stuff

Friday, February 7, 2014

Dylan Farrow is already too old to bring a criminal case against Woody Allen | Heather Long


Child abuse victims only have until a certain age to bring charges against their perpetrators. It's another injustice


I don't know if Dylan Farrow's allegations that Woody Allen sexually abused her are true or not. But I do know this: even if everything she says is valid, it will be difficult for her to get justice.


There are the usual reasons: Woody Allen is famous and at the top of his professional craft, and this is basically a he said-she said situation without the proof we've come to expect in the 21st century: DNA results, salacious texts and emails, that sort of thing. And then there's societal bias – perhaps better described as apathy – which Roxane Gay at Slate captured so well this week: "the truth and pervasiveness of sexual violence around the world is overwhelming. Why would anyone want to face such truth?" Many of us still seem to have trouble believing these horrific acts take place at all, let alone against children.


But there's one more impediment to possible justice for Dylan Farrow (and many men and women in similar situations): child abuse victims only have until a certain age to bring charges against their alleged perpetrators. In other words, not only do victims have to speak out, but they have to do it quickly.


Dylan is only 28, but she's already too old to bring a criminal case against Woody Allen (there could be an exception is if she went for the most serious "first-degree child sexual assault" charge, which is very hard to prove).


As Marci Hamilton, a legal expert in the field, explains, the alleged abuse of Dylan occurred at the family's home in Connecticut, so that state's age limits are in effect.



Under [Connecticut] law in 1993, Farrow had until age 20 to file criminal charges against Allen. That legal limit covers her criminal claims – and so, now that she is 28, she is barred. Connecticut extended the statute to age 48 in 2002, but that extension did not apply to criminal acts that occurred before that year.



The "legal limit" laws vary by state. A few require child abuse victims to come forward by as young as 20. Many more cut off the process before age 30. New York is one of the worst with victims having to come forward by age 23 for criminal child abuse charges and 28 for civil ones. The legal term for this is "statute of limitations". It would be better described as the "protect the perpetrator" laws.


If anything, Dylan Farrow is coming forward at an early age. On average, victims don't speak out until their 40s. Many don't realize until well into adulthood that the depression, alcohol and drug abuse and other health problems in their life are a direct result of their abuse (sometimes years of sexual abuse) as children.


In addition to the emotional challenges of publicly admitting you were abused as a child, victims are often up against a powerful person or institution, be it a Hollywood celebrity or a beloved college football coach like Jerry Sandusky at Penn State University. As numerous cases of abuse at Catholic parishes, the Boy Scouts and schools like Horace Mann show, too often institutions put their reputations before victims. Speaking out can turn an entire community against you.


Then there's the fact that 6 out of 10 sexual assaults are by relatives or other close acquaintances to the victim. Speaking out against a family member can be even harder than confronting an institution. You risk losing even your inner support network. A Pennsylvania state representative waited until age 78 to go public about abuse by her stepfather.


These are many reasons it can take years to come forward. The statute of limitation laws hamper justice. They reinforce the societal pressures and stigmas stacked against the victims.


There are those who try to argue that at some point we should just "leave the past in the past". Why drudge up abuse allegations several decades later? I guess they believe that an elderly abuser deserves a nice retirement. It's sickening logic. Victims often have their life messed up from a robbed childhood to a warped adulthood. Victims should be able to get justice when they are ready to come forward.


In Connecticut, Dylan could still try to press civil charges – she likely has until age 48 to do that – but it would obviously come with even more intense media scrutiny.


If you've been reading about this case, you know there's a sticky legal past. Dylan's mother, Mia, did try to bring molestation charges against Allen in the early 1990s, but prosecutors felt there wasn't enough evidence. A panel reviewed the case months later and felt there was "probable cause" to charge Allen, but nothing further was done.


States should allow victims to come forward until at least age 50, if not at any age. Some states like Minnesota and Delaware have also enacted what's called a "window" where for a year or two any case can be brought to light, regardless of how far in the past the abuse took place. This gets around the whole problem about whether the change in statute of limitations could be retroactive.


There's growing awareness in America and beyond that child abuse can happen anywhere – in any community or institution. Yet even "liberal" states like New York still have barriers to justice. Assemblywoman Margaret Markey has brought up a bill in New York's state legislature for seven years now to lengthen or end the statute of limitations. She first learned of this issue when a constituent came to her about past abuse. Like any decent person, Markey wanted to help, but she realized because of the age of the victim, there would be no legal action.



'The Catholic church has largely led the opposition to the bill, spending $100,000 a year on a lobbyist and lobby activities against it, but the events of the last few years have demonstrated to everyone what Assemblywoman Markey has said all along: this is not a church or a religious problem, it's a societal problem,' said Mike Armstrong, Markey's spokesman.



What most victims want, especially those in civil trials, is an apology. Yes, they often get some financial damages to help pay for therapy, but they want a public admission of wrongdoing and closure. Some victims have also successfully forced institutions to release documents relating to past cover ups of abuse.


We must allow child abuse victims the chance to have their day in court. If the statute of limitations were different, I wonder whether Dylan Farrow would have gone to a prosecutor instead of The New York Times. The story would still get out, but in a legal court, not just the court of public opinion.






theguardian.com © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds




















source Guardian

No comments:

Post a Comment