Image Credits: @tingeyinjurylawfirm on Unsplash (Unsplash License)
Richard Gillmore, the Oregon “jogger rapist”, was a serial rapist in the 1970s and 80s. He was convicted of raping 13-year-old Tiffany Edens, on December 6, 1986. He also confessed to raping eight other women and girls, but he was not convicted because of the statute of limitations on the other instances. After 36 years in prison, Gillmore, who is now 63, is scheduled to be released at the end of 2022 and will be classified as a low-level sex offender, meaning that his neighbors will not be notified that he is there. Moreover, neither his name nor his address will appear on the state’s public sex offender registry. His “advanced age” is the single biggest factor in the state’s decision to classify him as a low-level sexual offender. This status was determined through a test of 10 questions that evaluate the risk that men convicted of sex offenses will commit new ones. The 2013 bill that implemented this test did not require a second, more expansive, test of the risks these sex offenders posed because it was deemed to be too expensive and inefficient to administer. Katherine Gotch, a clinical sexual offense therapist who assisted in writing a House bill that created a three-tier risk assessment for Oregon’s sex offenders, believes that if Gillmore had been evaluated by both tests, it would have been extremely unlikely that he would be classified at such a low level. Since Gillmore was only convicted of one rape, the assessment could only score him on the one charge. However, the risk assessment has caused outrage from the three victims that have come forward and other members in the community who have requested that Governor Brown designate Gillmore at a higher level. In spite of this fury, the governor does not have the authority to change the risk score or the notification level. The state has tried to appease the public by stating that Gillmore will be under authorities’ supervision until December 2034, as well as undergoing sex offender treatment, and will be sent back to prison if he violates his parole. The state is still taking precautions to prevent the possibility of future offenses by placing Gillmore on a high-risk supervision plan that prohibits him from living in an area with minors and from being near any place that is primarily used by people under the age of 18. This case has caused outrage regarding many laws surrounding sexual assault including the statute of limitations in criminal cases.
The statute of limitations is the window of time that a person has to initiate legal action. Criminal and civil cases have statutes of limitations, but the time frames are usually different. A criminal sexual assault case is brought by the government against the accused and is meant to punish them accordingly through fines, probation, jail time, and other possible penalties. Civil cases, on the other hand, are brought by the victim against the accused to deliver financial justice for the victim’s damages. The presence of time limits on sexual assault and rape cases is a controversial topic in many state legislatures. Most states, even ones with strict time windows, expand the deadline for victims of child sexual abuse. A majority of states pause the statute of limitations when DNA evidence is available, and some states with longer limitation windows start the time frame for the statute of limitations when a person comes to terms with the fact that they were sexually assaulted or the point of discovery, rather than from when the assault actually occurred. Other common exceptions that pause the statute of limitations are if the accused leaves the state, if the accused conceals themself so they cannot be served, if the accused conceals evidence, or if the accused committed the assault while serving as a public officer or employee. Many argue for a statute of limitations because they believe it is practical to limit the time period in which legal action can be pursued because key evidence can be lost, witnesses can move away, and memories of the event can become distorted or change over time. Taking legal action against a claim of sexual assault that is based on antiquated evidence is seen as unfair to the accused person by those in favor of a statute of limitations. The main argument against a statute of limitations is the physical, emotional, and psychological long-term effects that a sexual assault can cause. Many victims require years to decades of treatment to recover from an assault. Extending or eliminating a statute of limitations allows victims to process and recover from their trauma before seeking justice. Furthermore, many victims are scared to report sexual assault for fear of the repercussions, especially if the assaulter is a powerful person or in a position of power over the victim as seen in the #MeToo movement. By extending or eliminating the statute of limitations, victims have time to get out of a dangerous situation before reporting the crime.
There have been recent laws that create a look back window, outside the statute of limitations, for people to file a civil case against their abuser. The Child Victims Act extends the statute of 2 limitations for child abuse victims in criminal and civil cases in New York. The Act provides more time for a survivor of child abuse to press criminal charges and extends the period of time a survivor can file a claim for money damages in civil cases. Initially, it also created the opportunity for survivors of child abuse to file a civil claim against their abuser outside the statute of limitations for a one-year window of time. From August 14, 2019 to May 31, 2021, almost 10,000 civil cases were filed. The Adult Survivors Act created a one-time, one-year look back window for adult sexual assault survivors to file a civil case against their abuser outside the statute of limitations in New York. The one-year window opened on November 24, 2022 and closes on November 24, 2023.
While steps have been taken to create exceptions to the statute of limitations in sexual assault cases to bring justice to the victims, it is still a controversial topic regarding the fairness of taking legal action after a certain time period. Many states have made the effort to extend the time frame of the statute of limitations or grant pauses in the statute of limitations when there are circumstances that deserve exceptions. However, cases like the Oregon jogger rapist bring attention to the statute of limitations and the downfalls surrounding the laws. These laws must be evaluated to bring justice for the victims and keep sexual assaulters from committing additional crimes.