in Russia currently statute of limitations for murder and aggravated robbery is 10 to 15 years, I am not certain about details from google.
For historical (fictional) example see The Legend of Thyl Ulenspiegel and Lamme Goedzak - Wikipedia (presumably this book is at least reasonably accurate when depicting general historical environment). The main character in 16th century Netherlands kills a bad guy and subsequently, 10 years later when the grave is found, defends himself from prosecution based on statute of limitations.
no, it’s because if an 18 year old moron gets drunk and kills somebody by accident (more like, beat him up and the guy dies) and then, 20 years later, he mended his ways and is a nice family man, worker and tax payer, it does not make sense to throw the book at him if the evidence comes to light.
These laws were written to keep society running well on average, not to correct every imaginable injustice. The notion that every allegedly horrible incident of evil or injustice that gets reported on TV deserves a sweeping “never again” law is alien to Russians.
I didn’t read every reply so I’m not sure if someone posted this already, but a statute of limitations, aside from protecting offenders against unfair trials due to degradation of evidence or lack of witness testimony also pushes cops, detectives, prosecutors etc to solve the case or bring someone up on charges. If there was no statute then who knows, cases might go unsolved and not be looked at so closely. Since there’s only a relatively small window in the scheme of things to prosecute, everyone involved probably has more of a sense of urgency especially since the longer you go without solving a crime the harder it is to solve.
Is this point correct? The other points have been mentioned by others, but this is the only reference I saw that indicated the SOL exists because of a criminal’s conscience.
Canada doesn’t have statutes of limitations for most criminal offences. There is a six-month limitation period for some minor offences, but not for the great majority of criminal offences. The reasoning for this policy is much like you suggest - the difficulty in prosecuting a cold case is simply one of the factors that the Crown should take into account in deciding whether there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction. Parliament has concluded that the social interest in prosecuting criminal cases outweighs the idea of a strict pre-set cut-off date.
That said, the factors relating to fading memories, deaths of witnesses, missing evidence, and so on don’t just affect the Crown’s ability to prosecute a case. They can also affect the accused’s ability to defend the case. What if the accused has a defence of alibi, because he was at Joe’s house on the night in question, 20 years ago, but unfortunately, Joe died of cancer a few years ago and Joe’s wife is in the nursing home with Alzheimer’s? Statutes of limitation can be seen as a question of fairness and due process for the accused, not just a question of whether the prosecutor can prove the case.
The Canadian approach is to do it on a case-by-case basis - if the accused can show that he is severely hampered in his ability to defend himself by the passage of time, the court may conclude that allowing the prosecution to continue would be a breach of the principles of fundamental justice (our equivalent to the due process clauses of the US constitution), and can stay the proceedings.
I’ll back the logic mentioned about people who reform themselves. As mentioned, some crimes like murder are sufficiently heinous that there is no limit. Others… Do you really want to be charged with something you did 20 years ago when you were a teenager?
This is also why we have the “right to a speedy trial” clause. Should the prosecutor save up all your parking tickets and speed camera tickets and send you a bill at the end of the year, or do you have a right to face your accuser while the evidence is still fresh in everyone’s mind?
IIRC some prosecutors have skated around the limitations clause in some places by trying to argue that the clock starts when the evidence of a crime first comes to light…
Also consider this case: John Demjanjuk - Wikipedia - Deported and de-citzenshipped by overzealous war crimes prosecutors looking to justify their jobs. Even in Israel, he was let go because nobody could be sure that he was actually who they accused him of being. The USA, rather than admitting “oops, we made a mistake, you aren’t Ivan the Terrible” has had Germany try him on the logic that “if you weren’t him, you must have been some other bad guy so we’re going to keep prosecuting you so we don’t need to admit we were wrong.”
The current prosecution is for being a different guard at a different camp, and not for any specific act he did, but just for being there and on the job. The lesson of american justice - once the prosecutor has you in their teeth, they won’t let you go no matter how bad the case. At least they’ve given up insisting he was Ivan the Terrible.
Horrible as the holocaust was, when you have absolutely no idea who someone is, and whether in fact they did something, prosecution for the purpose of making somebody somewhere pay is just scapegoating. When your witnesses are 80 years old and trying to remember what happened when they were teenagers, what sort of definite testimony will you have? When time and turmoil have destroyed all documentation, how do you defend yourself?
As others said, one reason is that you simply aren’t the same person you were 20 years ago. Maybe back then you were a thief or a brawler or a druggie, but sufficient time has passed that they’d be judging someone with a completely different life and outlook than the kid you once were. If you’ve stopped committing crimes, then they’d essentially be putting a law-abiding citizen in jail; if you haven’t, then I’m sure they could find something more current to arrest you for. There’s quite a bit of sense in this.
OTOH, crimes like murder are so severe that no amount of time is enough to put it behind you. Stealing a car means you did a bad thing; killing a man means you’re a bad person.
The most common example of “Limitation” that you will come across is not criminal cases (indeed they are comparatively rare in criminal law) but in appeals. Lets say that an adverse order is passed against you and you (most understandably) wish to say to the higher forum, that the lower court is staffed by idiots. Well you have 7, 10, 15, 30 days to appeal, else you will be time barred.
It is in the interests of justice that all disputes, claims and crimes are dealt with quickly and that no one should be unduly vexed by stale claims and charges they could never have expected to have defended against.
In most jurisdictions you can apply for premission to commence, proceed, act out of time.
I’d be curious to see something backing this interpretation up. It may be a pragmatic approach, but I am not convinced this is the intention. IANAL, but the very idea seems counter to how I expect the law works. There are already opportunities of discretion that can be used to weigh the severity and age of the crime with the character of the accused. Why would SoL be added as another method? Especially when the SoL has a clear, defined purpose to protect defendants (whether rightly or wrongly accused).
one would suppose that the “victim” shows up for reparation within reasonable delay, something seems fishy otherwise except exceptional situations
protection from the state itself implies that a prosecutor cannot come up with an ancient untried crime on whim if it suits the states reasons, like pulling up dirt from a yearbook.
Note too that the statute of limitations only applies pre-indictment. IIRC, if you’re indicted and then you flee, there is no time limit on when they can try you if they catch you.
I would venture a guess that most people know more about the statute of limitations than appellate time limitations. and seeing as the OP specifically asked about statutes of limitations, I’m not sure what purpose this comment served.
While I will agree with your second paragraph I think the analysis is complete (esp. because sentence 1 and sentence 2 aren’t the only things to be said on this point). I believe that there are constitutional protections for a speedy trial that come into play if you’re not the responsible party for the delay in prosecution.
Otherwise, you can effectively sidestep the protections afforded by the criminal statute of limitations by indicting first and then investigating some more later.
IAAL and I’ve never heard of this crackpot justification. It’s most likely a posteriori misunderstanding of cause and effect.
SoL is founded, as far as I’m concerned from the same notions that give you the concept of laches.
it’s been fleshed out ad nauseum here - you can’t sit on your claim forever because a) evidence degrades and b) it’s just plain not fair.
note the only generalized exception to SoL’s is for murder and other really bad crimes, which makes sense: public policy isn’t interested in being fair to criminals who have committed severe crimes as much as it is interested in fully prosecuting these kinds of acts.