A man is on trial, accused of raping two sisters when he babysat them.
The alleged rapes occurred -- brace yourself -- between February 1974 and February 1975. The man, now 51, was 14 years old at the time. He denies that he did it, but still he is on trial. Story: see here.
Why would these sisters make up something like that? If you seriously need to know the answer to that, you are not a reader of this blog. Spend a few months reading through this blog (that's how long it will take you if you devote a few hours to it each day) and you will never ask that question again.
Let us ask the more important question: how can a man possibly defend himself with respect to something that supposedly happened 36 or 37 years ago, when he was a boy, other than to say, I didn't do it? Any evidence of alibi (e.g., that he wasn't babysitting the sisters the days they claim they were raped) has long disappeared, and there is no possibility that he will be able to reconstruct those days. None.
For you folks old enough to remember, do you have any more than a vague recollection of your lives from February 1974 to February 1975?
Trying this man under these circumstances is an atrocity, an affront to justice. There need to be statutes of limitations for rape not exceeding a few years in duration.
Yes, it would be a terrible thing if some rapists escaped because the claims against them are time-barred. It is an even more terrible thing to subject an innocent man to charges he can't possibly defend against because the passage of time has stripped him of a defense.