Proponents of eliminating the civil statute of limitations for sexual abuse are right to identify the "reviver window" as the most controversial. It is also the most wrongheaded. This window of litigation would allow any claim, no matter how old, to be litigated. The practical effect of opening such a window would be a torrent of lawsuits against churches, universities and community groups, but the claims could now be so old that those organizations would not have any reasonable way to defend themselves in a court of law.
There is a reason statutes of limitations have been around since Roman times: Memories fade, evidence is lost, and witnesses pass away — often leaving only the testimony of the plaintiff available to the court.
Perhaps the greatest problem with eliminating the statute of limitations is that it does little, if anything, to prevent future abuse. There is no scientific evidence to support reviver windows, but strong evidence that comprehensive offender management and childhood education more effectively prevents these heinous and reprehensible crimes.
No rational person would argue that we, as a society, should not take action to prevent sexual abuse of children. Indeed, extending, not eliminating, the statute of limitations moving forward is a proposal that merits consideration. But eliminating the statute of limitations retroactively by enacting a reviver window would simply lead to lawsuits and would cause far more problems than it solves.
Thomas B. Stebbins
executive director, Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, Albany