A bill lifting the statute of limitations for a number of sex crimes committed against adults and children has twice passed the state House of Representatives, but as of Monday, its engrossed substitute in the state Senate had deleted all mention of crimes against adults.
I wrote about the bill—and some of its issues—last week. But when the bill reappeared in the state senate on Monday, it only supported lifting the statute of limitations for two crimes: rape of a child in the first degree and child molestation. At yesterday’s hearing, several survivors of child sex abuse and molestation testified in front of legislators in support of the modified version. Hayat Norimine at Seattle Met reported that Rep. Dan Griffey (R-Allyn), the sponsor of the bill—and whose wife Dinah Griffey gave powerful testimony about her own abuse—said the new version was “all I could get and took what I could.”
Adult rape survivors in Washington State must file a police report within a year if they want to be able to press charges within the next decade. If they fail to report to police within a year, their statute of limitations gives them just a three year window to press charges. For reasons like the statute of limitations, among many others, most rape victims don’t report to police.
Lifting the statute of limitations for violent crime is not a radical concept. The state already allows murders to be prosecuted any time after the crime was committed. Last year, California lifted the statute of limitations for several sex crimes, including rape. And as law enforcement officials and prosecutors have previously testified, they won’t bring a case unless there’s evidence; the argument that lifting the statute of limitations would usher in less credible evidence is bogus.
But while passing the substitute bill would allow survivors of child sex abuse to bring cases against their abusers, some legislators say that the way rape laws are defined in Washington State could also sweep juvenile cases of consensual sex into its purview. Rep. Noel Frame (D-Seattle), who has also identified herself as a survivor of child sexual abuse, has opposed the bill in the House because of this definition:
(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim.
Frame told me last week that because of the way this law is defined, two children sexually experimenting with one another could be convicted of the same crime as a teacher or member of the clergy who abuses a child. Child molestation is defined in a similar way, with sexual contact in place of intercourse, and with a 36-month gap.
The survivors who testified in the state senate on Monday didn’t describe crimes perpetrated by juveniles. Instead, they told stories of stepfathers, teachers, members of the clergy, and fathers who abused them. If the bill passes the state senate, some would be able to bring cases against their abusers if the evidence is present—a necessary step for healing, some survivors said.
“HB 1155 gives survivors a healing chance and dissuades perpetrators because they know their crimes will be prosecuted by law,” Mary Dispenza, a former nun and clergy abuse survivor, told legislators.
Additionally, the bill would extend the statute of limitations for teenage victims of indecent liberties, a sexual assault statute, to press charges up until the age of 30. Survivors of rape over 18, however, have yet to be acknowledged.
