Discussion»Questions»Legal» Why are there statutes of limitations on certain crimes? What difference does it make if you committed it 40 years ago or 2. Why skate?
This is an excellent question. I don't understand having a statute of limitations on crime, especially the more violent ones. It absolutely makes no sense to me.
This post was edited by ProblemCh1ld at December 16, 2017 10:03 AM MST
I can't speak for every state in the union, but in my state, as well as many others, there is no statute of limitation on violent felonies. This is as it should be. If there was an opening to prosecute every type of crime from the past, the judicial system would be hopelessly log jammed with cases. In some states, you're not even allowed to engage in a high speed chase or pursuit of a suspect unless the alleged crime is a violent felony. When I was in law enforcement, we were backed off many a pursuit for that reason and of course, it takes public safety into account. Just a side note to the original question.
The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[6]
A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.
Edit: add---Crimes considered heinous by society have no statute of limitations.
{In Classical Athens, a five-year statute of limitations was established for all cases except homicide and the prosecution of non-constitutional laws (which had no limitation). Demosthenes wrote that these statutes of limitations were adopted to control "sycophants" (professional accusers].
Labor contracts routinely have a time limit in order for filing a grievance unless both management and the union mutually agree to an extension. The typical time limit may be 14 days. A grievance filed after that time can be claimed to be "untimely" and therefore invalid.
When an arbitrator upholds management's claim of untimeliness, the arbitrator sometimes ads the phrase "the union slept on its rights" when he upholds management's position.
Edit: add---"Justice delayed is justice denied," (attributed to various people, including Clarence Darrow).
This post was edited by tom jackson at December 17, 2017 5:56 AM MST
You can't act on something you don't know about. There are lots of reason why folks don't come forward. Look at all the "Me Too" gals who are speaking out NOW. Some of the sexual abuse goes back decades. The length of time between the event and the reporting of it does not mitigate it. Why should anyone get away with harming others? You say justice delayed is justice denied. I totally disagree. Justice delayed is delayed. Justice denied is a travesty. When it is denied because of length of time between action and reporting it there is NO EXCUSE for it. Just my opinion. A perp doesn't deserve justice. A vic does. It is the vics who get harmed twice. First time is the action. The second time is trying to get justice and being screwed royally out of it. Makes no sense to me. Protecting defendants? PERPS? That rankles. Thank you for your reply tom. :)
Nor can you defend yourself against something you don't know about---and if you have done something you think acceptable (whether you were correct or incorrect in so thinking) so that mitigating or aggravating factors can best be evaluated.
If people chose to not come forward (sleep on their rights), that's the choice they make. While it is psychologically understandable that they may choose not to report such illegal acts, it is still their option. Anybody who becomes a "defendant" legally also has rights to defend himself against charges leveled against him---and the longer those allegations are held in abeyance, his ability to mount a credible defense fades with time, thus compromising his basic rights and a participant in our legal justice system.
Perhaps if those women had come forward earlier, perhaps less women would have been subsequently victimized. Should perhaps there be a penalty for failure to report a crime---obstruction of justice, perhaps or accessory after the fact?
Our legal philosophy is that we would rather a guild man go free than an innocent man be convicted.
"Justice delayed is justice denied" is a philosophy agreed upon by some of the greatest legal minds in America.
You say "a perp doesn't deserve justice"----You might want to rephrase that.
For a perp is GUILTY AS CHARGED is how I perceive them. Justice for a perp is getting what he deserves. So in that light you are absolutely right. He/she DOES deserve justice for doing wrong to others. Thank you for your reply tom and Happy Monday! :) I think of JUSTICE more in terms of the vics. I shall futurely include perps. The type of justice will be different of course. :)
ProblemCh1ld 