I agree with that. But it’s still irrelevant. The state has no right to consider someone guilty of crime until they’ve been prosecuted and convicted. The statute of limitations says that can’t happen after a certain period of time.
Hasn’t been explicitly mentioned but as an aside let’s remember “the US having statutes of limitations” actually means each of the 50 states, DC, the Organized Unincorporated Territories, the Tribal Courts, the Federal justice system, the Military Justice system, and who knows if I’m missing someone there, having varying levels of statutes of limitations under their respective criminal laws.
As it stands now, in most of those jurisdictions, there is a varying SoL term depending on the severity of the crimes involved, which is IMO only fair, after all we don’t make *every *sentence be open-ended thirty days to Life, do we? The sentence happens within parameters (some discretionary, some mandatory) set up by the legislative. Similarly, the system in general gets a window of time to act, in some way proportional on severity. Because really, the aforementioned fellow who tossed his old tax records, or some dude who bought beer with fake ID as a 19 year old, should they be subject to arrest 30 years later if the DA feels prickish this week?
Most of the critique I hear of the notion is when incidentally to something else, some other heinous conduct from a long while back is revealed, and it turns out that’s beyond the SoL and people are riled that they can’t nail the bastards for that. It’s not that it exists, it’s that it applies in a way or in circumstances the reader wishesd it didn’t. Well, the solution to that is to legislate so that like murder or other crimes varying per state, those specific crimes do not get a limited term or get a much extended one (and BTW this would do nothing for a past crime that was both known and past term before the legislation; only for those revealed afterward).
The SoL is meant to protect the individual’s right to a fair trial and to be able to put up a defense on some sort of just footing. A criminal trial is a person being placed in jeopardy of life/freedom/holdings for a criminal conduct, and said person has rights. Putting him/her on trial for the sake of the “message for the whole country” must be secondary.
I’d rather there be a *legislated *parameter that at some point in time evidence it is no longer entirely at the Prosecutor’s discretion if it’s worth it to assemble a case for less than major crimes. Especially with elected prosecutors and judges in many American states, I’d worry about a perverse incentive.
Say what? I would bet that most Dopers can remember quite clearly where they were and what they were doing on 9/11.
I can tell you with absolute 100% factual memory that the first news I got of the attacks was when my mother informed me that an airplane had hit the World Trade Center. I can tell you that, hours after the 9/11 attacks, I was following the news on the Internet and Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 2, First Movement, was playing on our family’s CD player. And all of this is from more than *fourteen *years ago.
Do *you *remember anything with any clarity from beyond 5-7 years back?
Now, one may say, yes, but 9/11 was a drastic event, that’s why people remember it so clearly. Yes - but so is being the victim of a crime, too. If you were to be robbed at gunpoint, that would be a pretty memorable event.
It’s not simply the victim’s menory that is at issue. It’s the accused’s, and those if other memories.
Suppose you were accused of a violent crime committed o ln 11 September 1998. You know you didn’t do it, but his would you go about proving it? Even if you remember exactly whom you were with on that date, do you know how to contact that person? What if they don’t remember things the way you do?
I’ll accept that, but as you get more years it gets worse.
No problem with the edit.
Sure. Or you may only think you remember it correctly. The fact is, memory is malleable. What you think you remember may not be the way it happened at all.
Isn’t a statute of limitations a sledgehammer to crack a nut? All the reasons cited for having one can be applied in a different principle of legislation.
The fallibility of memory is a factor for a jury to take into account - so much depends on the credibility of each individual witness in court - rather than a blanket statement by statute that no memory can be reliable after x years.
But if it were the case, the prosecutor could go after people because he lucked out on some evidence against someone while this person couldn’t defend himself unless he just happens to be equally lucky.
Let’s assume that for every crime, there exists one evidence of guilt and one exculpactory evidence, and the jury has to weight one against the other during trial.
Now, police decides for some reason to make a new thorough investigation of all the old cases from 30 or 50 years ago. Let’s assume that after all that time, there’s 1% chance that a relevant evidence can still be uncovered. They have 1000 very old cases. They will find an evidence of guilt against someone, sufficient to prosecute, in 10 of the cases (“A witness saw him entering the house with a gun”). Those accused have still 1% chance themselves to be able to provide the exculpatory evidence. IOW, it’s almost certain they won’t be able to present a defence (“I was at Joe’s bar at the time of the crime, but I don’t remember with whom and Joe himself is long dead”).
That a DA can gather enough evidence to charge you after 40 years doesn’t mean that you can have a fair trial. If you let him do so, you just let him go after people he’s almost certain won’t be able to put any hole in his arguments, regardless of actual guilt.
But fallibility of memory isn’t the only issue. The issue is the likely inability of the defendant to mount a defense (like producing his own witnesses, or still having some document proving that the witness is a fucking liar) so long after the facts.
Again, that the prosecutor lucked out on finding someone willing to testify against you 50 years after the fact doesn’t mean that you have a reasonable chance to be equally lucky.
The fallibility of memory, though, isn’t just about the credibility of individual witnesses; it’s about who is even summoned to testify.
The people you were with on 9/10/2001 (the day before the WTC attack) may be excellent witnesses, but if you can’t remember their names, or are unable to locate them, or they’ve died, no jury will ever assess their credibility.
Similarly, other kinds of evidence also degrades over time. If I need to prove whether or not I was at work last week, the security footage of me entering and leaving the building is readily available. Even two or three years later, payroll records will still exist; did I get paid for working last Thursday? After forty years, though, even if the company still exists the “corporate memory” (including all of the records) to prove I ever even worked there may be gone.
Ok. Now, do you have a similar absolute factual memory of where you were and what you were doing at 3:30 in the afternoon on July 7, 2005? or between 9 and noon on April 11, 2007? how about accounting for every minute of your day on the weekend of Feb. 22/23, 2003? Those are all dates more recent than 9/11, so are your memories just as sharp and clear, or are those random dates (not associated with world-shattering news events) all blended together with the days before and after them? Could you testify to what, if anything, was playing on the CD player at 7:30 pm on Sept. 4, 2001?
I remember one case where this man kidnapped, raped, and murdered a teenage girl sometime around 1979. They only caught up with the guy some 20 years later. He had moved to another state and had been living a pretty clean life but in his mind, he knew what he had done and had enormous guilt and was considering turning himself in. He said he was actually relived when the police finally caught up with him.
So that begs a question, what if a guilty party comes forth after the SOL and admits a crime?
I think most statute of limitations statutes I’m aware of are pretty fair. In most cases, there is no statute of limitations for capital crimes. I would argue that there shouldn’t be a statute of limitations for violent crimes or assaults (i.e. rapes) if there is strong forensic support for guilt. I would not want a case to rely upon nothing more than a person’s memory – time has nothing to do with the fallibility of memory. A mind can be tricked into false perceptions and memories even milliseconds after an experience.
Most jurisdictions I’m aware of don’t have a statute of limitations for murder. They probably should not have them for rape or other serious physical assaults.
Thailand does. Twenty years.
Exactly. Velocity has a great alibi for any crime that happened on 9/11/01. Great. But what about for OTHER crimes? Like I said before, people get hung up on the SoL when it is brought to their attention by some shocking case, but that’s not what all crime’s about.
I would think 30 years later it takes more than a couple people saying you did “X” to prosecute you for it.
I think people are ignoring other possible reasons for a statute of limitations besides memory. If you look at Wikipedia, one other possible reason listed is “A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.” This makes complete sense. Someone guilty of a misdemeanor shouldn’t have to look over their shoulder 50 years later being concerned about it.
As possible hypotheticals to illustrate this, people who may have done drugs in their teens or twenties shouldn’t be prosecuted 50 years later because of some new technology that allows prosecutors to detect any drug ever taken by a person. People shouldn’t be prosecuted for reckless driving from years ago if it becomes legal to examine phone GPS and other records without a warrant. These hypotheticals aren’t actually likely, but there are some that might be or some that aren’t even possible today but might be in the future.
Prosecutors and investigators should be diligent and bring charges within the statute of limitations. Without the statute of limitations prosecutors could keep criminals perpetually as unpaid informants using one old crime no matter how old it is simply by threatening to charge them with the crime if they don’t keep helping. That’s not fair, even to criminals. (I don’t know, maybe ethics rules would prohibit it anyhow without a written agreement between the prosecution and defense.)
It seems to be in the same spirit as the right to a speedy trial.
Statute of limitations also apply in civil law, right? If you get injured because of a manufacturing defect in a product, you can’t sue 50 years later, you have to do it within a reasonable amount of time of the injury.
People concerned about uncharged old crimes hanging over their heads, or being used against them, can always turn themselves in–start putting it behind them.
Actually, no, that’s pretty much worthless as a alibi.