Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
May 08, 2005Meanwhile, in Ohio...By Jim DallasIt's often fairly easy to get down on the Texas lege; the number of questionable stunts pulled each and every session seems to be almost innumerable. But looking at the big picture, sometimes you have to hand it to the Ghost of Legislatures Past for putting together some fairly sensible laws. One lege horror story this year which was frustrating for at least a few of our readers involved a House committee basically shunning a bill to eliminate the statute of limitations for child molestation. In another post, I argued that Texas's statute was already fairly generous to victims (with limitations running ten years after the victim's 18th birthday, which could in theory be as long as 28 years), and hence I was skeptical of abolishing it. Nonetheless, the idea of abolishing the statute of limitations is a worthy idea that deserves consideration. Several commenters disagreed strongly with my skepticism, and I'd note that at least a few were no idle contrarians, as they've been toiling awfully hard in his pursuit of justice. But, even despite the indefensible shenangins of Reps. Keel, Hodge, et al., the status quo being defended could be a lot worse. How much worse? Well, try Ohio. According to Joe-in-DC of Americablog, in Ohio limitations run in only two years. Let me repeat that: two years. That's pretty awful, and you might've guessed that everyone'd be for changing it to a Texas-style law, at the minimum. And indeed, every one says that they are - in principle. As the Toledo Blade story linked to by Americablog Joe, the trouble arises over whether to allow a one-year "look back" window for the filing of civil suits by victims who, previously, had very little recourse:
Although Ohio Catholics have an interest in wanting to avoid legal battles (and I think Joe in DC is a bit reductionist, unfairly to the Catholics, when he portrays this as merely being about covering up pedophile priest scandals), I think it is just to say that putting much-needed reform on hold for that reason is extremely unfair and unreasonable. Rep. Terri Hodge's crazy ramblings aside, Texas does not have this problem. We have a decent (although reasonable people can disagree on whether or not it is the best possible) statute of limitations. And at least in theory, we can have a fairly civil discourse about the issue. Posted by Jim Dallas at May 8, 2005 07:05 AM | TrackBackComments
Remember what valuable purpose a Statute of Limitations serves. How can one possibly reasonably defend against an accusation of conduct comitted 20 years ago? Do not be naive about the presumption of innocence - such crimes are so heinous, that most people (i.e. jurors) assume a defendant is guilty and he is forced to prove his innocence. How can one locate exculpatory witnesss, or even possibly recall aspects of certain events that occured 20 years ago? Posted by: WhoMe? at May 8, 2005 08:36 AMPrecisely why I remain skeptical of getting rid of the statute of limitations altogether, a position that the state ACLU has also taken. That said, two years is an extreme on the other end. It's hard to get witnesses and evidence together to do a thorough prosecution in some cases. This issue is a balancing act, to be sure. Posted by: Jim D at May 8, 2005 05:48 PMPost a comment
|
|