May 19, 2006

Rape is a vicious crime. But in New York State, the statute of limitations for rape is only five years.   This was intended to bar delayed prosecution based on disappearing witnesses, recovered memories, the latter-day desire for revenge, or disputable issues of consent arising long after the event..
 
But science has changed the playing field.  DNA evidence is now available that is enormously helpful in rape cases.  According to the Post’s Ken Lovett, there are 332 men whose DNA has been collected but cannot be used because the crimes they committed occurred more than five years ago.
 
The case for extending the statute of limitations for rape would appear to be overwhelming.  Yet the bill is tied up because the Speaker of the Assembly wants to include a provision which would also lengthen the time available for civil lawsuits.   The Senate will not agree to extend the statute for tort claims.  These cases could be against the rapist, who is probably poor and judgment-proof, or against the owner of the location  where the alleged rape took place, or a government agency or employer of security guards or anyone else who can be connected to the case who has deep pockets, possibly filled with your tax dollars.
 
We are not among the Speaker's ardent admirers, and we sadly remind you that this week is the seventh anniversary of New York City's own day of infamy (May 17, 1999) when the Assembly, at Mr. Silver's direction, repealed the commuter tax, a decision that has so far cost the City of New York at least three billion dollars.

It is true that Mr. Pataki and Mr. Bruno gleefully concurred in the decision to repeal the 0.45% tax on income earned by the city's nonresidents, which had been in effect since 1966.  It was, however, Mr. Silver and the Democratic Assemblymembers  who followed him like the sheep they are who let us down.  It was their responsibility it was to protect the City of New York, or at least to refrain from injuring it.  They failed in that responsibility for transitory reasons of partisanship and spite.  BTW, if they had committed rape, the statute of limitations would have expired two years ago

Nonetheless, we will not repeat or summarize the allegations about the Speaker’s position on the rape bill, which appeared in a powerful Daily News editorial May 11, and in a series of Post articles and columns, culminating in an explosive editorial on May 17.  If you want to see this material, you will have to link to it just below this text. Reader discretion is advised.

Advances in technology include the computer, the Internet, and the ability to link to articles in other media, as well as the discovery and use of DNA.  In one way they serve the same purpose: to acquit or to convict, on the basis of evidence.

NOTE: Let us say again that we especially invite contrary views to those expressed here, and if we receive them we will publish them, in the interest of informing our readers of both sides of the issue, so that they can make up their own minds.  You can e-mail, fax or snail mail us.  Of course, if you agree, you are equally welcome to advise us of your sentiments.. 


New York Post
 
May 13, 2006
SHELLY SILVER: 'THE RAPIST'S BEST FRIEND'
By Andrea Peyser

May 15, 2006
SILVER'S BAD ACT
By Jeane MacIntosh

May 16, 2006
SEX-RAP STATUTE FREES 332 FIENDS
By Kenneth Lovett

WOMEN'S GROUP SUCKERED BY A SHEL GAME
By Andrea Peyser

May 17, 2006
SILVER'S SHAME - EDITORIAL

Daily News

May 11, 2006
SHELLY SILVER'S BAIT AND SWITCH – EDITORIAL
  
Newsday

May 16, 2006
BRUNO, SILVER BLAME EACH OTHER IN DELAYED SEX OFFENDER LAW
By Michael Gromley

New York Sun

May 19, 2006
SPITZER SEEKS COMPROMISE ON RAPE CASES
By Azi Paybarah