Last week, I wrote about a federal bill called the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” – this week I’ll cover a new state law in California called the “Justice for Victims Act." Similarities between the two bills both begin and end with their invocation of the word “justice."

The California bill signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown two weeks ago follows the lead of 17 other states in allowing for the indefinite “prosecution of rape, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts, continuous sexual abuse of a child, oral copulation, and sexual penetration, that are committed under certain circumstances, as specified, to be commenced at any time." The law applies to crimes committed beginning in 2017.

Such crimes have a statute of limitations of ten years under existing law, with the potential for limited exceptions to be made if “new DNA evidence emerges later.” The old law also allowed for prosecution of sex offenses against minors anytime “prior to the victim’s 40^th birthday.” The now law Justice for Victims Act was filed by State Senator Connie Leyva, who said it “shows victims and survivors that California stands behind them, that we see rape as a serious crime, that victims can come forward and that justice now has no time limit."

Some have pointed to the bill as part of a larger, indirect response to public dialogue sparked in part as a result of allegations against comedian Bill Cosby, who allegedly drugged and sexually assaulted numerous women decades ago. Others have also pointed to numerous cases of adults speaking out about sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of priests, teachers, and other trusted adults long after the fact. The bill received unanimous support in both houses of California’s state legislature along with overwhelming support from women’s groups, victim’s advocacy groups, and other interest groups.

Among those who have raised concerns about the bill are defense attorneys, civil libertarians, and advocates for the wrongly accused. "My fear is that it's really dangerous, because even the smallest number of years after a crime it's really hard to mount a defense," Troy W. Slaten, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, said. Skeptics of the bill acknowledge that the current statute of limitations is “arbitrary”, however they say they fear that the more time allowed to pass the wider the margin of error in prosecuting a crime becomes. Whether this is an impossible balance to strike, remains to be seen.

While there didn’t seem to be evidence of their involvement in the passage of this bill, it’s also worth noting that the U.S. Catholic Church has funneled millions of dollars over the past decade into opposing attempts to extend statutes of limitations on child sex abuse cases. They have lobbied to oppose bills in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland that would have either extended statutes of limitations on child sex abuse cases or grant temporary civil windows for victims whose opportunities for action had already passed.

Regardless of the various actors and intentions who worked together to eliminate sexual abuse statutes of limitations in California, the decision clearly represents something larger. With major sex abuse cases ranging from public figures like Jerry Sandusky to Dennis Hastert, and the recent release of tapes in which the Republican Presidential nominee makes light of his unwanted sexual advances, the underlying trend is clear. Digging up old skeletons may be painful, but it also may be the only way to move forward. The first step to solving any problem is identifying it, and only once the facts can be openly debated in the light of day will the way our society deals with sex crimes change to reflect the reality of the rape culture we live in.