Why do some crimes have a statute of limitations? What is the thinking behind this aspect of the law?
BT
There are statutes of limitations on certain crimes because the feeling is that it is pointless to punish someone for committing a relatively harmless crime (like burglary) many years after it happened.
Some crimes, like murder, don’t have statutes of limitation. The state, in essence, is declaring that crime unforgiveable.
It is also very hard to convict someone of a crime that happened several years in the past. The police will have a hard time keeping track of the evidence, the witnesses will have either died or forgotten what happened, and the chances of a fair or meaningful trial are fairly small.
My guess is that the severity of the crime supposedly lessons as time passes. For example:
I embezzle $100,000 from my employer. If I get caught today, it’s a one-way ticket to a minimum-security joint, all expenses paid for 5 to 7 years. The theory being, when I get out I will have learned my lesson and thus not do it again.
BUT, if I get caught, say, 10 years from now, then is the punishment really going to be a deterrent from me doing it again? Probably not, especially if I haven’t done anything wrong since then.
At least, that’s my WAG. I’m sure there are several holes in my theory.
My $.02
The usually given rationale:
Gomez v. State, 975 P.2d 1258, 1263 (Mont.1999)(citation omitted). This is a case for the jurisdiction where I happen to live (Montana) but the rationale will be basically the same throughout the U.S. And, although this case is a civil one (as you can tell by mention of a “plaintiff”), the rationale is equally applicable in criminal cases. As a defendant, how are you supposed to be able to remember where you were at nine p.m. six years ago last Thursday, let alone who was with you and what you were doing?
Interestingly, the statute of limitations for many states and the Feds decreases with the severity of the crime (with the obvious exception of murder and a few others). The logic behind this once again rests on the increasing difficulty of defense with the passage of time. Serious charges must therefore be pressed with alacrity, or dropped.
It should be noted that a statute of limitations is “an act of grace” on the part of the sovereign. In other words, it is a favor granted to you, the alleged perpetrator, not a right. That could come back to haunt you in the future.
If Dan Cooper (of hijack-and-disappear fame) showed up today, he couldn’t be tried for the crime, but the IRS has no SofL, and they don’t care how you get the money, so he’d owe more in tax penalties than the original amount of the theft.
The statute of limitations is not only for criminal acts. It also limits, for example, how much time i have to present a claim against you after a certain event. Suppose I sue a dry cleaners for a bad job 30 years after the incident. is that reasonable?
excellent response Jodi, to a much misunderstood concept.
the tone of the times these days are that they’re all guilty (except our personal friends who happen to simply be exercising their free will to smoke dope while on probation or operating heavy machinery - but I digress), and all these namby pamby concepts like Miranda and no cruel and unusual punishment, just coddles those damned criminals.
and you point out, very nicely, the reminder, that the state already has nearly infinate resources (compared to the average not OJ defendant, so they should be able to present a case within a reasonable time frame and not hold the threat of prosecution over you infinately.
There IS, however, some push on, with DNA cases - where the criminal left behind some testable sample, to extend the “life” if you will of the SoL, for crimes such as rape. will be interesting how it falls out.