[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
Does the “DNA exception” also include fingerprints? e.g. Fingerprints are found at the scene on an object that was used during the rape, and years later someone is found with the same fingerprints. Can the suspect be tried?
[/QUOTE]
It depends on the state. Some states have an exception clause that only applies to DNA, others say "biological evidence’ which I *assume * would include fingerprints. The state of Washington has a clause that specifically includes fingerprints:
[quote=]
Washington state DNA exception clause: Provides that if the time limitations have expired, the state has evidence consisting of fingerprints or DNA profile of a person who committed a crime against persons but comparisons of evidence to fingerprints or DNA profiles of known persons that were made before the time limitations expired did not result in the probable identification of the person, a prosecution for the violation may be commenced within 1 year if evidence results in probable identification.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=groman] If putting people in jail is more important than a fair trial, it does. Otherwise it’s up for debate. Personally I’d put the statute of limitations at about 15 years maximum for felonies, but remove any statute of limitations for civil law, but then again I’m weird.
[/QUOTE]
Who said they’d be put in jail without a fair trial? I am only suggesting that if a criminal is apprehended at any point after a forcible rape, that the prosecutor should have the option of trying the case, rather than being forced to allow a violent criminal to walk free due to a statute that is no longer appropriate.
[QUOTE=groman]
I wouldn’t be surprised if they can’t find a single willing poster child. People want to move on, and not be pestered five years later by a victim’s rights group.
[/QUOTE]
That could be the reason as there is definitely still a stigma. But if I were a victim of a violent rape and they found my attacker after the statute of limitations had expired, I’d be PISSED that the bastard could walk away and escape justice. Not to mention that violent rapists are usually repeat offenders and other women would be at risk because of that outdated statute.
[QUOTE=groman]
If putting people in jail is more important than a fair trial, it does. Otherwise it’s up for debate. Personally I’d put the statute of limitations at about 15 years maximum for felonies, but remove any statute of limitations for civil law, but then again I’m weird.
[/QUOTE]
Why is an absolute bar to prosecution fair, just because of the passage of time? Is it fair even in a case when all the witnesses are available, the evidence has been safely preserved, and there’s a person who’s been a victim of crime who wants justice, but the police only caught the guy a month after the limitation period expired? Why should an accused who’s been able to hide for years get a pass?
Under the Canadian approach, there is discretion in the courts, via the Charter’s guarantee of a fair trial, for the accused to argue that a prosecution would be unfair - not simply by the passage of time, but because of factors such as the death of witnesses, the fading of witnesses’ memories, the loss of physical evidence. Those are all factors that go to fairness of the trial, and if the court is convinced that a fair trial isn’t possible, it can stay the charge. But it’s not something as arbitrary as the ticking clock that decides if a trial is fair or unfair.
[QUOTE=Enola Gay]
So why aren’t the statutes of limitations for rape repealed? There are a few states (Cal, Id, NY, etc) who have a “DNA exception” clause to the statute, but it appears that all that does is extend the statute for a few more years. Why?
[/quote]
I’m not sure that the “DNA exception” ever passed in NY, but prosecutors in NY and some other states have begun seeking “John Doe” indictments. It doesn’t extend the statute of limitations,exactly, but as long as the indictment comes before the time runs out, the ability to prosecute should be preserved. ( can’t know for sure, because even if the guy arrested in 2004 was convicted, it’s unlikely that he’s done appealing) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/nyregion/28arrest.html?8br
[QUOTE=Muffin]
Nitpick – in Canada, although there is no limitation period for indicitable offences, there usually is a six month limitation period for summary conviction offences under the Criminal Code.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but considering how most offences are hybrids, that’s a limitation on procedure, not on the substantive offence. In most cases the Crown can choose to proceed by indictment once the six month summery period is gone by. I do agree though that I over-stated it. Perhaps I should have said that in Canada there’s only a limitation period for some minor offences.
