I understand having a limit for small crimes but for huge ones, like murder, why would the crime prescribe? Is there a reason for that?!
To prevent a suspect from being legally harassed by the state indefinitely. Sometimes suspects are innocent.
Also, to ensure a speedy trial.
Also, many kinds of evidence, especially the ones available when these limits were put in place, degrade significantly over time.
I’m not being an asshole I’m just curious and wanted to understand this concept since I don’t have any legal understanding. Thanks for the answer :)
There are a diversity of reasons. In some cases it is to protect the purpertrator.
In my state the statute of limitations for bring legal charges for child sex abuse is 4 years after the child turns 18.
If you were raped as a child you have file charges before you turn 22. Most people can’t even come to terms with what happened to them at that age, let alone file charges.
There have been four major attempts to remove that statute and all for failed.
What to know who funds the effort to prevent the statute from being changed?
The Catholic Church.
yeah that’s fucked up. Tbf that is why I asked. I understand all the other justifications but for me not paying for a horrible crime just because ot’s been too long is ridiculous. Sometimes it takes longer to gather evidence or to even identify the person
Reducing the number of false accusations. Prevents situations like someone claiming “Xyz stole my car 30 years ago, arrest them!”.
Lack of evidence. It’s almost impossible to definitively prove something that happened long ago to the level of reasonable doubt required by courts.
Relevance. Theft from 30 years ago has no bearing on anyone’s life any more. For same reason the statute of limitations usually doesn’t exist for murder. Murder from 30 years ago still impacts people today.
US-centric answer: Murder doesn’t have any time limitations on being charged.
There are always going to be holes in the law, so it probably wouldn’t be difficult to find some example of a horrible crime that finds a loophole in this, but the general idea is that the worst crimes have no statute of limitations.
Misdemeanors are usually fairly short, many felonies are longer, sex crimes are often (but not always) exempt, and murder has no limit in any state.
Many other reasons have been given. One more: let the archivists know when it’s time to throw away the paperwork and evidence.
Some crimes go unsolved with a bit of evidence collected, stamped, filed and stored somewhere.
At some point you’ll have to build a new building just to store the stuff if you never clear it out.
If you only keep the stuff for a few crimes such as murder the growth will be much more manageable.
You really need to specify where you’re talking about…
In America there’s no limitations on federal murder, but some states do
I’m not talking specifically. The broader concept of crime prescription is difficult for me to grasp
In countries where the usual punishment for such crimes is a lengthy term of imprisonment, the operating theory that justifies that cruel punishment is that it will prevent more crimes being committed — both by the imprisoned, who is kept safely away from people we care about, and by the victims who might otherwise take matters into their own hands and start an eternal murderous blood feud if their urge for revenge isn’t satisfied by the courts. Such arguments start to look increasingly indefensible in any case, no matter how heinous was the crime, as the decades go by without such events.
