{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01770956316410862, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3283582089552235, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The “Revival of Memory” of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Is the Tolling of the Statute of Limitations Justified?

This article examines the effect of freshly-revived-memory evidence on the tolling of statutes of limitations in civil and criminal cases involving adult victims of childhood sexual abuse. Specifically, the author criticizes the application of the discovery rule, which may operate to toll the statute of limitations for many years after the alleged incident(s), to cases in which recently revived memories of childhood sexual abuse constitute the only evidence of such abuse. Arguing that these memories may be falsely implanted or encouraged by mental health professionals without regard for their accuracy, the author would require corroborating evidence of abuse in order to justify the application of the discovery rule in such cases.