Statute of limitations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tolovetolaugh -> Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 6:33:54 AM)

Reading an article posted in another thread, I came across this:

"
And get this – when the DNA that was examined was compared with other specimens in police possession, it came up positive for two other men already in the system. Men who are felons, but are no longer in prison. As you wonder whether or not authorities will arrest those other men, we can tell you the answer is no. It won't happen because the statute of limitations has expired. That's just some of the discouraging news about this case."
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/17/innocent-man-freed-from-prison-after-23-years/
What is your take on the statute of limitations?
How do you feel about those who never get justice, because it took to long to find the real perpetrator?



DeviantlyD -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 6:39:27 AM)

I'm no legal eagle, but I had always thought there was no statute of limitations when it came to a crime involving murder.

Edited to add:

I just read the article. They are going to monitor his release?? What a load! He didn't commit the crime he was in jail for, so WTF?

It's stunning that a forensic laboratory (I'm guessing it's a forensic laboratory and not solely a DNA lab) would have such unethical people working for it. The victim in the case should sue the lab since the statute of limitations has run out. I wonder if there is some legal loophole that could be used. A workaround in the sense that the timeline would continue from the point in time when the police could have tested the DNA, but didn't.



tolovetolaugh -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 6:45:29 AM)

But there is for almost every other crime.
That case is not on murder, but on rape and kidnapping, if you read the article.



DeviantlyD -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 6:46:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh

But there is for almost every other crime.
That case is not on murder, but on rape and kidnapping, if you read the article.



You mentioned killer, which is why I thought it was a murder.



thompsonx -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 6:47:40 AM)

Do you believe that there should be a statute of limitations for any crime?



tolovetolaugh -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 6:52:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD


quote:

ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh

But there is for almost every other crime.
That case is not on murder, but on rape and kidnapping, if you read the article.



You mentioned killer, which is why I thought it was a murder.


Good catch, sorry about that. Fixed.
My mind was still on the other thread I guess. [:D]



thompsonx -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 6:52:29 AM)

quote:

It's stunning that a forensic laboratory (I'm guessing it's a forensic laboratory and not solely a DNA lab) would have such unethical people working for it.


JOHNNIE COCHRAN showed conclusively, during the o.j. trial, that not only the lapd crime lab but also the fbi crime lab was of the same ilk.



tolovetolaugh -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 6:54:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

It's stunning that a forensic laboratory (I'm guessing it's a forensic laboratory and not solely a DNA lab) would have such unethical people working for it.


JOHNNIE COCHRAN showed conclusively, during the o.j. trial, that not only the lapd crime lab but also the fbi crime lab was of the same ilk.


Please do not derail my thread or I will personally not respond to you, and will encourage other posters on my thread to do the same.




StrangerThan -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 7:00:09 AM)

I think it unconscionable to not test DNA evidence when it exists, and to do so in a timely manner. If it boils down to money, it's one place I'd gladly pay an additional tax to get the backlog off the books and to redo work done by shoddy labs.

As far as the statute of limitations goes, I've never really understood the concept on criminal cases where the crime was reported. I can see it being applicable if the crime occurred 30 years ago, was never reported, and someone decides now they want to file charges.  



thompsonx -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 7:31:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

It's stunning that a forensic laboratory (I'm guessing it's a forensic laboratory and not solely a DNA lab) would have such unethical people working for it.


JOHNNIE COCHRAN showed conclusively, during the o.j. trial, that not only the lapd crime lab but also the fbi crime lab was of the same ilk.


Please do not derail my thread or I will personally not respond to you, and will encourage other posters on my thread to do the same.





Perhaps if you were to learn to read you would have noticed that my post was in support of your statement and hardly a derail.



DomKen -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 11:14:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

I think it unconscionable to not test DNA evidence when it exists, and to do so in a timely manner. If it boils down to money, it's one place I'd gladly pay an additional tax to get the backlog off the books and to redo work done by shoddy labs.

As far as the statute of limitations goes, I've never really understood the concept on criminal cases where the crime was reported. I can see it being applicable if the crime occurred 30 years ago, was never reported, and someone decides now they want to file charges.  

Consider how hard it would be to mount a defence of a crime your were accused of 10 years ago. Will you have an alibi? Will anyone have a sharp enough memory of the day in questionto confirm your alibi? What about 3rd party records that could be exculpatory? Are they maintained fro 10 years? 20? 30? What about witnesses? How many will die in a decade or more? Can any identification by a witness be considered reliable after so long?



MileHighM -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 3:20:57 PM)

Honestly, I think the statute of limitations is there not to protect the accused but to protect the tax payer. As time goes on, I think it is harder to mount a sucessful prosecution more often than a successful defense. In really old cases, the witnesses are garbage all around. The records fall apart, etc. Usually the case hinges on strange new science or freaky new evidence.

Considering how long the statutes are for so many crimes, I think they have them so they can close the files and just move on.



LadyPact -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 6:58:13 PM)

I honestly don't think there should be a statute of limitations for any crime where a death is a result (which means murder as well as manslaughter) or in cases of rape. 

In a number of cities, it's My understanding that the labs do get backed up.  Personally, I don't think that is a rational excuse.  If rape kits and such were to be processed in a timely manner, there would be no 'loss of evidence' due to water damage, etc.  The evidence would already be on file (DNA) electronically so that it can be used at any point in the future.



LinnaeaBorealis -> RE: Statute of limitations (9/12/2011 9:51:35 PM)

I agree with the statutes of limitations on most crimes, but I think some of them should be longer, such as the statute of limitation on sexual assault of a child. My daughter was assaulted when she was a child, but she didn't feel safe to tell anyone until nearly 5 years had passed. Luckily the statute of limitations in the state where the crime happened had just been increased from 3 to 5 years & the Prosecuting Attorney was able to get a Judge to ok the prosecution of this man under the new statute.

In my opinion, a case like that needs a much longer statute of limitations, because children will believe their attacker when he tells them that their parent(s) will blame them or not believe them or that he will hurt the parent(s) if the child tells. And it takes a long time for that child to realize that they can say something & none of the things the perpetrator told them will happen.

So yeah, some statutes of limitations need to be lengthened, but I don't think they should be done away with altogether. As was pointed out, the difficulty of pulling together a case, from either side, would definitely hamper a successful prosecution or defense.

And I agree with LadyP that all homicides should have no statute of limitation, whether they are called murder, manslaughter, whatever. Someone dies, you get prosecuted no matter how many years have passed.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625