I’ve read this too, and similarly that because memories fade, eyewitness testimony becomes so unreliable as to be practically useless. Assuming “our” reasons here are why SoLs exist, yeah, it’s bullshit that murder has none.
Not only fade, but change.
There’s a trade-off between two counterbalancing considerations. On the one hand, it’s harder to mount a defense after a long time. On the other, society wants justice for the crime. Even if the first is the same in the case of murder as for other crimes, the second can vary. IOW, letting a guy get away with murder is more a negative than letting a guy get away with robbery, so the first might outweigh the other considerations while the second doesn’t outweigh those same other considerations.
Convicting the wrong person for murder is more a negative than convicting the right person for murder is a positive.
With faded memories, dead witnesses, and lost evidence, the chances of punishing the wrong person goes up.
But it’s not like it’s a 50-50 chance either. The small likelihood of convicting the wrong person increases by some incremental amount as the time from the crime grows longer.
There’s always some chance that you’ll convict the wrong person. At some point, the value of being able to convict people for crimes outweighs the possibility of convicting the wrong person. The greater the crime is, the greater that value is.
As with any law, the real purpose of passing a statute of limitations is to get the politicians who support it re-elected, or, possibly get more campaign contributions.
Another factor could be worry about being held accountable for their own crimes. But, in the U.S., I think the factors in my first sentence are more important.
Putting it this way sounds reasonable.
But isn’t what you are saying equivalent to:
The standard of proof should be lower for crimes which the public finds most reprehensible.
And even:
The standard of proof should be lower for crimes where there is a current moral panic.
Here’s what I think: Deterrence weakens the longer it takes for the punishment to follow the offense. The rapists and murderers aren’t going to be deterred by the idea that they (let alone, some, other, innocent person) might possibly be caught in 30 years, any more than the burglars. For the same reason (involving deterrence and risk of wrongful conviction) that the reasonable doubt standard should be same for burglary and murder, the statute of limitations should also be the same.
In practice, jurors feel more pressure not to let loose a probably-but-not-definitely guilty murderer than a probably-but-not-definitely guilty burglar. By a similar mental dynamic, politicians feel that they can’t allow the statute of limitations be used to protect people accused of murder, some of whom are innocent.
The U.S. still has just about the world’s highest incarceration rate. This is due to politicians following the public mood, a mood that, when it comes to truly terrible crimes, is often vengeful.
Besides the reasons already given for having a SOL I don’t think anyone has mentioned the costs defendants have to bear in merely facing a criminal investigation/indictment or a civil action even if they ultimately prevail. And of course these “costs” are not only monetary but include possible incarceration, damage to reputation, stress, lost time etc. So as the crime or tort becomes likely more difficult to prove the burden of inflicting these costs on a defendant who will likely prevail anyways becomes more onerous.
Also, with regards to murder there is a good reason beyond the moral one why it often has no SOL or an extremely long one and that is due to the somewhat unique evidentiary nature of homicide. The most important piece of evidence in a homicide investigation, indeed the piece of evidence that usually tells us a homicide has been committed in the first place, is a dead body. Without a corpse, a homicide is not only very difficult (though not impossible) to prosecute, it is often difficult to even declare with certainty that a homicide has taken place.
While obviously not always the case, killers often make great efforts to commit their crimes away from witnesses and are able to successfully conceal the crime itself and the most important piece of evidence: the victim’s body. If you consider how many people are currently labeled “missing” and how some unknown but likely significant number are the victims of a homicide then there is likely a horrifyingly large number of potential homicide investigations that haven’t even really begun because the remains have yet to be discovered.
But fortunately (?) people dig, and hunt, and hike, and demolish/renovate buildings and sometimes victim’s remains are discovered well after their death. But, as mentioned above, current DNA and other forensic methods still have a good chance of gathering important evidence that can lead to a conviction or at least a strong suspect for further investigation. And all of this often cannot even begin until the remains are discovered. The gruesome reality is that bodies are fairly easy to conceal but can be notoriously difficult to conceal over a long period of time and even more difficult to destroy beyond the ability to identify or recover other evidence. The extremely long/non-existent SOL for murder insures that these cases can still be prosecuted or at least investigated once it officially becomes a homicide.
Also, related to the above is the fact that a disproportionate number of homicides are committed by a relatively small group of people i.e. a small number have multiple victims. And often if one of these killers can be arrested and tied to one homicide they have committed then that investigation can often lead to information on others. Without the barrier of an SOL then those other homicides can be investigated, possibly prosecuted, and very importantly the potential additional charges can be used for prosecutorial pressure to obtain a plea. And that plea could not only include an admission of guilt but testimony as to the involvement of accomplices, evidence of still other crimes, and even disclosing where remains are concealed so grieving families can obtain closure.
Pretty much, yes.
I think this is reasonable. Your mileage appears to vary.
Not the standard of proof. The standard at which we will even bother to try and establish proof, yes.
There is much debate about the purpose of limitations periods.
Our statutes of limitations ultimately derive (with modifications, of course) from England’s Limitations Act of 1623, which long predated democratic rule in England.
Except that Act was only limitations for civil actions, not criminal ones.
Yes. At common law there was no delay for the crown. That is no delay for criminal matters.
True. But that was also the case in the US at first; gradually limitations periods were applied to criminal cases as well as civil ones.