What is the purpose of statutes of limitations? I ask that in honesty, not in any ironic sense. Why do we place time limits on how long after a crime that civil or criminal charges can be pursued? The most obvious reason is that memories fade and the trail of evidence cools so that a proper defense becomes more difficult. But there are crimes for which there is no statute of limitations, such as murder, so the pursuit of justice in those cases evidently outweighs those concerns.
I ask this in the context of hearings in the Massachusetts legislature over lifting the criminal and civil statute of limitations on sexual abuse against children. Obviously the reason for this now is the massive publicity over the Scandal. And the Supreme Court has already ruled in a California case that a change in the statute cannot be applied retroactively and thus any law would only apply to future cases of abuse.
I guess the question at hand is whether, as a society, we think that child sexual abuse is as heinous as murder and requires a lifting of the limitations on prosecution. I think it would be helpful to understand why such limitations are there in the first place though.
It could be worse. In Virginia, there are no statutes of limitations for *any* felonies. So if you used to snort cocaine back in 1977, and reminisce about that fact too loudly in a bar within earshot of a plainclothes cop, you could theoretically be prosecuted and sent to the Big House.
Actually, Seamus, that would be impossible unless the cop had eyewitness testimony, reliable forensic evidence (or you were under oath at the time you were reminiscing!)
The reality of statutes of limitations (not necessarily the rationale for them) is that, after a certain length of time, the certainty of the evidence becomes suspect, and the ability to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” is impossible.
Even in the case crimes such as murder, for which there is currently no statute of limitation, the degrading of the evidence, the fading memories of eyewitnesses, even the availability of witnesses often become insurmountable obstacles for prosecutors.
The flip side to this is that, the desire of a jury to believe the prosecutor’s evidence (and therefore convict) I think rises in direct proportion to the heinousness of the crime. Even after twenty or thirty years, a jury might be likely to convict on shaky evidence a man accused of (and prosecuted for) child abuse, as contrasted with a twenty-year-old criminal prosecution for possession of cocaine. And just as the evidence of guilt decays, so too does the defendant’s alibi witnesses and recall.
I think that the lifting of statutes of limitations increases dramatically the likelihood of erroneous convictions, especially for more serious crimes. While I’m opposed to increasing the hoops that prosecutors have to jump through to protect the “rights” of the accused, I’m also generally not in favor of major emendations of law to increase the power of the government to convict.
The law has done reasonably well through the years, and has gotten it more right than wrong.
I”m not sure that’s true. I don’t think there should be a statute of limitations on murder. And I don’t think there should be one on child sexual abuse either.
You have missed a few things here. The man who is seeking the elimination of the Statute of Limitations is a lawyer by the name of Carmen Durso, from Weymouth, MA. (Home of St. Albert’s in Weymouth)
Durso and Bristol County DA Paul Walsh, Jr. called for accused but unconvicted and untried priests to register as sex offenders. I find that brings questions as to their true motives.
This is especially true because “Junior” later worked a deal with an ex cop who sexually molested his 6 year old adopted daughter for a year. The cop pleaded guilty and in exchange did not have to register as a sex offender nor do prison time.
“Junior” is most famous for a roll over he did in Rhode Island. He tipped his car back over and drove it home along I-195 RI/MA. When asked why he did that he said he did not feel safe to stop in Rhode Island, but he wanted to drive home on a route with those emergency telephones. However, such phones do not exist on I-195. Of course, we cannot assume he was drunk that night.
MADD lists a columnist who once described “Junior” as Jackass of the Year. Since he and Durso are so tight on this statute of limitations for sex offenders, I have serious questions on the true motives behind this move.
Hi Bob!
Of course, you’re right about the motivations; one thing that Durso and his ilk absolutely froth at the mouth over is the possibility of criminal convictions for those who will be the target of a civil lawsuit.
If he/they can get the DA to do the job of proving the crime (or, if not proving, at least getting a conviction based on jury nullification), then the job of getting a civil jury to award large damages is half done for them.
That’s why you almost always see these shysters trying to get criminal complaints filed (and tried) before the civil case shows up on the docket.
One difference between sexual molestation and murder is that in the case of murder there usually can’t be much doubt that a crime has been committed. Another is that the effects of the crime are uniform, obvious and invariably lasting, while in the case of sexual molestation there might be more variation depending on the victim, the details of the crime, and later events. So I think doubts about the crime and what it means for us now would be more likely to multiply over the years in the case of sexual molestation.
(Incidently, I think that if someone said in a bar that he had snorted coke 30 years before that would be admissible in court as evidence against him because it’s an “admission against interest.”)
Some American states (and Canada) have no statute of limitations on any felony.
The statute of limitaions is for the administrative convenience of courts, which do not want to be clogged with old, hard-to-try cases.
Because innocence is assumed and guilt or liability must be proved, the passage of time always oeprates in favor of the defendant.