I created this topic since it seemed to be generating some thoughtful discussions on whether the United States should have statutes of limitations.
Some of the arguments I’ve heard in favor of having statutes of limitations is that it offsets the increasing unreliability (eyewitness testimony, for example) and unavailability/tarnishment of evidence that time brings. Also, the possibility that not having any statutes of limitations could allow the government to abuse the ability to prosecute crimes, no matter how trivial the crime or how long ago it was.
On the other side, I’ve heard people argue that having statutes of limitations rewards criminals for not being caught in time, which is a fundamental perversion of justice. I’m sure there are more arguments against having statutes of limitations, but that’s the argument I’ve heard the most.
So, do you think the United States should or shouldn’t have statutes of limitations? Or do you think that the basic idea behind the statute of limitations is sound, but that a larger amount of crimes shouldn’t have them?*
I know that SoL’s vary by state and there’s been recent changes in a lot of states, especially crimes involving sexual assault. However, if you are in the third column, what guidelines would you have to determine if a crime should have a statute of limitations or not?
There is nothing inherently wrong with the notion of s statute of limitations. The problems lie in their implementation.
As noted it would seem absurd to prosecute someone for some petty theft when they were 20 because they admitted to it while chatting to some friends in a park when they are 50 and a cop overhears it.
On the flip side there are cases where the person didn’t even know something was amiss till after the SoL had passed. Lilly Ledbetter comes to mind because she didn’t sue within the timeframe allotted because she didn’t know she was being discriminated against in her salary till the time had passed.
The primary reason for a statute of limitations is to ensure that a trial can be held with proper evidence. Memories fade, people die, evidence degrades and gets lost. New investigations can’t be thorough. Imagine being accused of cheating in the 6th grade when you’re 40 years old, how do you defend yourself when Tommy “Stinkypants” Smith says he gave you the answers and remembers it like it was yesterday. It’s too easy to try someone for a horrific crime when they can no longer establish a solid alibi and the memories of witnesses have been tainted by years of speculation.
Certainly we should review the statutes and their applicability, but more than that we may need better protection for cases within the time period to prosecute that still have the same vulnerabilities. And of course we should work harder to find and prosecute criminals within a reasonable time frame. We may even need to review the speedy trial provisions of some states that encourage hasty prosecutions or prevent more thorough investigations.
It’s not up to the DA to set the standard for that. The DA may have 3 witnesses that swear you committed a crime 30 years ago. There’s the case, but the law has to determine whether you can get a fair trial in those circumstances. What ability do you have to impeach those witnesses about events that happened 30 years ago? What ability do you have to find your own exculpatory witnesses or investigate who else may have committed the crime? The law is there in recognition that the system is imperfect, and at some point the imperfections exceed the ability of the system to derive a just verdict.
The notion that the SoL rewards criminals for avoiding detection presupposes that all persons accused if a crime are guilty. The SoL acknowledges that, after a certain point, it is no longer possible or at least practical to prove a person’s guilt beyond s reasonable doubt, and that admitting evidence and testimony after a great deal of time has passed makes it impossible for the accused to ably defend himself. Under the principle of presumption of innocence, that means the accused should not be prosecuted.
I wrote nothing about the importance of prosecuting. I wrote that, after a certain period of time, it is no longer practical or even possible to give the accused a fair trial.
Isn’t the whole point of prosecution to prevent people from committing future crimes? Either through fear of being caught or by locking people up so they can’t commit crimes? If you killed one person 30 years ago and haven’t killed anyone since and have been a very productive member of society, is there any benefit to be gained by prosecution? Conversely, if you are a serial child molester and have molested children for decades but only the ones molested 30 years ago are willing to testify, there is a lot for society to gain by prosecution.
Perhaps giving the DA latitude might be the answer?
The point of prosecution is to establish that someone actually did commit a crime. Punishment has to follow a conviction. When enough time has passed it’s not possible to rely on the outcome of a trial anymore so prosecution can’t be allowed. That’s all this is, whether or not the justice system can work after the passage of long periods of time. The statute of limitations says that it can’t. It has nothing to do with whether we still want to prosecute people.
The preventive/deterrent value of prosecution has never been limited to, or even primarily about, the prosecuted individuals. It’s about the message for the whole of society. Any passes given undercut this message in all other potential cases.
of course the fact that punishment has been shown to be the least effective method of altering behavior has no relevance.
I don’t see any point in locking people up unless they are highly likely to repeat their crime. So there is little point in prosecuting someone who dd one horrible deed a long time ago and then never repeated it. I do however think people who have repeatedly committed crimes and are therefore likely to do so again in future might need to have some kind of intervention. So I am against blanket statutes of limitations. It depends on the circumstances.