Critics ask: Why a time bar in California on sex crimes?

Statutes of limitation are so-called “repose” laws, meaning that they impose some cut off point in the future attaching to a criminal investigation for matters of fundamental fairness. Evidence grows old. Memories fade. Witnesses die. Prosecuting a case after, say, 40 years of an alleged crime occurring yields a heightened possibility for error and a miscarriage of justice.

Notwithstanding the down-the-road termination point relevant to the prosecution of criminal conduct, though, a certain limited sphere of crimes remains beyond the protection of any time-barring statute. In California, such crimes include murder and the embezzlement of public funds.

But not sex offenses that were allegedly committed.

Critics of cut-off statutes that impose prosecutorial deadlines on acts like rape and sustained child sexual abuse ardently argue the unfairness of such laws, noting that they incongruously protect criminal wrongdoers while simultaneously punishing crime victims perpetually.

“The victim has it hanging over their head for their whole life,” says one foe of time-limiting laws that render it impossible for individuals to go after criminal wrongdoers once a specific date has passed.

That critic is a state senator who recently authored a legislative bill to abolish prosecutorial deadlines for various sex offenses, including continuous sexual abuse of a child.

Those who argue against that would-be law can always bring up the “there must be some finality” point regarding investigations that commence years following alleged wrongdoing.

But they can’t argue this: A time-barring statute is a perpetrator’s friend and a crime victim’s nemesis. A statute of limitations enables a wrongdoer to essentially hide in the shadows and count seconds off until a specific moment arrives that forever precludes any possibility in the future for a victim to obtain justice.