I think the courts of law should go about the case as if it happened the day before the hearing and treat it like every other case. Just because it happened years ago doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a trial. Rape and sexual assault will be just as serious as they were years ago and they need to be dealt with seriously in the court of law.
Courts should deal with these allegations with scrutiny, as there is not usually much evidence on these cases and eye witness reports can be clouded with time. And even if proven true, I believe that these people should not have the same punishment as someone who just committed the same crime yesterday. Many of the offenders in these old cases have recovered from their old ways, and are now functioning members of society. Making a full on case out of these could clog up the court system even more then it already is.
In my opinion I think that the courts should not take these cases lightly especially in Kavanaughs case where it happened so many years ago and how it is going to take a while to come down to a final ruling. I think that if he is found guilty he shouldn't be just taken out of the supreme court nomination but he should also be punished because rape isn't something to mess around with.
Courts should deal with sexual assault / rape cases presented years later the same as the normally would. It shouldn't matter how long it took someone to come forward about being assaulted because they were scared that the whole world would know. That is a lot of pressure on someone's shoulders and the courts need to realize that. The court should still judge and prosecute the same exact way they normally would, the assault still happened and that doesn't change the fact that the person had gotten sexually assaulted, and if someone who assaulted someone else get in trouble for what they did, then what will stop them from doing it again. They will just keep doing to same thing until someone actually catches them and gets them in trouble. The courts need to start taking care of these allegations if they haven't been already.
Sexual assault cases present many years later should be treated as if it had happened the day before. It should be looked into and thoroughly investigated as if its a recent case. Victims of rape and sexual assault have many reasons to conceal who and what happened to protect themselves. Many are still grieving and others fear a backfire from the person they are accusing, so giving them adequate time to present these allegations is a must. The courts should carry this case out just as any other current sexual assault cases.
The courts should treat a case of rape and sexual assault like the crime just happened. It's a very traumatic event. The courts should take this as serious as it happened recently. There's alligations against someone who's running for Supreme Court so why wouldn't you look into it. People may lie but it's still a serious matter that can't be ignored.
I believe that the courts should not treat it any differently than if it was presented to them immediately after an incident of this manner is presented to them. People who have ever been raped/sexually assaulted will not always come forward right after it happens to them. This is because the event can traumatize the victims severely and cause them to not want to speak up about it. Not all people are brave enough to just openly admit that they have be sexually assaulted/raped. Another reason i believe that they should do this is because whoever is responsible for the assault/rape should never be able to get away with it, even if it is 30+ years later. If they were to get away with the crime then they would believe that they could always get away with it and could very possibly do it again. This could also teach young boys that they can get away with it too and also become successful even after.
Courts of law should look into these allegations, but if no definitive evidence is shown, dismiss it. If it has been too long since it happened for legal action, then if no evidence that 100% ties the accused to the crime is presented then close it. It can be difficult to talk to someone about a traumatic experience, but on the other hand If you dont report it in a timely manner then you cant really expect them to do that much about it. Especially if the statue of limitations has run out.
Courts of law should search for evidence years after a rape/sexual assault case, because the public deserves to not have rapist on our streets. The courts need to look into these cases, just to make sure there is no discrepancy of an allegation. Courts can only do so much for old cases like getting face to face meetings with those alleged and their allegations. Courts also need to help do a better job of teaching young whats wright and wrong. Cheryl O' Connor said, "I didn't think it was a crime...we weren't taught that". This quote shows that young people in this time period where not taught what was right and wrong when it came to cases like this. This shows us that courts really just need to push for better education for young people and we would not have this problem, because people would step up when these cases happen.
Courts of law should investigate any allegation regarding rape or sexual assault like they would any other case, but evidence should be present before investigation begins. Cases like this are tough to make a call on most of time, and reporting it 10+ years later makes the decision and overall ruling harder for the jury and judge. Maybe it could be taken as unfair to the supposed victims, but if there wasn't a need for proof in situations like this, any one could report false claims about people that they do not like. In Kavanaugh's case, allowing him to become a supreme court justice does not seem just, due to the evidence against him. Whether he did it or not, even the possibility of him attempting sexual assault as a minor is not a characteristic that a supreme court justice should have. Overall, claims like rape and sexual assault must be taken seriously, but only with valid evidence or witness provided by the victim.
When presented with rape/sexual allegations that are presented years later, courts should deal with them in a similar fashion to other crimes. The courts have established a statue of limitations for these kinds of situations. There are windows of time that many of these charges must be filed in order to see a court of law. These kinds of standards are not just changed or ignored purely because the charge is rape/sexual assault, as that becomes a very slippery slope. If it is decided to ignore the statue of limitations on these crimes, what other crimes are going to have their statue of limitations ignored? Where is the line drawn between deserving to have a statue ignored, or sticking by it? If people genuinely want to be able to prosecute these types of cases years late, they should attempt to have the statue of limitations altered for the particular crime.
Courts of law should handle rape and sexual assault cases presented years later by first opening an investigation. By opening an investigation into this they need to interview supposed witnesses and hear their stories. If they confirm that they remember the night then they should treat it like a regular case. However if they don't remember the night then there can be no case made against the accused offender. In saying this though they need to go as far as they can in the investigation until they can't go any further.
Courts of law when dealing with years later allegations of sexual assault/rape should be treating it like any other case because the supposed actions behind it are wrong and no one should get away with what they did in any period of their life time. The question, "Why did it take so long to tell her story?" is nobody gets the trauma it comes with other than the people it has happened to. According to the article, ".... if it happened, took place, "under the blurring influence of alcohol and adolescent hormones." This is an excuse to make Kavanaugh look better in the eyes of politics. The action he allegedly did doesn't make it any better under alcohol when he was under age.
The courts are put into a difficult situation regarding the recent sexual assault allegations towards many famous or influential people that happened years ago. Courts of law should still have a hearing with the victim and the defendant just like they are currently, but have a year limit on when the victim should come forward. The most recent and in the spotlight case is with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. His incident happened nearly thirty years ago in high school, and just comes up when he is about to be appointed on the highest court in the nation. This is why courts should have a year limit on when a person who was sexually assaulted come out; so the story doesn't become faded and changed on either side of the debate. Installing a year limit on when a victim can come out on a sexual assault charge so the story becomes modified to what the person believed what happened on either side.
Courts of law are very limited with there options on how they choose to deal with rape/sexual assault allegations that are presented years later. They can always analyze and document all the information that is necessary to take it down as said. There is not much they can do about punishment to the offender. They must also realize life is a period of growth from past mistakes, and I think the courts of law should be able to interview the offender but punishment may vary on the length of time it has been. In most cases there should not be any punishment because of the length of time it's been before it was reported and there's no physical way to prove it anymore.
It's besides the question as to what courts should do years later after a rape/assault report, but let's first break down why people hesitate when it first happens. When a victim meets its' predator once, it's already too much to bare. Let alone, a second time in the courtroom, it takes bravery. I've never experienced this happen to anyone, but the accusations that are made end up being true. Which brings us to the question as to what courts should do about it later in the years. There's no way of really telling if it's true. Rape kits expire and especially after 7 years, which breaks free for a persons statue of limitations, one can't really provide the right evidence. Then again, if I was the court, I would still bring it to trial. Not as many years can really be sentenced after years and years from the time it happened, but other than a year or two, nothing else can really be done.
With sexual assault allegations that come up year later the court should look into it to see if you can or can't prove it. If you are unable to find tangible proof then you should drop it but look for other allegations. Cheryl O'Connor is one of the women that came out about Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulting her. Cheryl had said that the reason that she didn't come out back then was she wasn't taught that is was a crime. Cheryl's 16-year-old daughter, Brynn, was their during the interview and she has been taught during school that it needs to be reported as soon as it happens. One other woman has come up and said that she was sexually assaulted by him in college. The difference between the two cases is the time difference from when it happened. The first cases not many adults remember what happened in high school. The second case they had witnesses to what was going on at the party. So their is a certain time length that the courts should look into a case and they need to prove what happened to make the case.
The courts of law should deal with allegations in a serious manner but also really study the case due to the time frame and they need good evidence or a witness. The problems lies inbetween is the person telling the truth or just making up false allegations against that individual. Someone might not want to speak up because they worry that person might harm them or they dont other people to know about it However the courts need to fully study and review the case because there have been a lot of false allegations of people who have been accused of doing these things years ago when they never did.
Rape and sexual assault are some of the worst things somebody can do to another person and many people are either embarrassed or horrified from the experiance so they don't speak up until years later causing it to be difficult for the court system to find evidence to put with the case. The Kavanaugh case is showing the difficulties of these situations. Any form of sexual assault or rape needs to be reported as soon as possible after the instance. Statute of limitations should also apply to the charges and if its after that time the court system shouldn't waste their time trying to solve a crime that happened years ago. The rape allegations seem to be coming up more often and they are all over the media so we need to know how the charges should be handled.
Courts of law should deal with rape/sexual assault allegations that are presented years later by issuing a statute of limitations. The person being abused might not be able to get away from the abuser for years. Issuing a statute of limitations would allow courts of law to obtain more proof of the incident. Sometimes there is no way to prove evidence However, there should still be consequences on the outside. In Brett Kavanaugh's case, he cannot be charged legally because Cheryl O'Connor did not come forward until thirty years later. A statute of limitations would eliminate the risk of false accusations.
It takes time for people to come out after a huge incident like being raped. Although, you can never truly prove if you were raped by someone unless you have scars, bruises, or video footage. Past events should not have to affect your future, You are not the same person you were in high school, you have changed a lot. The courts should still punish you, but not so much that it ruins the rest of your life.