There you go.  And to anyone out there reading, if you rape someone just make sure they are too scared to come forward for years and you are scott free... its gonna be harder to prove so you are in the clear... I suggest you target kids as they are the likest to keep quiet.  I read what you said.   If you are too scared to come forward you need to shut your mouth forever.  I get your logic.  I get what it is intended to do.

Yeah no.  I am saying we need to stand up for the victims and make it easier for them to come forward to discourage this behavior period. 

You are right it is harder to prove but ask yourself how many people are really gonna lie about something like this? So many people are acting like the few cases of lying overshadows the actual rape victims and I'm not to be one of you guys on that point.  It is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. 

I will never be soft on people who want to make it harder for rape victims to come forward as adults or whatever.  Above you stated that the court system is about convincing.  Unfortunately without being able to read minds, we can't tell we can only evaluate the situation on what we have in accordance with established law.  Yes it is harder to prove as time gets on but they still have the right to come forward. When you assault someone in that way, you don't get to play the clock out.   You can really affect someone in a way that produces lasting damage.  Not gonna let folks walk away from that. 

It's hard, but I don't like that they are protected. I hate the statute of limitations. Or at least in regards to anything more than he said/she said. If there is actually evidence, such as DNA taken at the time. I mean isn't there like still ike 20,000 rape kits or something in some cities that have not been tested yet? Or actual video or emails/letters ect that prove without a shadow of a doubt that it happened, then no time should matter. But if it is just he said/she said or only on some witness testimony ect, then I can see how something that happened 20 years ago or whatever could be a tough sell.

But regardless of if its past the statute of limitations or not, coming forward is never bad. Guess what? People typically don't change. If someone raped someone once, they most likely have done it more than that one time, and likely have done it within the statute of limitations. So someone coming forward may give someone else the courage to also come forward and that person may be within the time limit.

"unless its someone like trump" ... oh ok, so if YOU dont like the person they get no benefit of privacy.  So what you're proposing is is even more unjust than the current system.

Statute of limitations is one of the most ill thought through laws I can imagine. I can only ever see it coming out to help war criminals or whatever completely unnecessary law. 

But you're taking this deeper than it needs to be. People should come forward regardless, but with the justice system we have in place, proving someone raped someone years ago without any evidence is basically impossible. 

What? He’s the president. If Obama had accusations in office I’d want to know. Stop making such accusations 

Accusations are nothing but hearsay. Just because hes president doesnt meant that we should allow his reputation to be destroyed with baseless accusations - which they are until proven. You want exceptions for famous people, the president etc. Basically you want different rules for yourself vs everyone that's not like yourself. That's not fair. The law only works when it applies equally to all.

It should be applied the same all across the board or not at all. 

You make a fair point.

At this point the biggest flaw I made was that I assumed the world was perfect. After all, I came in with an open mind, and I took a fairly satisfying smackdown from everyone.

It helped me look at rape laws differently however. Perhaps I'll just keep on thinking about it

1.  Wayyyyy too problematic.  This is essentially a two-tier justice system based on one's popularity.  I think I understand the intent is to protect reputations, but it means the law does not apply equally to all people.  Besides this, 'fame' can be vague and legal language to distinguish well-known people from those who are not would seem rather arbitrary, if not open to abuse.  

2.  False accusations, regardless of the crime, should be treated seriously.  However, singling out rape accusations instead of an across-the-board sort of law could send the wrong message to actual victims.  Many true victims already fear coming forward, being held to a higher standard of scrutiny than any other may prove a greater deterrent for real victims than those who are not (and if this were to be the case, the law would be doing far greater harm than good).  If things go so far as court, false claims could result in charges of Perjury.  At a minimum, however, I'd insist that dropping charges or withdrawing accusations should not be legally considered evidence of a false accusation (as there may be any number of valid reasons for one to not want to go through with a courtroom battle).

3.  Rather than infringing on the Freedom of the Press,  I'd suggest a law for strictly fact-based reporting when it comes to crimes (name of accused, date of alleged incident, details revealed by the police, court dates, that sort of thing) and no editorializing.  The public does have a right to know these things, but there should be safeguards put in place so the media can't set someone up to be crucified in the court of public opinion.  People might do so anyways, but that would be in spite of objective reporting rather than because of journalists' biases. 

However, organizations like Fox are not registered as News , but rather Entertainment.  That could be a loophole allowing people like Performance Artist Alex Jones and fringe media to go wild, so it may not change anything in the end.

Yeah I realized the issues with my ideas. Suppose it’d have to be tackled differently