[15] and Wisconsin (elimination of civil with a window).[16]
On the civil side 2013 was a continuation of the progress made in previous years; Hawaii extended its SOL and enacted a 2-year civil “window,” which went into effect in April 2012.[17] Guam’s bill removing the statute of limitations, and creating a two-year “window” was signed into law by Governor Calvo on March 10, 2011.[18] Delaware eliminated both the civil and criminal SOLs and enacted a two-year window, from July 2007 to 2009.[19] Virginia[20] also enacted legislation extending its civil statutes of limitations in 2011, while Florida eliminated the civil statute of limitations for sexual battery of a child in 2010.[21] Minnesota, Illinois, Florida, Guam and Delaware thus join Alaska,[22] Connecticut[23] and Maine,[24] all of which have eliminated their civil statutes of limitations for child sex crimes.
Already, in 2014, Sen. Jim Beall has introduced bills which would extend the civil and criminal SOL in California[25] and Assemblywoman Markey has reintroduced her bill to eliminate the SOL and create a 1 year civil “window” in New York.[26]
SOL reform has very few detractors other than the Roman Catholic bishops, who have misleadingly argued that reform is unconstitutional on the theory that it “targets” the Church. SOL reform does not target any particular perpetrator or organization. Indeed, the majority of victims are victims of incest. A federal trial court in the Ninth Circuit persuasively upheld the first California window against such an argument. See Melanie H. v. Defendant Doe, No. 04-1596-WQH-(WMc), slip op. (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005).
Child sex abuse victims suffer from many negative effects.[27] Researchers in various studies have found — specifically in men who were sexually abused as children– that long-term adaptation will often include sexual problems, dysfunctions or compulsions, confusion and struggles over gender and sexual identity, homophobia and confusion about sexual orientation, problems with intimacy, shame, guilt and self-blame, low self-esteem and negative self images and increased anger. There is also an increased rate of substance abuse, a tendency to deny and de-legitimize the traumatic experience, symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and increased probability of fear and depression.
Hundreds of research studies have shown conclusively that sexual abuse can alter a child’s physical, emotional, cognitive and social development and impact their physical and mental health throughout his or her lifetime. A 2002 study looked at same sex twin pairs where one of the twins was sexually abused as a child and one was not.[28] According to the study, a person with a history of childhood sexual abuse has an increased risk of the following: major depression, suicide attempt, conduct disorders, alcohol and/or nicotine dependence, social anxiety, rape after the age of 18 years old, and, divorce. [29]
Typically, it takes years for the victim to suffer these negative outcomes:
Some of the effects of sexual abuse do not become apparent until the victim is an adult and a major life event, such as marriage or birth of a child, takes place. Therefore, a child who seemed unharmed by childhood abuse can develop crippling symptoms years later. . . .[30]
Iowa pays the price of abuse in several ways. First, the state suffers from reduced productivity from victims, because they have been disabled by the abuse. To the extent that they are not made whole, they are producing less tax-generating income. The fact that Iowa shuts off prosecution and civil claims before victims are ready to come forward means that many victims have no chance to achieve justice and, therefore, are more likely to suffer serious depression and illness. Second, Iowa bears the cost of divorces, broken homes, and suffering children, which are a sadly prevalent fact in many survivors’ lives. This creates a drag on local school districts that must provide counseling and guidance for troubled youth, the state agencies that deal with troubled families, and local authorities. Third, the survivors’ medical bills generated by the abuse, whether psychological or physical, are likely to have to be subsidized by state and federal medical programs and funds.
Once again, I applaud you and the Committee for considering this legislation which will help childhood sexual abuse victims. Iowa’s children deserve the passage of statute of limitations reform to protect children today and in the future, and to achieve justice for the many victims suffering in silence. S.B. 3112 represents a huge step forward for Iowa’s children.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions regarding statute of limitations reform, or if I can be of assistance in any other way.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
[1] Kenneth V. Lanning, Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis 10, 52 (5th ed. 2010) available at http://www.cybertipline.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf. (“Except for child prostitution, most sexual-exploitation-of-children cases in the United States involve acquaintance molesters who rarely use physical force on their victims. . . . Although a variety of individuals sexually abuse children, preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children. A preferential-acquaintance child molester might molest 10, 50, hundreds, or even thousands of children in a lifetime, depending on the offender and how broadly or narrowly child molestation is defined. Although pedophiles vary greatly, their sexual behavior is repetitive and highly predictable.”)
[2] Ala. Code § 15-3-1; Alaska Stat. § 12.10.010, Alaska Stat. §11.41.427; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-107; Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-5-401; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-193(a); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 § 205(e); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.15(13); Ga. Code Ann. §17-3-1(d); Idaho Code §19-401; Ind. Code § 35-41-4-2; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 500.050; La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 571; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A § 8; Clark v. State, 774 A.2d 1136, 1144 n.8 (Md. 2001); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 277, § 63; Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.24(1); Minn. Stat. § 628.26(e)-(f); Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49; Mo Rev. Stat. § 556.036(1); Neb. Rev. St. § 29-110; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-8; N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10(2); State v. Johnson, 167 S.E.2d 274, 279 (N.C. 1969) (“In this State no statute of limitations bars the prosecution of a felony”); R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-12-17(a); S.C. Judicial Dep’t, Summary Court Judges Bench Book, Criminal(A)(2) (2000-2013) (“South Carolina does not have a general statute of limitations for criminal actions”), http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/CriminalA.htm; S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-42-1; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., art. 12.01; Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-301; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 4501; Comm. v. Gouge, 1983 WL 210243, at *1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Feb. 24, 1983) (noting “the crime charged was a felony for which there was no statute of limitations”); W. Va. Code § 61-11-9 (felonies other than perjury not mentioned in enumerated list); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 939.74; Boggs v. State, 484 P.2d 711, 714 (Wyo. 1971) (“Wyoming has no statute of limitations as to the commencement of criminal proceedings”); Guam P.L. 31-06 & 31-07.
[3] Marci A. Hamilton, 2013: The Year in Review for Child Sex Abuse Victims’ Access to Justice, Justia
(Jan. 9, 2014), http://verdict.justia.com/2014/01/09/2013-year-review-child-sex-abuse-victims-access-justice
[4] S.B. 92, 2013 Gen. Assemb., 89th Gen. Assem. (Ark. 2013) (enacted 2013).
[5] H.B. 1063, 98th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ill. 2013); S.B. 1399, 98th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ill. 2013).
[6] S.B. 20, 2013, Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Vt. 2013) (enacted 2013).
[7] S.B. 103, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Nev. 2013) (enacted 2013).
[8] Minnesota Child Victims Act, 2012 Minn. Stat. § 541.073 (formerly, S.B. 534 & H.B. 681) (Minn. 2013).
[9] H.B. 237, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2013); H.B. 238, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2013).
[10] S.B. 2281, 215th Leg., 1st Ann. Sess. (N.J. 2012).
[11] H.B. 1455, 188th Gen. Ct., Reg. Sess. (Mass. 2013); S.B. 633, 188th Gen. Ct., Reg. Sess. (Mass. 2013).
[12] Assemb. A01771, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2013).
[13] H.B. 247, 2013 Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2013).
[14] H.B. 3284, 77th Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2013).
[15] S.B. 5100, 63rd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2013).
[16] S.B. 225, 101st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wis. 2013).
[17] Hawaii Act 068 (12), formerly S.B. 2588, 2012 Leg. Sess. (Haw. 2012) (enacted April 24, 2012) (extended and tolls statute of limitations for civil actions brought by minor victims of sexual offenses; and reviving via a civil “window” for two (2) years some actions for which the statute of limitations had previously lapsed).
[18] Bills No. B033 & B034-31(COR), Acts To Amend § 11306 Of Article 3, Chapter 11, Title 7 Of The Guam Code Annotated; Relative To The Statute Of Limitations For Civil Actions Involving Child Sexual Abuse, removing the statute of limitations and establishing a two-year window of opportunity for child sex abuse victims whose claims have expired under the Guam statute of limitations to bring their civil claims, now Public Laws No. 31-06 & 31-07 (2011); Erin Thompson, Sex Abuse Bills Now Public Law, Pacific Daily News (Mar. 10, 2011), available at http://www.guampdn.com/article/20110310/NEWS01/103100301/Sex-abuse-bills-now-public-law.
[19] Del. Code Ann. 10 § 8145 (a)-(b) (2007) (civil); 11 Del. Code Ann. 11 § 205 (criminal).
[20] Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(D) (2011), formerly H.B. 1476, 2011 Gen. Assemb., 2011 Reg. Sess., (enacted) (extending the limitations period for actions for sexual abuse committed during the infancy or incapacity of the abused person from two years to 20 years from the time of the removal of the infancy or incapacity or from the time the cause of action otherwise accrues).
[21] Fla. Stat. Ann. § 95.11(9) (2010) (enacted) (eliminating statute of limitations for sexual battery if victim was under 16 years old, for claims not barred as of July 2010).
[22] Alaska Stat. § 09.10.065 (no SOL for claims arising out of for felony sex abuse/assault of minor, felony exploitation of minor).
[23] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577e (no SOL if events forming the civil claim led to conviction for first-degree aggravated sexual or sexual assault).
[24] Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 752-C (1) (no SOL for any actions based on sex acts against minors).
[25] California Senate Bill 926 and Senate Bill 924, 2013- 2014 Reg. Sess. (Ca. 2014), available at, http://sol-reform.com/News/california/#pending . See also, “Senator Beall Calls for Giving Victims More Time to Seek Prosecution or File a Lawsuit,” Website of Sen. Jim Beall (D-CA15) (Jan. 29, 2014), http://sd15.senate.ca.gov/news/2014-01-29-senator-beall-calls-giving-victims-more-time-seek-prosecution-or-file-lawsuit (“Senate Bill 926 would reform the criminal statute of limitations by raising the age at which an adult survivor of childhood sex abuse can seek prosecution from 28 to 40 years. The bill would affect sex crimes against children including lewd and lascivious acts, continuous sexual abuse of a child, and other offenses. The bill has co-authors from both parties. A second bill, SB 924, proposes to reform the two standards that now govern the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits by:
• Increasing the age deadline to file to 40 years old from 26. This existing deadline is currently used when the victim makes his or her causal connection to their trauma before they reach their 26th birthday.
• Increasing the time from the date of discovery of their trauma to child sex abuse to five years from the current standard of three years. Additionally, it stipulates the five-year period starts when a physician, psychologist, or clinical psychologist first informs the victim of the link between their adult psychological injures and the abuse”).
[26] New York Child Victims Act, Assemb. A01771, 2014 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2014), available at http://sol-reform.com/News/new-york/#pending .
[27] Elliot Nelson et. al., Association Between Self-reported Childhood Sexual Abuse and Adverse Psychosocial Outcomes: Results From a Twin Study, 59(2) Archives of General Psychiatry, 139, 139-45 (2002).
[28] Id. at 139-44.
[29] Id. at 142.
[30] Mic Hunter, Psy.D., Abused Boys, 59 (1991).