Prozanski prevails: Oregon remains safer for sexual predators

Sen. Floyd Prozanski

Sen. Floyd Prozanski

by NW Spotlight

Oregon has an unfortunate history of welcoming and making things easier for sexual predators.

Oregon has the second worst rate of rape and sexual violence against women in the nation. Oregon has the most registered sex offenders per capita of any state except one. Our current governor, Democrat Kate Brown, had to be shamed into supporting Jessica’s Law back in 2006 when she was the Senate Majority Leader – she had to be forced to stop defending child sex offenders. Democrats in the Oregon Legislature have successfully fought to keep extra protection for public employees who sexually abuse children.

Continuing on in this shameful tradition, state Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) has now successfully blocked an effort to increase the statute of limitations in Oregon for rape from 6 years to 20 years. Using his position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Prozanski forced the statute of limitations for rape from the proposed 20 years down to 12 years, in HB 2317.

The NY Times reports “Twenty-five states, ranging from liberal New York to reliably Republican Wyoming, have no statute of limitations on rape at all.” Danielle Tudor, a rape victim of the Portland jogger rapist Richard Gillmore when she was just 17, was quoted in the NY Times this week saying that she “had wanted to eliminate Oregon’s statute of limitations altogether,” but “felt that a 20-year statute of limitations was a good compromise” after she and fellow Oregon rape victim Brenda Tracy met with defense attorneys who still supported the 6-year statute of limitations.

Danielle Tudor told Oregon Catalyst that when she asked him why the proposed statute of limitations should be changed from 20 years down to 12 years for rape, Sen. Floyd Prozanski offered several explanations, but eventually told her that basically it was because he said so.

Reporting on the HB 2317 vote this week, the Oregonian wrote “lawmakers are heeding defense attorneys’ warnings that extending the statute too long could compromise defendants’ right to a fair trial,” and that Sen. Prozanski “wants time to convene a work group and revisit the possibility of a 20-year limit.” The Oregonian noted “some of the survivors saw that as a thinly veiled excuse to avoid action.”

An objective look at the numbers reveals vastly misplaced concerns on the part of Sen. Prozanski.

The Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) reports that 68% of sexual assaults go unreported, and that “only about 2% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison.” Sen. Prozanski should show more concern for rape victims, who are currently grossly underserved by our justice system.

Senate President Peter Courtney (D-Salem) was a chief sponsor of SB 8, which would have increased the statute of limitations for rape to 20 years, but it appears that Sen. Courtney has capitulated to Sen. Prozanski.

UPDATE 5/30/2015: Editorial in the Eugene Register-Guard – Change limit in rape cases (Deadline for prosecutions should be 20 years)

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Crime & Sentencing, OR 78th Legislative Session | 14 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • guest

    ‘OSS Prozanski; AAA, sic, [ Absolutely Arrogant and, Asinine] – recall and/ore vote this butt out, asap, this folly dude fellow!

  • Hayley Prychun Rodgers

    So Floyd, what you are saying is that you care more about rapists than their victims. I do NOT see how a longer SoL is going to “could compromise defendants’ right to a fair trial’

    • David from Mill City

      You don’t see how a longer statute of limitations would make it harder for an innocent person defend themselves. So, what were you doing at 11:30 AM on Wednesday the 29th of May 1996. Were there witnesses to confirm your story? Are they still alive? Do you know how to reach them? Do you have any other form of proof to back up your story, like cash register receipts or ticket stubs? Do you remember what clothes you were wearing? Do you still have them? Have they been washed since? How about the car you were driving that week? Now are you absolutely positive that it was not Monday the 29th of May 1995 or Thursday the 29th of May 1997 or Thursday the 30 of May 1996? Now do you understand why a longer statute of limitations makes it harder for a innocent person defend himself?

      • Hayley Prychun Rodgers

        It makes it harder for the prosecution to CHARGE them, if we hold the prosecution to a higher standard to even take them to court then it is far less of an issue. Not to mention that ANYONE able to be charged under this would then have the accused crime occur during much better DNA testing and the like, which if they do not have, and all they have is the word of the victim they should never be charged and never have to deal with a trial in the first place, because THAT makes it impossible for a fair trial.

      • Arele

        It also makes it harder for a victim to press charges. Both sides have an equal challenge as time goes on. Evidence for prosecution also deteriorates, and a prosecutor won’t be able to bring a case forward without good evidence.

        Rape is already very hard to effectively prosecute. RAINN reports that out of every 100 rapes committed, only 32 are reported, 7 actually lead to an arrest, only 3 are referred to a prosecutor and only 2 lead to a felony conviction.

        That means that only 2% of rapists ever see jail time, and these are national statistics, including the 50% of states that have NO statute of limitations on rape.

        The scales are so far tipped in favor of rapists already.

  • Jack Lord God

    Isn’t it interesting – Prozanski took the lead on SB941, extended background checks. Those who said it was just about harassing gun owners, not preventing crime, were called cynical. Yet Prozanski’s actions with regard to the SOL really make things clear don’t they.

    I swear to God this is true, but last night I was on Facebook. An acquaintance just had her neighbor in the other side of the duplex call her and tell her someone had been trying to break in. She was scared to death. I told her to leave. She wanted to borrow a gun, from her uncle, which would be legal, but he wasn’t home. A friend offered to lend her one. Nope, illegal now.

    Clearly Prozanski is interested in making things easy for criminals and hard on the law abiding. How people like this can look in the mirror is absolutely beyond me. If someone is accused of rape you will give him every break in the book, but if someone wants to buy a gun you assume a criminal? What a jerk.

    • .

      Recall Prozac’ski now!

      • Jack Lord God

        He has a D after his name and represents Eugene, a thinking free zone. He’s in for life.

        • .

          Like a tub of putz that be the Oreogonized DNC fornicator crime syndicate that has made Blumenauer a multi million dollar conjobassador. Argh!

  • MaxRedline

    I’ve yet to find any reason to respect that Floyd idiot, but then I don’t live in a “thinking prohibited” zone.

  • Susan Powter assays

    Prozanski is so far left of common sense, even the Eugene Register Guard must spindle his drivel and support recalling this backward ‘tard.
    “Stomp the Insanity lout!”

    • Myke

      He once proposed that a helmet be required to ride a bicycle, under penalty of law. I proposed that he wear one all the time, over concern that falling might cause further brain damage.

      • SPa

        Procrackpotski is a mental midget that no right minded Democrat can deny. Why he’s still in office…perhaps there’s Hassert a reason butt stalling for sum unseemly reason.

  • .

    Out, out Dem Prosyantsy!

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)