A bill under committee consideration in the Iowa House of Representatives would expand the current statute of limitations in rape cases from three years to 10 years, and in cases involving minors, from five years after the victim has turned 18 to 10 years.

Authors of the bill have said the proposed law change is in response to the increased viability of DNA testing in prosecuting sexual predators and rapists.

This is an excellent example of law reflecting society. DNA tests have been accepted as evidence in courts of law for years. To have the statute of limitations set at a mere three years is ridiculous when DNA evidence can be preserved for centuries.

Sexual assault is an emotional, disturbing crime, making it difficult for victims to notify proper authorities or press charges for years.

Just taking care of the pain rape can inflict is hard enough for many victims, let alone making a public charge or consenting to testifying in a courtroom.

This is why many sexual crimes go unreported and many sexual predators roam our streets free.

Expanding the statute of limitations will reduce the hastiness in which rape cases must be handled.

The evidence can be collected in a doctor’s examination immediately following the crime and be saved until the victim is emotionally ready and prosecutors are legally prepared to bring the case to trial.

But not only is this bill a good legal reaction to new technology, it makes common sense.

As stated before, rape is a terribly difficult crime to prosecute because of the emotion and prejudice that often walk hand-in-hand with rape allegations.

The statute of limitations currently sits at three years. Compare this with the two-year statute of limitations for libel cases. There’s only one year of difference between rape and libel?

Statutes of limitations are, in essence, a combination of how long the evidence can be preserved and how heinous the crime is. Obviously, it makes no sense to arrest Al Gore and Bill Bradley for marijuana possession because they smoked it more than two decades ago.

The state should ignore certain criminal acts after a set, relatively short period of time.

Rape is not one of those acts, however. Thanks to new technology, the empirical evidence of a rape trial can be revisited decades after the actual assault, and there are not many crimes more despised than rape or individuals who need to be punished more than rapists.

This bill is without a doubt a step in the right direction.

Iowa State Daily Editorial Board: Sara Ziegler, Greg Jerrett, Kate Kompas, Carrie Tett and David Roepke.