The New York Adult Survivors Act

Signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in May 2022, The Adult Survivors Act (the “ASA”) is a landmark new law that re-opens the statute of limitations for sexual abuse claims in New York, even if the victim was an adult at the time of the abuse.

From November 24, 2022 – November 23, 2023, adult survivors of sexual abuse in New York can bring civil claims regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred. 

Today, we take an important step in empowering survivors across New York to use their voices and hold their abusers accountable.

Governor Kathy Hochul

            (Source)

The ASA is modeled on the Child Victims Act (the “CVA”), which created a look-back window for survivors of sexual assault who were under the age of 18 at the time of the assault. The CVA which came into effect in 2019 resulted in over 8,000 lawsuits and has been incredibly effective at holding institutions accountable for long-ago abuse of children.  The CVA only applied to cases of abuse where the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the abuse. 

As per another report: Around 11,000 lawsuits were filed in New York against churches, hospitals, schools, camps and other institutions under that law. 

The newly-enacted ASA creates a similar one-year look-back window for survivors of sexual abuse who are over eighteen years old and whose claims are presently time barred.  (Source)

The New York ASA recognizes that victims of sexual assault can't always pursue a case immediately. 

Lawsuits filed under revival windows are often brought not only against the alleged abuser, but also against employers, educational institutions, summer camps, social service agencies, and other entities under a vicarious liability theory. Such lawsuits typically bring claims for aiding and abetting the abuse, transporter liability, benefitting from sex trafficking under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), civil RICO violations, negligent hiring, negligent security, premises liability, and common law negligence. These claims can date back decades, implicating extremely complex insurance and liability issues. (Source)

A billionaire investor with ties to the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has been accused of raping a young mother at Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion under New York’s new Adult Survivor’s Act. (news)

Woman Files Lawsuit Accusing Ex-Hedge Fund Exec Leon Black of Raping Her Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Townhouse a new lawsuit under New York’s Adult Survivors Act. The 30-page complaint lays out a detailed and graphic portrait of events said to have taken place roughly two decades ago. (news)

E. Jean Carroll, who accused Donald Trump of raping her in mid-1990s, plans to file new lawsuit against former U.S. president to bring claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York's Adult Survivors Act. (news)

Trump Sued for Battery by E. Jean Carroll Under NY’s new law. Carroll already has a defamation suit pending against Trump. (news)

Under the ASA, survivors of sexual offenses can bring claims against individual offenders in addition to bringing related claims against public and private institutions, companies and other organizations that may have employed the alleged offenders or otherwise been connected to such offenders. 

Plaintiffs will no doubt bring claims based on intentional and negligent acts and omissions, alleging, for example, that entities: failed to protect plaintiffs from sexual offenders; were negligent in implementing proper safety protocols; were negligent in hiring, retaining, supervising and directing offenders; were negligent in implementing proper safety and reporting protocols; and were liable for infliction of emotional distress.

Key issues in these litigations may involve the duty, if any, that entities owed to plaintiffs, the extent of entities’ control of alleged offenders, whether alleged offenders acted as agents of entities affiliated with them and whether these entities had actual or constructive knowledge of an alleged offender’s sexual offenses committed against a plaintiff or a propensity to commit sexual offenses based on past conduct.

(Source)

Separate suits under the new ASA law are expected to be filed on behalf of more than 750 women who allege they were sexually assaulted in New York State prisons, attorney Adam Slater said.

“The detainee-guard relationship is one of the most extreme power imbalances that exists today,” Slater said. “Under New York State law, a person in correctional custody is legally incapable of consent. Officers and guards in these facilities have an unmatched arsenal of methods for exerting their will upon victims: physical confinement, force, withholding of privileges and total control over their environments.” (source)

More lawsuits are expected on behalf of about 40 more women with new claims against a Columbia University gynecologist Dr. Robert Hadden, said attorney Anthony DiPietro, who represented 230 women allegedly sexually abused by Hadden. Nearly 150 of those cases were settled before the Adult Survivors Act went into effect.

Hadden is due to go on trial next year on six counts of enticing and inducing victims to his medical offices in New York and subjecting them to unlawful sexual abuse from about 1993 to 2012, prosecutors have said; Hadden has pleaded not guilty. (source)

The Adult Survivors Act builds on Governor Hochul's steadfast and ongoing commitment to protecting and supporting survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence. Earlier this year, the Governor announced nearly $24 million for domestic violence and sexual assault programs, including $16 million for 83 domestic violence programs and shelters and $7.6 million for 50 rape crisis centers and sexual assault programs. (Source)

Former President Pratibha Patil pardoned seven rapist- murderers !

Before demitting office in June 2012, Past President of India Pratibha Patil had pardoned seven rapist-murderers, who were awarded death penalty by the sessions courts - and those death sentences were upheld by the respective State High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. But Pratibha patil accepted their mercy petitions on the recommendation of the Ministry of Home Affairs, then headed by P. Chidambaram. 

These criminals are Bandu Baburao Tidake (Karnataka), Dharmendra Singh, Narendra Yadav, Bantu and Satish (Uttar Pradesh); Molai Ram, Santosh Yadav (Madhya Pradesh). 

Read their crimes herebelow-

(1) Molai Ram and (2) Santosh Yadav (Madhya Pradesh): Santosh Yadav was serving a rape sentence in the Central Jail, Rewa (MP). He was asked to do some work in the garden of the jail quarters. Molai Ram was on duty as a guard at jailor R.S. Somvanshi's quarter on 20 February 1996. Jailor Somvanshi's daughter Naveena (16) was alone at home as her father had left for work while her mother had gone to her parents' house along with her son. The two raped Naveena, a student of Class X. After raping her, they killed her and threw the body in a septic tank in a nearby cattleshed. Her body was recovered the next day. It was found that she had died of strangulation and stab injuries. The two were given death in 1999. Pratibha cancelled the death punishment.

(3) Satish (UP): In August 2001, Satish raped a six-year-old girl Vishakha and then killed her. The girl, a student of Meerut's Sarvodaya School, had left home for school on 16 August 2001, but did not return. Her body was discovered from a sugarcane field the next morning. Satish was seen by eyewitnesses as riding a bicycle with the little girl seated on the handlebar the day the girl disappeared. The case was considered to belong to the "rarest of rare category" and Satish was given a death sentence in February 2005.

(4) Bandu Baburao Tidke (Karnataka): Tidke was a sugarcane cutter in Maharashtra's Beed. He came to Huliyala in Karnataka's Bagalkot district in 2002 where he stayed at an ashram, posing as a swami. The same year, he dragged a 12-year-old school girl to his room, raped her and killed her. He then escaped to Shirdi, leaving her body there. He was arrested the same year. He was given the death sentence in 2005 by the Bagalkot district court and sent to Hindalga jail in Belgam. Patil took the decision to pardon him in June 2012. 

(5) Bantu (UP): In this case the victim was a five-year-old girl, Vaishali. On 4 October 2003, one Naresh Kumar, his brother Vishal and niece Vaishali were attending a "Devi Jagran" in village Basai Khurd in Agra district. Naresh Kumar's neighbour Bantu was there too. He took out the child saying he would give her a balloon. When Vaishali did not return for a long time, a search was launched for her. Vaishali and Bantu were found next to a pond at 9.30 pm. Bantu was caught in a naked state. He had raped and repeatedly tortured Vaishali in the worst possible way. She was rushed to a hospital but was declared brought dead. Bantu was given death by the trial court, a judgement that was upheld by the high court and the Supreme Court.

(6) Dharmendra Singh and (7) Narendra Yadav (UP): Dharmendra Singh and Narendra Yadav of Agra were convicted for killing five members of a family, including three minors, in 1994. The dispute started over property. One Chandra Mohan had purchased 13.5 bigha land and half a haveli from Dharmendra's grandfather. The other half of the haveli was used by Dharmendra, who was not happy with the co-ownership. Chandra Mohan's niece Rita (15), was often teased by Dharmendra's friend Narendra, but she did not return his advances. Chandra Mohan once gave a thrashing to Narendra.Narendra hatched a conspiracy with Dharmendra to rape Rita and kill the family members. The duo killed Chandra Mohan and five others on the night of 26 May 1994. Rita was raped before the murder.

The Supreme Court held the crime to be "ghastly, premeditated, and one which fell in the rarest of the rare category". In 2004, the then Home Minister L.K. Advani rejected the mercy appeal. But P. Chidambaram's MHA recommended that, "This was a crime driven by greed, lust and family feud, not uncommon in many parts of India." Having regard to all the factors, especially their age and the fact that both have been in the prison for 15 years, home minister P Chidambaram opined that "it would be appropriate to commute the sentence of death of one of life imprisonment." 

During Patil's tenure, the Ministry of Home Affairs commuted to life the death sentences of 35 criminals involved in 19 cases. In June, a Rashtrapati Bhavan spokesperson had said: "Article 72 does confer on the President the power to grant clemency. However, in the exercise of these powers, the President is not supposed to act on her own judgment but is mandated to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the government, which is binding on the Head of State"

Patil's predecessor A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had rejected the petition of Dhananjoy Chatterjee convicted of raping and killing a school girl, and he was hanged in Kolkata in 2004. After Dhananjoy Chatterjee no rape convict has been hanged – because P Chidambaram concluded, “such offences are not uncommon” and Prathibha Patil approved Home Ministry’s recommendation. 

Murder is punishable with life sentence or death under Section 302 IPC. Gang Rape under Section 376 IPC is punishable with life imprisonment. And in the recent case of rape inside bus in Delhi, maximum sentence that can be awarded by the court is only life imprisonment. Because gang rape and attempt to murder can be punished with maximum of life imprisonment only and not death sentence ! 

Hence the public outcry to amend the law to provide death penalty to rapists is very proper and justified. The pardoning power of the President under the Constitution should also be suitably amended to exclude death penalties upheld by the Supreme Court. Once the highest Court awards death sentence, it should be implemented within a week. Death penalties should be executed in public. But will the Cental Govt listen ?

Sting Operation - "they asked for it" - Delhi police Attitude towards Rape victims

The shockingly insensitive 'they asked for it' stance of Delhi cops towards rape victims, exposed by an NDTV-Tehelka sting operation is an SOS to the khakhi top brass in the country. The thinking betrays a deep rooted prejudice, perhaps at one level even connivance with the perpetrators, an anti-victim, male chauvinistic, sexist, mindset and either cynicism or impotence of those black sheep meant to protect; and when that fails, to investigate and prosecute. I'm using the term black sheep because not all cops are bad. Some take an extreme position and mete out their own 'justice' to criminals accused of rape. No right thinking person will hold a brief for this either.

For starters, how many women would feel safe in an average police station in the country? The record of custodial rapes is another story in itself. But to suggest that the victim "deserved" to be raped is the most perverse form of escapism. No citizen deserves a crime. Every citizen deserves safety and protection. It's only criminals who deserve punishment. What's frightening is that almost all the cops exposed are Inspectors, who are invariably the investigating officers of crime. The police station constitutes the cutting edge of the department. So when these key players in the criminal justice system make excuses and indulge in a shameless blame game, wouldn't it embolden criminals? Don't we also run the risk of botched up investigation? An investigation into a rape calls for forensic expertise - meticulous collection of evidence ranging from blood, finger nails and skin to semen samples and strands of hair. It also calls for circumstantial evidence to puncture the trademark defence - alibi. If an officer carries the baggage of preconceived notions about the victim, wouldn't that itself be a perfect setting for investigative oversight and ultimately, an acquittal?

It's not the job of an officer to dole out character certificates or sit in judgment over the version of an alleged victim. That's for the court to adjudicate. But if a cop rustles up weak evidence, the public prosecutor would be helpless in preventing a chargesheet from falling by the wayside, from witnesses turning hostile and sometimes, even the victim giving up. Take a look at where the law stands on the issue of 'character'. Under Section 54 of the Evidence Act, the bad character of an accused person is not relevant. Much more irrelevant in the case of a victim! Even a commercial sex worker can be raped. So what are those talking through berets? And look at what the Supreme Court had to say about the testimony of rape victims. In State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh, the apex court made it clear that the victim's evidence alone is sufficient to convict. The rationale was telling: "In a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court to make a humiliating statement against her honour". Criminal trial can be quite traumatic for a rape victim.

What I find most ridiculous is the argument on dressing as a trigger for a crime of passion. Lust, like beauty, also lies in the eye of the beholder. Actor-politician Khushbu made an interesting point. "There are scores of women who are harassed although they are clad in traditional attire". Public prosecutors will tell you it's not always lust that drives a person to rape. Sift through the clutter of Section 375 Indian Penal Code cases and you will come across other factors like a perverse desire to show authority or to demonstrate superiority over hapless victims. What else would explain the gang rapes of tribal women in Tamil Nadu's Vachhathi village two decades ago? A conviction of 169 officers came just last year! Just recently, an 82-year-old woman was allegedly raped by a 32-year-old man. It took a public outcry and medical reports for the police to take the word of relatives seriously and arrest the man accused of committing the crime. The outrageous 'dress logic' also came to the fore a few years ago when a Vice Chancellor of a University in Chennai banned jeans and T-Shirts on the campus because "professors may get distracted". 

The reference to loose morals is equally frivolous. Whose morals, please? By whose standards? Here's another grossly misrepresented provision of law, that is reflected in movies. An unmarried couple found together in a hotel room. A knock at the door. And the next scene is of the duo being driven away in a police jeep! The Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act does not apply to consenting adults. It only makes living out of earning through prostitution, involving soliciting in a public place, an offence. The Supreme Court has even recognised live in relationships. Consensual sex, as long as the girl is above sixteen, is not the business of a man in khakhi. The police-public ratio is terribly skewed in our country. The crime graph is rising. And the curriculum in our police training academies needs an overhaul and a definite inclusion of gender sensitisation modules. The cops have their task cut out. Georges Clemenceau once quipped: "war is too serious a matter to be left to military men". Perhaps sermonising is too complicated a task for the police!

Source - http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/blog-cops-say-rape-victims-asked-for-it-194990

No Relief for the Rape Victims in India... - The Hindu

India's rape crisis in 2010 (PDF)

The reason is simple: in the six decades since Crime in India first appeared, the capacities of police to investigative crimes have incrementally diminished —and the social attitudes, that deem rape a crime not worthy of devoting more resources to, haven't changed.
POOR INVESTIGATION MEANS NO JUSTICE

Evidence that investigative incompetence is leading to diminishing conviction rates across the board isn't hard to come by: convictions for murder, for example, also showed a steady decline from 44.28% in 1973 to 36.73% in 2010.

Lawyers say the reason for the relatively high conviction rates for crimes like murder or housebreaking is that witnesses can be found — or, sometimes, invented by investigators. “The whole investigation system now revolves around a witness,” says New Delhi-based lawyer Rebecca John. “In crimes like rape, there usually isn't one.”

For over five decades now, the Supreme Court has held that the testimony of rape victims doesn't have to be corroborated, for example by forensic evidence, for a conviction to be won. That does not, however, appear to have pushed up the victim's chances of getting justice.

“Let's put it this way,” says a senior New Delhi-based police officer, “it doesn't take a lot for a perpetrator to create reasonable doubt — say, an unethical lawyer and a couple of friends willing to lie about his whereabouts.”

Hard-nosed investigation would minimise this kind of fraud — but there just aren't enough resources. India needs 250 police personnel per 100,000 citizens, twice the 133 per 100,000 available in 2010. Figures released by the Ministry of Home Affairs suggest upwards of 500,000 personnel have been recruited in recent months, but the infrastructure to train them in investigation doesn't exist.

The authors of the 1953 report had, in similar circumstances, warned that “large-scale recruitment in all the ranks of the police has diluted quality to a great extent, and consequently, the standard of work has fallen.”

“I think you have to accept,” says the former Andhra Pradesh Director-General of Police HG Dora, one of India's most respected policing experts, “that the police is stretched to breaking point.”

Figures show victims of sexual crimes understand this ugly fact. From 1973 to 1983, rape complaints doubled — and then slowly plateaued out, growing at levels close to the increase of the population. Even in western countries where the social stigma associated with filing a complaint is relatively low, many victims choose suffering in silence over suffering in a court. In 1991, a United States survey placed the reporting rate for rape at 55%; a similar Canadian investigation in 1985 placed the figure at 38%.

In 2000, a national survey in the United Kingdom concluded that 4.9% of all women had experienced at least one rape or sexual assault. In Ireland, Sweden and Germany, separate studies suggested that far higher numbers of women had been attacked, ranging from 25% to 34%.

No similar nationwide survey data is available in India, though a 2007 government study found that 53% of children polled reported having experienced “one or more forms of sexual abuse.”

The NCRB figures also show one important reason why victims have an incentive to remain silent: the rapists are mainly friends, even kin. Even though the media overwhelmingly reports on dramatic cases involving attacks by strangers, all but four States reported that nine out of 10 alleged perpetrators or more were known to the victim. In Delhi, that figure was 96.6%.

Protracted ‘acquaintance rape' trials allow for pressure to be brought to bear on victims or material witnesses to withdraw their testimony. In 2010, the numbers of alleged perpetrators either in custody or out on bail awaiting trial had grown to a staggering 89,707, up from 4,991 in 1973 — numbers which point to endless courtroom delays.

The north-east exception

Fixing policing and fast-tracking trials, though, might not alone be enough to influence outcomes. The NCRB data shows that the status of women in society may influence outcomes just as much as policing. The highest conviction rates were recorded by a cluster of States in the north-east, where data on literacy, nutrition and gender ratios all suggest women have a relatively high social status.

Nagaland convicted 73.7% of alleged perpetrators, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim both 66.7% and Meghalaya 44.4%. Mizoram, which convicted a staggering 96.6 percent of alleged perpetrators, also had the highest level of rape reported to police — 9.1 per 100,000 residents. This suggests that community pressure on the criminal justice system forces it to take rape seriously.

Some believe that better laws could help address these problems — but the evidence isn't persuasive. In a 1992 critique of Canadian rape-law reforms, criminologists Julian Roberts and Robert Gebotys found they had simply “attract[ed] more victims into the system, rather than changing the way that the system functions.”

Susan Estrich, writing in the Yale Law Review in 1986, noted that “studies within particular jurisdictions suggest limited, if any, changes in the processing of rape cases in the aftermath of major law enactments.”

India's problems aren't unique: in the United Kingdom, the government has been working to reverse an appalling conviction rate of 5.7 per cent, measured against complaints, and 33 per cent, when measured, as in India, against cases brought to trial.

The fact is, though, that much of the world has the tools, and the intent, needed to address the problem. In India, there is little so far but debate.