Eliminating Statute of Limitations on Child Molestation Could Be Unconstitutional
By Kyle Feldscher
A panel of Michigan lawmakers questioned the constitutionality of a bill to allow criminal cases against people accused of molesting children decades ago, despite emotional testimony from alleged victims of a Norton Shores man. House Bill 4231 would retroactively remove all statute of limitations on first-degree criminal sexual conduct of a minor. In 2001, the Michigan Legislature eliminated the statute of limitations on first-degree criminal sexual conduct, which prior to that was six years. However, Public Act 6 of 2001 did not remove the statute of limitations for crimes that occurred before May 2001. That means Randall Doctor, a Norton Shores man currently in prison on drug charges, could not be charged for allegedly molesting between eight and 10 boys now men in the late 1970s and 1980s. Three of Doctor's alleged victims appeared in front of the House Criminal Justice Committee to ask lawmakers to consider their pleas for justice. "Why doesn't our perpetrator get to be punished for what he did to us?" one victim asked the committee. "... It needs to be. You won't see men come forward in their 20s and 30s, it's not going to happen." MLive is not naming the men because they are alleged victims of sexual assault. Another one of the alleged victims who testified said it wasn't possible for him to tell law enforcement about Doctor's alleged assault during the six years originally allotted by the statute of limitations. He described falling into a pattern of drug and alcohol abuse substances introduced to him by Doctor and repressing the memory of the abuse. It took 34 years for him to reach out to a childhood friend, who asked him if he'd been abused by Doctor as well. "The trauma and the pain hit me, I couldn't control my emotions," he said. "I was at working trying to understand what just happened. And, what had happened was I had confirmed with another victim that we were sexually abused." He emphasized many adult men aren't willing to face their sexual abuse until they reach middle age. Under current Michigan law, they will never get justice because of the expiration of the statute of limitations, he said. However, there's a chance House Bill 4231 co-sponsored by Rep. Holly Hughes, R-Montague, and Rep. Pam Faris, D-Clio is already dead on arrival. Similar legislation in California was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2003 under the United States Constitution's ex post facto clause, meaning lawmakers cannot retroactively make things illegal. The case, Stogner v. California, was decided by a 5-4 vote in 2003. By making it possible for criminal charges to be brought against people whose alleged crimes would have otherwise been outside the statute of limitations, Michigan would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, according to analysis by the House Fiscal Agency. Hughes said she expects the legislation to end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court if the Legislature were to make it law. She believes the court would make a different decision today than it did in 2003, in part because four out of the five justices who voted to strike down California's law are no longer on the court. "It is highly plausible to believe if Stogner v. California were adjudicated today, we would see a different outcome," she said. Multiple lawmakers who questioned Hughes about the bill expressed concern about its unconstitutionality. Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, expressed concern about removing the statute of limitations because it may affect civil settlements made between priests and alleged sexual assault victims. He pointed out those civil settlements relied on state law and the statute of limitations on first-degree criminal sexual assault. "Our children are first and foremost in this state and county ... but we do have some violations on constitutionality," he said. However, the constitutionality of the bill didn't bother Hughes or the victims who testified on Tuesday. "Sometimes things are worth fighting for and I think this one of those things that's worth fighting for," she said. Doctor is in prison on a gun charge and marijuana possession. The judge in his case sentenced him far above what sentencing guidelines called for, due to the stories of the men who said Doctor sexually assaulted them. However, he'll leave prison in six years. If he had been convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, he could have faced life in prison. One of his alleged victims said Tuesday that Doctor is being "protected" by current Michigan law by not allowing him to face rape charges. Muskegon County Prosecutor D.J. Hilson said Doctor would have completely escaped justice if the men had not come forward. The investigation didn't lead to sexual assault charges, but it did lead to the discovery of drugs and the gun. "Had we not discovered any wrong doing on Mr. Doctor's part ... he would have gone completely unpunished by the criminal justice system," Hilson said. "... We were able to seek justice, albeit very little justice, for these men." kylefeldscher@mlive.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.