I’ve read that the purpose of a statute of limitations (SoL) is to protect a would-be defendant from being accused of a crime that is so far back in time that he/she would not be able to mount an effective defense against the charge (would have a hard time coming up with evidence for an alibi, etc.)
But if that is the case, then it wouldn’t make sense for the SoL to be longer for some crimes than others. For instance, murder has no SoL; you can be charged with murder no matter how many years have gone by since you committed the murder. But someone accused of murder 60 years ago wouldn’t be any more able to come up with evidence for an alibi/exoneration than someone accused of a minor crime 60 years ago.
If the idea of SoL is that “a defendant cannot come up with evidence for his/her defense beyond X number of years,” then that X number of years ought to be the same for all crimes.
It seems, then, that the real purpose of SoL is to provide mercy according to the severity of a crime; once someone has lived a certain number of years without committing more crimes, then they would get let off of the hook (i.e., a burglary over 10 years ago.) But since murder is among the most severe of crimes, it accordingly has no SoL.
Statutes of limitations also ensure that the government doesn’t just sit on a case and prosecute when they feel it’s politically advantageous. Using Gatopescado’s example, imagine the district attorney waiting until 2019 to prosecute his opponent during this election season for stealing a motorcycle in 1999. Statutes of limitation are designed to protect people but some states believe it’s in the greater interest of justice for some heinous crimes not to have limitations on when they can be prosecuted.
It also avoids wasting government resources investigating something for which both physical proof and witnesses have long disappeared. If a murder has been suspected there is at the very least an autopsy record (unless the body was never found); there may be some physical evidence stashed somewhere. But for “someone stole a brooch from my gym bag while I was in the toilet”, twenty years later?
Does Germany? These mothers were only sentenced for murdering some of their babies in 2006 and 2008 due to statutes of limitations.
And I swear I’ve read about another case of serial infanticide in the past three years that also mentioned the statute of limitations for murder in her country as well. Nevermind, it’s France in 2015.
On one hand as time marches on society has less of an interest in seeing a crime punished. Likewise a defendant has a greater interest in seeing the crime disappear once and for all so he can stop looking over his shoulder and, as you said, so if he is innocent he may get evidence in his defense when it is fresh.
The severity of the crime is therefore the X that sets the time of the SOL. If you nicked a candy bar from a convenience store, that period would be pretty short. Murder, much longer and probably never.
Yes, it does seem to be partly about how likely it is to prove the crime and partly about whether it’s worth trying to prove it. Is it worth it for the victim to try an ancient theft case? Sometimes, yes, but is it worth it for society and the police force who try to find evidence?
This has worked out quite well for murder, with DNA evidence convicting or exonerating people many years after the offence.
It’s not like courts don’t take into account that people’s memories are likely to be unreliable, or other evidence has degraded, etc. Would it be worth going to that amount of effort, digging up diaries and ancient work records, for a theft offence? Generally no. But for murder? Generally yes,.
Thats my impression. I wouldn’t call it ‘mercy’ per se as much as the government not giving a shit as much about jaywalking as they do about stealing a motorcycle. Or not caring about stealing a motorcycle as much as murder. Its more that the government realizes the hassle isn’t worth it, but the more serious the crime the more the hassle of digging up old crimes becomes worth it.
From what I know of it, the Sol for misdemeanors (in my state) is 2 years.
5 years for felonies. No statutes for capital crimes
There’s also, perhaps, a sense of rehabilitation involved.
If I stole a motorcycle 20 years ago, and then, wracked with guilt, straighten my life out, go to school, get a job, start a family, and never break the law again, what does it really serve to blow up my life with a major jail sentence 20 years later?
But if, instead, I became a career criminal, there would likely be more recent crimes for which I could be convicted. Sure, maybe I “got away” with that 20 year old motorcycle theft, but are you really going to worry about that if I’m in jail for stealing a car two weeks ago?
The statute only applies to criminal prosecution. You still have a right to sue for damages in civil court. A local museum was robbed many years ago. When the statute of limitations was reached, the local new announced that the paintings still belonged to the museum.
There are statute of limitations in civil suits as well. That doesn’t mean you can file suit to determine who owns it, but you couldn’t sue someone for negligence, or defamation, or most things, after a certain number of years. It typically ranges from one year to 6 years, depending on the cause of action.
True, but by that logic, if a murderer has also straightened out, and lived a clean life, and gotten a job, a family, and truly reformed for the better, does he still need to be locked up for life for the murder from 20 years ago? At that point, it does him no rehabilitative good.
And face it, memories of witnesses arent much good even after a couple of years, especially if they have been questioned extensively by various sources.
That’s the thing, it’s a murder and much more serious than stealing a motorcycle. Even if the murderer has truly reformed for the better, he still took someone’s life and a penalty must be paid. Rehabilitation is only one of the purposes of penal sentencing.
Memories of witnesses are notoriously unreliable even when fresh.
As others have pointed out, there are multiple purposes for a SoL, not just one true purpose. But being able to come up with a defense is part of the reason.
But I disagree with your claim here.
If someone close to you was murdered (close enough that you might be a reasonable suspect), you’re going to remember that event and the people you were around much much longer than if you happened to be nearby when a minor crime was committed.
There’s also the fact that it requires more effort to produce evidence from the past. If the crime is weight enough (murder) then we probably should go through that effort. If it’s something minor, then we probably shouldn’t.