i think virtually everything was a capital offense at one time in feudal england, the only question was whether they merely killed you (and perhaps your family) or whether you also got the torture regime, such as featured in the climax of Braveheart.
Statutes of repose serve a public policy function just as attorney client privilege and the fifth amendment privlege which do not directly further truthseeking or justice in a particular case. There are are considered countervailing policies that protect important interests.
Broderick is an interesting situation given the arguments that can be made that her fears were reasonable. I doubt they would be successful if presented in overcome a statute of limitations.
My understanding of Hillary's threat is that it was typical Hillary speak and that only the double meaning was threatening, the other being defensible on its ostensible interpretation.
My own view is that as to crimes other than murder, the issue is where to set the statute of limitations, not getting rid of it. Also debateable are the standards for exceptions, tolling, or from what point it should run.
One can understand that a victim of sexual assault could easily be intimidated into silence. On the other hand I think it is documented that Joe Kennedy Sr. for one, used trumped up allegations of rape to intimidate and controll political and business enemies. Injustice can lie on either side of these cases. An SOL simply says there has to be a time limit in which bring a prosecution.
Generally the climate and procedures for reporting rape are better than they were thirty years ago. Women especialy young women need to know that they should report rape, and that they should do it immediately. It is clear, however, that that does not occur, and it is understandable.
We would need the help of an experienced criminal law attorney to know for certain the status of stale claims by someone in Brodericks position. It might turn for example on the question of whether her fears were objectively reasonable, or it may be that she simply cannot overcome the statute no matter what.
I would like to think that the policy of no SOL on murder but some SOL on rape, would result in more fathers getting their injured daughters back at least alive than might occur if there was no SOL on rape at all. Its really just a guess though as to how these policies affect criminal behavior.
One doesn't have to go back to feudal England. ;)
The Supreme Court in 1977 (Coker v. Georgia) struck down as a violation of the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment the last state statute making rape a capital offense.
It is unfortunate that the issue of the death penalty for rape suffers historically from a racist context: Extra-legal lynchings and then state-sanctioned executions took place in the segregated South. This historical context clouds the legal and moral issues and results in the unjust treatment of all women in our society today.
And the clintons incarnate this unjust treatment--this gross maltreatment--of women. I would be very interested in getting the opinion of an experienced criminal law attorney regarding Broaddrick's stale claim.