The Infamous Rape Bill: Why HB 189 Was Bad Law

The Infamous Rape Bill:
Why HB 189 Was Bad Law
By
James Scott Trimm

Representatives Matt Rinaldi, Matt Schaefer, Jonathan Stickland, Tony Tinderholt, and Cecil Bell all voted against House Bill 189.  Stickland’s primary challenger Scott Fisher has paraded this vote before the press saying “I don’t know how he justifies it.” 

Well the fact that Fisher does not understand why someone would vote against this bill, demonstrates his lack of qualification to serve as a State Representative.  It would be one thing if Fisher understood Stickland’s vote but disagreed, but it is quite another thing that Fisher does not even understand the issues involved and does not know why those that voted against the bill voted “nay”.

Rape is certainly a horrific crime, on one debates that.  Unfortunately it is a crime that by its very nature rarely has direct witnesses and often has little or no evidence.  The one thing that characterizes rape is lack of consent, but is many cases, lack of consent can break down into a “he said” vs. “she said” quandary in which the accusation alone can become the basis for a conviction. 

So now we come to HB 189.  The problem is that HB 189 eliminated due process protections that previously existed in sexual assault cases where there is no physical evidence and greatly increases the chance that innocent people will be convicted based on false accusations.

There was already no statute of limitations for rape cases involving children or where there is DNA evidence, one of the strictest in the nation. 

This bill (authored by Houston Democrat Senfronia Thompson)  removed the ten year statute of limitations on certain rape cases where there is no physical evidence, creating a high risk of someone wrongfully accused being unable to defend themselves from accusations thirty or forty years after the occurrence based on witness testimony alone.

There is a reason for the statutes of limitations.  A defendant has a right to defend himself, however that ability often degrades with the passage of time.  Documents are lost and destroyed, memories are less clear, and witnesses die. 

Does Fisher not understand the importance and value of the statutes of limitations in protecting innocent men from false accusations?  Does Fisher not understand why one would not want innocent men being wrongly sent to prison?
I am saddened that we have “Republicans” who will attack them taking a page from the Democrat playbook implying falsely that this vote was indicative of some kind of “war on women”. And I for one am glad that we have courageous men in the House who will vote against unjust legislation.