I would at the contrary argue that there should be a SOL for all crimes, including murders. I already wrote that a SOL is necessary, as after a long time, the ability to mount an effective defense is seriously impaired if it so happens that an incriminating evidence is found. Since the stakes are higher in a murder case, it makes a SOL even more necessary.
My position is that SOL, rather than be curtailed, should be expanded.
I frankly wouldn’t bet on it. If prosecutors have this option, some of them at least will use it.
What about a crime YOU DON’T KNOW will be mistakenly charged to you? You seem to be locked in to that the innocent have nothing to fear.
QFT. Peremensoe has a lot more confident in the criminal justice system than I.
What about it? theR was talking about cases where guilty people knew they were guilty.
If there’s misleading evidence, false witnesses, or malicious or incompetent prosecutors at work, they’re going to get you before any statute of limitations can save you.
This is moving the goalposts. Of course nobody can remember every detail of every day. But what I am disputing is the claim that *“Memories are worthless after 5 or 7 years.” *It is perfectly possible to remember something with clarity from more than 5 to 7 years ago.
And there are misleading evidences, false witnesses, and malicious prosecutors. And plenty of other things that can result in an innocent person being charged with a crime, without any malice involved. That’s the reason why defendants have a right to a fair trial, where they can present a defense. If we were to follow your reasonning, we could also get rid of the this whole trial thing for all cases, and let the presumably honest prosecutor just sentence you directly on the basis of the presumably not misleading evidences and presumably truthful and reliable witnesses.
You’re basically arguing that a statute of limitation is a bad thing when the accused is actually guilty (“cases where guilty people knew they were guilty”). But we have no way to know whether the person prosecuted/tried 40 years after the facts is guilty or not.
Thank you for all the posts. Many of you have written very insightful posts.
My belief is that there should be a general statute of limitations with rare exceptions. Having no statutes of limitations would give the government far too much power over the average citizen. As many have mentioned, the degradation of physical evidence, the increasing unreliability of eye testimony as years go by, the inability for the defendant to even be able to find exculpatory evidence as time goes on, etc. all benefit the prosecution over the defendant. It would tip the scales of justice.I believe the system we currently have is actually pretty good; it recognizes the decision isn’t black and white. Usually, the worse the crime, the longer the SoL and for certain heinous acts (the most universal being murder) don’t have a SoL at all. Many states have started treating sexual assault (or any crime involving a sexual component) as its own category; saying that the time of the crime doesn’t matter, but rather clock starts when DNA was discovered and the suspect found. I believe a few states have even completely abolished Sol’s for rape. I think that’s a fantastic step. Sexual assault cases are in a different category, which needs to be recognized. Our SoL currently reflects the distinction between violent and non-violent crimes, it should do the same for sexual/non-sexual crimes as well (while sexual assault is always violent, the sexual component distinguishes it from other violent crimes).
Also, I wouldn’t trust prosecutorial discretion to fix the problems of having no SoLs. First, I think prosecutors have far too much discretion as it is. Second, I think it would just incentivize prosecutors. If they believe they can charge someone, scare them with the maximum sentence, and make a deal, then a lot will. It’s how the system is played; a prosecutor’s reputation and opportunity to rise in the ranks is largely contingent on their win/loss ratio. They can chalk the deal up as a win while having taken no risk of a loss at trial.
One last thing, I don’t think anyone else had mentioned it, but SoLs also make economic judicial sense. It prevents the system from being clogged up by charges allegedly committed years or decades ago. Judicial resources would further be drained simply because these cases (depending on the charge and length of time) require longer and more in-depth discovery by both prosecution and defense. The cost of that is measured by the severity of the alleged crime.
In the UK we are having cases of historic abuse brought before the courts 20-30 years after the offence took place, I think that this is wrong and there should be a statute of limitation on bringing the complaint
You can remember something with clarity but it’s probably wrong. Clarity and correctness are two different things. In fact, every time you remember something it introduces opportunities for the memory to change, which means that more recall of an event doesn’t automatically make the memory more accurate.
My hypotheticals could easily be changed to introduce both innocent and guilty to the scenarios if you really want me to. A good example would be the FBI recently admitting flawed hair forensics for over two decades. Without statute of limitations, they could have applied those flawed forensics to both innocent and guilty people they thought were involved in more minor crimes going back a number of years rather than being limited by the statute of limitations.
Side note: Not only is there a 20-year statute of limitations on murder in Thailand but you can be out on bail after your death-penalty conviction while your case is undergoing the appeals process. That’s always struck me as crazy. Guilty or innocent, I might just run out of the country like a rat up a drainpipe. I think they count on most Thais not having the language skills even to make it in a neighboring country and would have nowhere to go, but there have been some high-profile cases where the defendant was educated and could speak multiple languages.
There was an interesting article in Skeptic a few years ago about how even “flashbulb” memories, like where you were when JFK was assassinated or on 9/11, are unreliable. It might be available online.