# Statutes of Limitation, Why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247 "2005-05-10T17:07:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/1 "2005-05-10T17:07:32Z")
Why are there statutes of limitation on such serious crimes as child molestation and rape in some states? Is it right that such limitations should exist? ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/2 "2005-05-10T17:46:33Z")
I don’t think it makes much sense and I’m not sure why it’s even on the books for the various crimes it pertains to (I’m not even sure what crimes are covered). I don’t think there is a SOL for tax issues, why not? Now that I think about it, I don’t think there is an SOL for crimes against another human (physical violence). Murder, child crimes get solved many years later and still prosecute. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/3 "2005-05-10T17:47:47Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > Why are there statutes of limitation on such serious crimes as child molestation and rape in some states? Is it right that such limitations should exist? It is hard to guarantee a fair trial to someone when they can no longer find witnesses who may prove they are innocent. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/4 "2005-05-10T18:16:17Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > It is hard to guarantee a fair trial to someone when they can no longer find witnesses who may prove they are innocent. But you should never have to prove innocence, the accusers have to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The older the case the more difficult it should be to prosecute the case, never the other way arround. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/5 "2005-05-10T18:26:48Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > But you should never have to prove innocence, the accusers have to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The older the case the more difficult it should be to prosecute the case, never the other way arround. Some guy says 10 years ago Bippy molested me. Unfortunately for Bippy the hot chick he spent all night with on the alleged night and who could provide a perfect alibi died 1 year ago. Sorry Bipps, its likely you will go to prison. Unless there is a statute of limitation. You would be amazed at how many people are convicted based on nothing more than the testimony of the alleged victim. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/6 "2005-05-10T18:51:22Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > Why are there statutes of limitation on such serious crimes as child molestation and rape in some states? Is it right that such limitations should exist? Because memories fade, witnesses become unavailable, and evidence might be destroyed. I think it’s more of a practical decision then a moral one. There’s only so long we can devote resources towards investigating and prosecuting crimes. It sure is frustrating when someone gets away with a horrible crime because they managed not to get caught for so long. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/7 "2005-05-10T18:52:23Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Some guy says 10 years ago Bippy molested me. Unfortunately for Bippy the hot chick he spent all night with on the alleged night and who could provide a perfect alibi died 1 year ago. Sorry Bipps, its likely you will go to prison. Unless there is a statute of limitation. You would be amazed at how many people are convicted based on nothing more than the testimony of the alleged victim. But wouldn’t that be a case of the law not woking correctly, with or without statute of limitation. Statute of Limitation is just an arbitrary date cut-off. If the charge was bought 1 year after the event and my alibi was dead or unavailable, then to have been convicted based only on testimony would be a failure of the justice system. For civil and monetary based cases the statute makes perfect sense, we are expected to keep records of our buisness and purchases/spending for several years, but are not expected to keep such information indefinately. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/8 "2005-05-10T19:00:56Z")
Consider the principle that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent. The statute of limitations reflects this. Constitutionally people are entitled to due process both procedural and substantive. Holding people to answer for crimes commited long ago would seem to deny this due process. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/9 "2005-05-10T20:22:53Z")
I think that the statute of limitations for criminal actions should depend on the seriousness of the accused crime. For the most serious crimes, the criminal should be prosecuted whenever he or she can be brought to justice. For trivial offenses, it would be foolish to allow prosecutors to dredge up prior violations years after they occurred. Most states have a varied statute of limitations based on the nature and severity of the crime. I belive that most states have no statute of limitations for murder. In New York, there is no statute of limitations for all Class A felonies, which include murder, first degree kidnapping, first degree arson, criminal possession or sale of large quantities of drugs, and a few other serious crimes. Lesser felonies have a five year statute of limitations, misdemeanors a two year statute and petty offenses one year. These periods can be extended in circumstances provided for in the law, including an up to five year extension when the defendant is absent from the state or where “the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unacertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” NY Criminal Procedure Law sec. 30.10 Although some might argue for adjustment of this scale for particular crimes, or to vary the circumstances of the when the statute of limitations may be extended. However, I don’t think that it is fair for the government to be able to prosecute someone years and years after a crime was committed when it had the suspect in its sights promptly after the crime was committed. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/10 "2005-05-10T20:46:08Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > But wouldn’t that be a case of the law not woking correctly, with or without statute of limitation. Yes, it would, but the SoL solves the problem. But wait! It’s overinclusive! Yes, it is. In criminal law, our strategy is almost always for protections to be overinclusive to ensure that they are never underinclusive. But more generally, any time you set forth a principle of law, you’re never going to be able to track “justice” in every conceiveable situation. If you did, your law book would have to be infinitely large to accomodate the infinite diversity of human experience. Can’t be done. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/11 "2005-05-10T20:56:58Z")
_Not_ having the statutes (or the possibility of statutes) would kinda gut the sixth amendment, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![aaslatten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@aaslatten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aaslatten)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/12 "2005-05-10T21:28:06Z")
I believe in some states, the statutes of limitations exist only as a kind of affirmative defense, but IANAL, so maybe somebody can clear this up for me? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/13 "2005-05-10T21:30:18Z")
I think there’s a also philosohical aspect to this - a recognition that people change. The stable, productive citizen you are today is not the same person as that wild kid who stole a car ten years ago. Statutes of limitation can be seen as society’s way of saying “let bygones be bygones.” ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/14 "2005-05-10T22:21:51Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I think there’s a also philosohical aspect to this - a recognition that people change. The stable, productive citizen you are today is not the same person as that wild kid who stole a car ten years ago. Statutes of limitation can be seen as society’s way of saying “let bygones be bygones.” No offense, but thats just silly. If someone robbed a bank 10 years ago does it matter whether the person has changed? Its an issue off proof. How certain can we be of old evidence. Another issue is the guarantee of a speedy trial. The State has the burden of investigating and bringing culprits to trial in a speedy manner. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/15 "2005-05-11T00:36:29Z")
It’s not silly at all, **askeptic**. Indeed, it’s a philosophy to which I largely subscribe, although I doubt it is really an important a consideration in setting Statutes of Limitation. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/16 "2005-05-11T15:08:15Z")
Historically, there is a social context to SoLs. It was felt that if you had lived for X number of years looking over your shoulder in fear of apprehension, that was probably just as good a punishment as throwing your ass in jail for that much time. Nowadays, it’s for the much more practical purposes that others have enumerated. ---
**Author:** ![aaslatten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@aaslatten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aaslatten)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/17 "2005-05-11T15:39:29Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > No offense, but thats just silly. If someone robbed a bank 10 years ago does it matter whether the person has changed? Its an issue off proof. How certain can we be of old evidence. Another issue is the guarantee of a speedy trial. The State has the burden of investigating and bringing culprits to trial in a speedy manner. Of course it’s not the primary reason for statutes of limitations, but I have seen Alessan’s “people change” reason given in law textbooks, etc., as one of the philosophical reasons for these time limitations. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/18 "2005-05-11T16:01:58Z")
Are statutes of limitation inherited from common law? Perhaps related to concepts such as sanctuary or blanket amnesties? Law has a purpose of catching criminals and imposing punishment and/or restitution, but it also has at its base the purpose of creating a peaceful society. At some point you have to have some mechanism of declaring actions firmly in the past and beyond the reach of justice. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/19 "2005-05-11T16:27:24Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > It’s not silly at all, **askeptic**. Indeed, it’s a philosophy to which I largely subscribe, although I doubt it is really an important a consideration in setting Statutes of Limitation. > > –Cliffy I subscribe to it as well, the only thing I was suggesting that was silly about it was that it is a basis for Statutes of Limitations, which are based on theories of due process, evidence, and speedy trial requirements in the constitution. I hope my use of the word silly is not seen a offensive, if so I sincerely apologize. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247/20 "2005-05-11T19:39:17Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > No offense, but thats just silly. If someone robbed a bank 10 years ago does it matter whether the person has changed? Its an issue off proof. How certain can we be of old evidence. Another issue is the guarantee of a speedy trial. The State has the burden of investigating and bringing culprits to trial in a speedy manner. No, actually, **Alessan’s** point, somewhat differently stated, is part of the purpose of the statute of limitations. It is deemed proper that a person should not have the risk and fear of prosecution hanging over his head forever, at least for relatively minor crimes. This principle was amply explored in the case of _Les Miserables v. Victor Hugo_. Sua [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutes-of-limitation-why/303247.md?page=2)