Listen to Broaddrick. hillary threatened her 3 weeks after the rape by clinton. Prosecutable?
To my mind, the dynamics (e.g., power, sustained threat) of the crime of rape to which you allude argue for just the opposite, i.e., there should be no statute of limitations (SOL) for rape.
You say it's understandable that there is no SOL for murder. But you argue against dropping the SOL for rape: '[C]itizens need to not live in fear that hard to prove or disprove stale allegations might be brought against them by government long after key witnesses have died, facts are naturally forgotten, and the potential for a meaningful defense had evaporated.
As those objections would apply equally to a murder charge, why the different conclusion? Are you implying that the egregiousness of the two crimes generally are of different orders of magnitude?
Do you recall that Broaddrick was certain clinton would send his henchmen up to the room after the rape to "get rid of the body."
Wasn't rape a capital offense at one time?
i think virtually everything was a capital offense at one time in feudal england, the only question was whether they merely killed you (and perhaps your family) or whether you also got the torture regime, such as featured in the climax of Braveheart.
Statutes of repose serve a public policy function just as attorney client privilege and the fifth amendment privlege which do not directly further truthseeking or justice in a particular case. There are are considered countervailing policies that protect important interests.
Broderick is an interesting situation given the arguments that can be made that her fears were reasonable. I doubt they would be successful if presented in overcome a statute of limitations.
My understanding of Hillary's threat is that it was typical Hillary speak and that only the double meaning was threatening, the other being defensible on its ostensible interpretation.
My own view is that as to crimes other than murder, the issue is where to set the statute of limitations, not getting rid of it. Also debateable are the standards for exceptions, tolling, or from what point it should run.
One can understand that a victim of sexual assault could easily be intimidated into silence. On the other hand I think it is documented that Joe Kennedy Sr. for one, used trumped up allegations of rape to intimidate and controll political and business enemies. Injustice can lie on either side of these cases. An SOL simply says there has to be a time limit in which bring a prosecution.
Generally the climate and procedures for reporting rape are better than they were thirty years ago. Women especialy young women need to know that they should report rape, and that they should do it immediately. It is clear, however, that that does not occur, and it is understandable.
We would need the help of an experienced criminal law attorney to know for certain the status of stale claims by someone in Brodericks position. It might turn for example on the question of whether her fears were objectively reasonable, or it may be that she simply cannot overcome the statute no matter what.
I would like to think that the policy of no SOL on murder but some SOL on rape, would result in more fathers getting their injured daughters back at least alive than might occur if there was no SOL on rape at all. Its really just a guess though as to how these policies affect criminal behavior.
Here's one for which the Statute of Limitations has not run out ---
CALL IT WHAT IT IS. CLINTON ASSAULTED CHRIS WALLACE. WHO DOUBTS IT WAS NOT HIS FIRST OFFENSE?
In the now famous, recent, "purple rage" interview on fox news an apparently enraged Bill Clinton leaned toward his interviewer, Chris Wallace, pointed his finger menacingly and went on a rant about Fox, Rupert Murdoch and Wallace's motives. The scene was broadcast and has been digitally replayed throughout the internet. Based upon Mr. Wallace's description of his experience later the same day, "utterly surprised...I felt like a mountain was coming down on me." as well as the video itself, there appears to be strong grounds for a legal civil claim of assault against Mr. Clinton. As noted below, civil assault may consist an act intended to or which reasonably does cause in another person an apprehension of an imminent unconsented unwanted touching (contact) which is neither consented to, excused or justified. Indeed, because Mr. Clinton's wagging finger in fact was poking the papers in Wallace's hand, the additional unlawful act of battery was probably committed. If Mr. Wallace decided to persue it, it appears he has a very credible claim for civil assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based upon Mr. Clinton's reaction to Wallace's question during this interiew.
The tort of assault consists of an act intended to cause either harmful or offensive contact with another person or apprehension of such contact, and that creates in that other person's mind a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21 (1965); Friend § 6.3.1 at 226; Fowler V. Harper, et al., The Law of Torts § 3.5 at 3:18-:19 (3d ed. Cum. Supp. 2003).
The tort of battery is an unwanted touching which is neither consented to, excused, nor justified. See Washburn v. Klara, 263 Va. 586, 561 S.E.2d 682 (2002); Woodbury v. Courtney, 239 Va. 651, 391 S.E.2d 293 (1990). Although these two torts "go together like ham and eggs," the difference between them is "that between physical contact and the mere apprehension of it. One may exist without the other." W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 10 at 46; see also Friend § 6.3.
"I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.
Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).
I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."
I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.
The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off. Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.
The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing."