NM: Bill would eliminate statute of limitations on sex crimes
A bill that would eliminate the statute of limitations on certain sex crimes, is moving forward. On Sunday, the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee discussed Senate Bill 41, which would eliminate the time cap on when survivors of sexual assault could come forward to report and prosecute the offender.
Opponents argue that while the intent is commendable, the change would erode long-standing principles in the criminal justice system. “As years pass, evidence is lost, memories fade, and the ability of a defendant to mount a fair and constitutionally sound defense diminishes,” said lobbyist for the law office of the public defender Rikki-Lee Chavez.
The bill passed unanimously. It now heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
IMO, this is an outgrowth of Epstein since he had a place in NM and who knows what went there with whom…
Dear TS, that is exactly what I was thinking. It’s a knee perk reaction.
They are also following CA in the way they opened the statute of lims for sex related accusations.
When I was arrested in 1995 ( in Florida), New Mexico had the lowest age of consent in the United States at just 13 years old. I guess the pendulum is now swinging in the other extreme direction.
When unqualified individuals reach office based solely on their talent for lying, you can’t expect a fair or effective legal system. That sums up all state and federal legislator’s. Today’s laws are too often enacted based on emotions and election cycles rather than facts or evidence.
A statute of limitations for all crimes is essential to any justice system worthy of the name. Over time, evidence is lost, details are misremembered, witnesses pass away, and memories fade. Beyond that, life moves on. There comes a point when dredging up an old offense inflicts greater harm and injustice—through prolonged uncertainty, reopened wounds, and disrupted lives—than simply letting the matter rest.
So, some 90-year-old man on a ventilator could be sent to prison because someone 60 years ago didn’t speak out?
You still need evidence. Just an accusation is not evidence.
One would think that Ben, but that’s not always the case.
Yep. I did time with a guy who was accused of molesting his daughter and I genuinely believe he was innocent. He was going through a nasty divorce and custody battle. All it takes is for a p***** off mother to point the finger and you’re screwed.
If you learned that your daughter was abused by your spouse, you’d be kind of obligated as a parent to seek divorce and full custody asap, no? Like who wouldn’t do that?
Sometimes people do things out of spite. I can’t produce numbers, and its probably a small rate of incidence, but couples involved in a nasty vindictive divorce can do spiteful things.
To curry favor with the court during such proceedings, yes, either parent will do what they believe is just to gain favor with the court for custody, etc no matter how ugly they get.
I beg to differ: with these crimes just the point of the finger is enough to convict people of a crime whether they are guilty or not. While i was locked away I know that some of the inmates were not guilty of the crimes that they were accused. They don’t need any evidence. Just that point of a finger. Guilty!!
What about sworn testimony? Does that fall under the category of “evidence” or “just the point of a finger”?
I’m no lawyer but I thought the former, in most courts.
It should be killed as unconstitutional