|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Statutes of Limitations
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
I’ve started a number of threads in Heaven over the years asking American Shipmates to explain bits of partly-understood American culture to the rest of us (eg, Girl Scout cookies), but this is a subject that is probably a bit more controversial, so I’ve started it here in Purgatory. It is, however, very certainly not meant as any sort of US-bashing – it just stems from puzzlement.
As I understand it, US states and the Federal government have ‘Statutes of Limitations’, limiting the period after an offence has been committed in which action can be taken concerning that offence. I understand why this might be the case in civil actions, but the idea of a Statue of Limitations for a criminal offence seems very odd to this Briton.
As an example (more or less at random, just Googling), Pennsylvania seems to have limits of between 2 and 12 years for crimes except homicide, for which there is no time limit.
Why do these Statutes of Limitations exist (which are not unique to the USA, but are, I believe, not widespread outside the USA)? Is there any strong feeling in the USA that the limitations should be removed? Do Americans think of these limitations as a good thing and if so what benefit do they provide.
What gives, limitations-wise?
[ 05. November 2012, 10:26: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
In the Netherlands, the time limit for which a crime can be punished, is maximum 20 years, for sentences below life. For sexual crimes with minors, this period starts when the victim reaches 18 years. I don't know very well what's the reasoning behind this.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Why do these Statutes of Limitations exist (which are not unique to the USA, but are, I believe, not widespread outside the USA)? Is there any strong feeling in the USA that the limitations should be removed? Do Americans think of these limitations as a good thing and if so what benefit do they provide.
I've never heard any real suggestion at all that they be dispensed with.
At least part of the reason for them has to do with "staleness" of the evidence. The longer it is from the event, the more difficult it can be to obtain reliable evidence. Memories fade or are influenced by subsequent events. Evidence is lost. Witnesses become unavailable or die. There is a particular concern about the effect of the passage of time on the ability of a defendant, who is presumed innocent, to mount an adequate defense so many years after the fact.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
I believe the theory is that, the more time that passes, the less reliable eye-witness testimony becomes. For example, I sat on a hearing a few months ago where the witnesses were discussing something that had happened a mere four months before--and none of the witnesses could agree as to the precise date or timing of the events (and I am not throwing stones as I cannot recall now when this hearing was held!).
Now, that was a civil matter. But can you imagine potentially sending somebody to prison based on faulty memories of people about an event that happened ten to twenty years before?
In addition, the longer that time passes, the greater the risk that crucial witnesses will die--including exculpatory witnesses for the accused. Is it fair to send somebody to prison because the witness who could support the accused's claim of innocence is simply no longer around (or has simply forgotten that he saw the accused some place else on the day of the crime).
Statute of limitations are balancing acts, of course. How long is it fair to bring a charge against a person? As you say, murder is such a horrid crime that we feel it is fair to bring charges at any time. To be fair, more than any other crime, murder cases are based on scientific evidence like DNA so eyewitness testimony is not as important.
Child abuse cases are difficult because we know the child will often not report the crime when it happens. Some places start the statute of limitations when the child reachs 18 (generally considered the age of majority when one should take personal responsibility). But because of the shame that the victim feels (adding to the time of secrecy), it has become the tendency to stretch the statute of limitations in these cases for decades. As a result, an accused may be defending a charge from 30 or more years before and when no physical evidence exists. The victim asserts the accused did it and, to defend against the charge, the accused essentially has to prove that he/she was not alone with the child 30 years ago. That's a tough, tough, tough standard. Especially as other witnesses are not likely to remember.
But that is why we have statutes of limitations--because it is just not fair or practical in the case of many crimes for anybody to try to prove or defend a charge decades after the event.
[ETA: Cross-post!]
[ 05. November 2012, 12:54: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Lack of evidence is a rubbish reason for statutes of limitations.
Lack of evidence, difficulty of finding eyewitnesses, and so on are all reasons that it might be difficult to get a conviction in an old case. They are not reasons that it should be illegal to try that old case if overwhelming evidence exists.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
Lack of evidence, difficulty of finding eyewitnesses, and so on are all reasons that it might be difficult to get a conviction in an old case. They are not reasons that it should be illegal to try that old case if overwhelming evidence exists.
NT had it exactly right, to my way of thinking. In our system, the advantages are suppoed to go to the defense. Deciding that the state can pony up enough old evidence for a prima facia case simply glosses over the fact that the defense needs to be able to do its job. Convicting anyone once the exculpatory portion of the evidence has been lost is not justice in this country (at least not yet.)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
My own experience with these statutes: two years ago, we experienced significant flood damage due to negligence of a city subcontractor working on a public road up the hill from us. The subcontractor had an insurance company that covered his liability. For 23 months the insurance company assured us they would honor our claim, all the while engaging in a number of clear delaying tactics-- "we just need to send (yet another) assessor out to measure the damaged area", "we need you to send the (already sent) receipts to New Person X", "we need a statement from City Official Y"... This went on, month after month various versions of "the check is in the mail". After stringing us along for 2 years, a few days after the statute of limitations on civil damages they let us know they would not be paying the claim. Clearly a tactic of "running out the clock".
Bleh.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
In England, Cliffdweller, you would have been able to commence proceedings but then stay the claim until any alternative dispute resolution methods had played out. I imagine something similar must exist in the States?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I believe the theory is that, the more time that passes, the less reliable eye-witness testimony becomes. For example, I sat on a hearing a few months ago where the witnesses were discussing something that had happened a mere four months before--and none of the witnesses could agree as to the precise date or timing of the events (and I am not throwing stones as I cannot recall now when this hearing was held!).
/Tangent
Eyewitness testimony is rubbish from the beginning. Gets worse over time, but is of questionable value from the start. /tangent
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My own experience with these statutes: two years ago, we experienced significant flood damage due to negligence of a city subcontractor working on a public road up the hill from us. The subcontractor had an insurance company that covered his liability. For 23 months the insurance company assured us they would honor our claim, all the while engaging in a number of clear delaying tactics-- "we just need to send (yet another) assessor out to measure the damaged area", "we need you to send the (already sent) receipts to New Person X", "we need a statement from City Official Y"... This went on, month after month various versions of "the check is in the mail". After stringing us along for 2 years, a few days after the statute of limitations on civil damages they let us know they would not be paying the claim. Clearly a tactic of "running out the clock".
Bleh.
I don't deal with the relevant areas of law, but I think you might want to consult someone about just how and when 'the clock' runs. And whether there are in fact multiplle clocks.
Because my first reaction to this story was that at least one clock might not start until the moment they tell you that the claim has been denied.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
I'm Amurkin. And I see no reason to defend statutes of limitation. Always rubbed me the wrong way since I was a kid. They don't make any sense me.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
There are various limitation periods applicable here for civil claims, differing between States and in relation to the basis for the claim. There are also provisions (at least in NSW) for courts to extend times.
The position in criminal cases is very different. Each State has limitation periods for very minor offences. Not so for most criminal cases, where there is no limitation period. Despite this, courts have a discretion to order a permanent stay on proceedings and one basis for a stay is the length of time since the commission of the offence. Before granting a stay, the court will look at such questions as prejudice to an accused in facing trial when the delay has been long. Has evidence vanished? Is an accused faced with great difficulty in casting doubt on prosecution evidence?
Our High Court, which is the equivalent of the US, Canadian and UK Supreme Courts, has said that where the delay which has occurred presents great problems for an accused, a judge must warn a jury that there should be very close scrutiny of the evidence and of the difficulties confronting a proper answer. For example, in a subsequent case, a complainant gave evidence that the offences had occurred at a particular venue. An appeal court held that the jury should have been warned of the danger of conviction where the accused gave evidence that because of the delay, there was now no evidence available to support his assertion that at the relevant time, he was at another place. A simple assertion of delay is not sufficient.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm English, and I have long thought it would be a good idea if we extended some sort of limitation to criminal charges. Most European countries seem to have one. I recognise there's a widespread feeling that justice should be inexorable and inescapable. However, even ignoring the gradual death over time of possible witnesses, I do not believe evidence is indefinitely reliable - and that applies to the defence as well as the prosecution.
I also think there is a difference between unsolved crimes, which were complained of at the time, but were not solved or the perpetrator managed to disappear, like Waking the Dead and people being allowed to make new complaints about offences they allege were committed many years ago.
I can see the justification for allowing the book to remain permanently open on the former. I can see none for allowing the latter. If you have an offence committed against you, you should be expected either to make your complaint at the time or forget about it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
The UK has a statute of limitations. The 1980 Limitation Act was an act which consolidated a number of such pieces of legislation from 1939 to 1980.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
The UK has a statute of limitations. The 1980 Limitation Act was an act which consolidated a number of such pieces of legislation from 1939 to 1980.
Yes, but that applies to civil claims, debts, damages, bits of land etc. It does not apply to crimes.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Cliffdweller--I hope you talk to a lawyer about your experience, especially if you have documentation of all the delaying tactics. It is my understanding a person has two years from the date of an incident to file a claim, and up to seven years to reach a settlement on the claim.
I know most civil claims take an average of two years to settle, but I also know there are many claims which do not settle as fast.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
In England, Cliffdweller, you would have been able to commence proceedings but then stay the claim until any alternative dispute resolution methods had played out. I imagine something similar must exist in the States?
That's what we should have done, but we didn't because we naively relied on the word of the insurer that the "check was in the mail". Once the statute passed it was too late to file. Our naive stupidity.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Cliffdweller--I hope you talk to a lawyer about your experience, especially if you have documentation of all the delaying tactics. It is my understanding a person has two years from the date of an incident to file a claim, and up to seven years to reach a settlement on the claim.
I know most civil claims take an average of two years to settle, but I also know there are many claims which do not settle as fast.
We went ahead and filed two days after the 2 year date, we were given our day in court, where it was thrown out because the statute had passed.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
There's also a notion that at some point, you ought to be able to put your past behind you. Say you get drunk one night when you're 18 and you throw rocks at your ex-girlfriend's house, breaking one of her windows. 30 years later, when you've grown up, gotten married and have a couple of grown kids, does it really make any sense to haul you in for mischief or vandalism?
The point about memory of witnesses isn't rubbish. Beyond the theoretical statement that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the reality is that the word of a cop is usually enough to establish a prima facie case and guilt in the minds of the jury. If your alibi witness has passed away and you got rid of your old receipts and bank records years ago, what else do you have? Your word against a cop's? Any lawyer can tell you that isn't worth much, even if you're a sweet old church lady.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
