So why are "liberals" cheering eliminating statute of limitations for rape?

[Malthus]

In sexual assault cases, often the only evidence of guilt is the accusation itself, unless the police are consulted and a "rape kit" is collected. The evidence that tends to corroborate or contradict that accusation may well be lost with the passage of time (for example, an accused person may well have an alibi which places them at another location during the alleged attack - but twenty years later, will they or anyone else remember where they were on a specific day?).

Aren't those often sexual assault cases that then fail though?

Certainly, it can be difficult to successfully prosecute a sexual assault case that is very old and in which the only evidence is an accuser's account.

This is an additional reason not to being such cases: they put everyone through the expense and difficulty of a trial, for a small chance of success. The argument will be that those judicial and prosecutorial resources would be better spent elsewhere.

The problem is that if all you have is an accusation and a denial, a jury is likely to be swayed by questionably relevant factors, such as their opinion of the accused and the accuser. While the chances of conviction are overall low, the chances of any particular conviction that does occur being incorrect are overall high.

[grumbler]

Can 'we' have Timmay make a concerted effort to post a few more inane threads? 

No need.  You are doing fine. 

[The Brain]

What if a Canadian buries the cure for cancer together with a dead hooker? Wouldn't society gain from him daring to come forward after a few decades?

[garbon]

What if a Canadian buries the cure for cancer together with a dead hooker? Wouldn't society gain from him daring to come forward after a few decades?

Well he could discreetly dig it out, no?

[The Brain]

What if a Canadian buries the cure for cancer together with a dead hooker? Wouldn't society gain from him daring to come forward after a few decades?

Well he could discreetly dig it out, no?

And risk Machiavellian gaol if he's seen?

[The Minsky Moment]

In a country where prosecutorial power is highly politicized or discretion is routinely abused criminal SoLs serve a "liberal" function of checking the potential abuse of bringing bogus charges based on concocted events in the distant past.  Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.

[Malthus]

What if a Canadian buries the cure for cancer together with a dead hooker? Wouldn't society gain from him daring to come forward after a few decades?

Well he could discreetly dig it out, no?

Digging up dead things you have buried is more of a Scandinavian habit.

http://www.ingebretsens.com/culture/traditions/eating-fish-the-scandinavian-way

[Razgovory]

In sexual assault cases, often the only evidence of guilt is the accusation itself, unless the police are consulted and a "rape kit" is collected. The evidence that tends to corroborate or contradict that accusation may well be lost with the passage of time (for example, an accused person may well have an alibi which places them at another location during the alleged attack - but twenty years later, will they or anyone else remember where they were on a specific day?).

Aren't those often sexual assault cases that then fail though?

Certainly, it can be difficult to successfully prosecute a sexual assault case that is very old and in which the only evidence is an accuser's account.

This is an additional reason not to being such cases: they put everyone through the expense and difficulty of a trial, for a small chance of success. The argument will be that those judicial and prosecutorial resources would be better spent elsewhere.

The problem is that if all you have is an accusation and a denial, a jury is likely to be swayed by questionably relevant factors, such as their opinion of the accused and the accuser. While the chances of conviction are overall low, the chances of any particular conviction that does occur being incorrect are overall high.

This is true, but it doesn't take very long before a rape becomes hard to prosecute.  I'm not sure if it's best if the statute of limitation is only a year or so.

[garbon]

Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.

Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?

[Malthus]

This is true, but it doesn't take very long before a rape becomes hard to prosecute.  I'm not sure if it's best if the statute of limitation is only a year or so.

That's why I say that the best explanation for having a more traditional SoL period is the intersection of two concerns:

(1) old cases are hard to prosecute and so may waste judicial resources; and

(2) old cases are hard for defendants to defend with evidence, and so risk unjust convictions among that percentage of cases in which a conviction is in fact achieved.

The second reason isn't likely to be any different in time-line from crimes generally - loss of alibis etc.

[celedhring]

In a country where prosecutorial power is highly politicized or discretion is routinely abused criminal SoLs serve a "liberal" function of checking the potential abuse of bringing bogus charges based on concocted events in the distant past.  Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.

Yeah, our very short SoLs exist as a reaction to show trials with trumped up charges held under Franco.

[The Minsky Moment]

Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.

Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?

Not usually but it can be "cover" for a prosecutor being pressured by victims or family to push hard on an otherwise stale case.

[Berkut]

Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.

Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?

Not usually but it can be "cover" for a prosecutor being pressured by victims or family to push hard on an otherwise stale case.

But at the cost of making it impossible to prosecute a case where it is not stale, there is clearly a crime, and a valid prosecution could be (and should be) achieved.

I don't think making it easy for a prosecutor to refuse to pursue a case he doesn't want to pursue for legitimate reasons is a compelling reason to make it impossible for him to pursue a case that can and should be pursued.

Seems to me that rather than a law that says you CANNOT prosecute some cases after some period of time, there should be guidelines that say that some cases probably should not be pursued after some period of time, with a varying bar based on the crime, evidence, and amount of time.

I don't really see what actual benefit there is to a strict SoL.

[Malthus]

Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.

Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?

Not usually but it can be "cover" for a prosecutor being pressured by victims or family to push hard on an otherwise stale case.

But at the cost of making it impossible to prosecute a case where it is not stale, there is clearly a crime, and a valid prosecution could be (and should be) achieved.

I don't think making it easy for a prosecutor to refuse to pursue a case he doesn't want to pursue for legitimate reasons is a compelling reason to make it impossible for him to pursue a case that can and should be pursued.

Seems to me that rather than a law that says you CANNOT prosecute some cases after some period of time, there should be guidelines that say that some cases probably should not be pursued after some period of time, with a varying bar based on the crime, evidence, and amount of time.

I don't really see what actual benefit there is to a strict SoL.

The same benefit as with any bright-line rule: certainty, convenience, cost, avoidance of the problems that arise with individual judgment such as bias.

Same as with age restrictions on certain activities. No reason why they could not be discretionary: have some official decide when a person is mature enough to vote, drink, drive a car, or have sex with - people, after all, mature at different rates.

The problem then is that you have to create a process to replace the simple accrual of time, and that costs resources that could be, allegedly, better spent elsewhere, all to solve a problem that is pretty minor: the injustice of some mature teen being unable to drive or vote when his or her less-mature, but slightly older, cohorts can. Not to mention the problem that someone will undoubtedly allege that the official tasked with judging maturity is biased in favouring X over Y. 

[Berkut]

Where that is not as much of a concern, the SoL is really more of a prudential limitation to block prosecutors pouring resources into cases that are likely to have serious proof problems.

Is there/has there ever been a big problem with prosecutors lining up to prosecute cases they know they are unlikely to win?

Not usually but it can be "cover" for a prosecutor being pressured by victims or family to push hard on an otherwise stale case.

But at the cost of making it impossible to prosecute a case where it is not stale, there is clearly a crime, and a valid prosecution could be (and should be) achieved.

I don't think making it easy for a prosecutor to refuse to pursue a case he doesn't want to pursue for legitimate reasons is a compelling reason to make it impossible for him to pursue a case that can and should be pursued.

Seems to me that rather than a law that says you CANNOT prosecute some cases after some period of time, there should be guidelines that say that some cases probably should not be pursued after some period of time, with a varying bar based on the crime, evidence, and amount of time.

I don't really see what actual benefit there is to a strict SoL.

The same benefit as with any bright-line rule: certainty, convenience, cost, avoidance of the problems that arise with individual judgment such as bias.

Same as with age restrictions on certain activities. No reason why they could not be discretionary: have some official decide when a person is mature enough to vote, drink, drive a car, or have sex with - people, after all, mature at different rates.

The problem then is that you have to create a process to replace the simple accrual of time, and that costs resources that could be, allegedly, better spent elsewhere, all to solve a problem that is pretty minor: the injustice of some mature teen being unable to drive or vote when his or her less-mature, but slightly older, cohorts can. Not to mention the problem that someone will undoubtedly allege that the official tasked with judging maturity is biased in favouring X over Y. 

That is a good argument in structure, but you cannot just apply it as a matter of course to specific sitations.

Indeed, I think it is reasonable to say that such replacement of judgement with simple rules is based on the expected ability to exercise good judgement of the actors involved, and the scale at which it would be demanded. It is not reasonable to expect that there be a pool of competent individuals to judge whether some wide range of potential drivers across age ranges are capable of getting a license (at least more so than we already do, since in fact age is not a sole determinant of ability to drive, you also have to pass a couple tests, have your eyes checkes, etc., etc).

Given that there does in fact already exist a pool of professional, well trained experts who evaluate as a matter of course when and how to pursue prosecutions, and we presume they do so in a reasonable unbiased, competent manner, I don't see why we need some arbitrary rule in place to *remove* that ability to make expert judgements based on time since the supposed crime. They can, and should, include the factor of the passage of time in their evaluation, and in many cases, a sufficient passing of time would in fact make a case effectively impossible to prosecute. Absent a SoL, my expectation would be that 98% of crimes that would not be able to be prosecuted under a SoL would still be unable to be prosecuted.

The only benefit I can see to a SoL is that it would prevent a prosecutor not operating in good faith from bringing a case against someone after some period of time. But if we presume that we have dishonest prosecutors bringing malicious cases, I don't see why we should think it prudent to check them only in the case of them doing so on old cases. Being maliciously prosecuted for an old case doesn't seem to me to be especially egregious compared to being maliciously prosecuted for a not old case.