The Sun Tracks Down Nazi War Criminal

[viper37]

Sorry, if it plays better for you:

As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.

what's the limit?  50 years?  60 years?  30 years?  Should Roman Polanski be safe to return in the US?

[viper37]

Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.

Yes, kiddie rape should not be punished if the accused thinks she looks older.  It's a sane argument.  Tottaly.

[garbon]

Sorry, if it plays better for you:

As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.

what's the limit?  50 years?  60 years?  30 years?  Should Roman Polanski be safe to return in the US?

I don't know - I guess it'd depend on circumstances.  Someone who will do us the favor of dying soon anyway?

[garbon]

Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.

Yes, kiddie rape should not be punished if the accused thinks she looks older.  It's a sane argument.  Tottaly.

The only point I'll say in Mart's favor is that who only came up with his terrible post because Shame tried to say Polanksi was equivalent to the mass murder discussed in this thread.

[jimmy olsen]

If the government's handed these guys on a platter, the trial expense is justified IMO.

Dude's already been tried and sentenced.

Just carry out the sentence.

[Neil]

If the government's handed these guys on a platter, the trial expense is justified IMO.

Dude's already been tried and sentenced.

Just carry out the sentence.

He was tried by an illegitimate court, and it would be illegal to carry out the sentence in any event.

[Razgovory]

Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.

Yes, kiddie rape should not be punished if the accused thinks she looks older.  It's a sane argument.  Tottaly.

The only point I'll say in Mart's favor is that who only came up with his terrible post because Shame tried to say Polanksi was equivalent to the mass murder discussed in this thread.

He is equivalent in that he's a convicted criminal.  That should be enough.

[garbon]

Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.

Yes, kiddie rape should not be punished if the accused thinks she looks older.  It's a sane argument.  Tottaly.

The only point I'll say in Mart's favor is that who only came up with his terrible post because Shame tried to say Polanksi was equivalent to the mass murder discussed in this thread.

He is equivalent in that he's a convicted criminal.  That should be enough.

I don't think so. Not for the hypocrisy argument that Shame was trying to make.

[Malthus]

The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...

Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.

That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.

[garbon]

The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...

Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.

That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.

Well if there is no hard fast rule on when they decline to still have one carry out the sentence - wouldn't the deterrent still be there?  I'm not sure there's much fun in looking over one's shoulder for 65+ years so that one will be on "easy street" in one's 90s.

[Malthus]

The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...

Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.

That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.

Well if there is no hard fast rule on when they decline to still have one carry out the sentence - wouldn't the deterrent still be there?  I'm not sure there's much fun in looking over one's shoulder for 65+ years so that one will be on "easy street" in one's 90s.

  True enough ... it's simply a matter of degree. A 20 year limitations period is harsh, a 30 year period is harsher yet, and a lifetime one is the harshest possible.

[The Minsky Moment]

The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...

Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.

That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.

Under US law, there are many crimes under federal and state law that carry no statute of limitations.  Aside from a few academics, these rules are uncontroversial.  Were this individual in US custody, he would (off the top of my head) be subject to charge on at least two federal crimes carrying no limitations period: torture resulting in death, and killing in connection with genocide.

Of course, this is not really relevant as he is in Hungarian (not US) custody and there is no question of limitation since he has already been convicted and sentenced.  Preumably, the only question left to consider is whether sentence should be suspended on some discretionary ground.  (although it is possible his lawyers could challenge the validity of the old conviction).

I raise the point only b/c US citizens have posted suggesting prosecutors as a matter of policy should avoid prosecuting long cold cases.  Such a policy would in the US context involve effective prosecutorial nullification of the Legisalture's intent that certain crimes be punished regardless of the amount of time that has elapsed.

[garbon]

Such a policy would in the US context involve effective prosecutorial nullification of the Legisalture's intent that certain crimes be punished regardless of the amount of time that has elapsed.

So?

[The Minsky Moment]

Interesting fact:

Putting aside the various categories of federal crimes that have no limitations (capital offenses, certain terrorism offenses, and certain child abduction/sex crimes), the longest federal limitations period is for . . . art theft (20 years)

[Barrister]

The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...

Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.

That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.

Under US law, there are many crimes under federal and state law that carry no statute of limitations.  Aside from a few academics, these rules are uncontroversial.  Were this individual in US custody, he would (off the top of my head) be subject to charge on at least two federal crimes carrying no limitations period: torture resulting in death, and killing in connection with genocide.

Of course, this is not really relevant as he is in Hungarian (not US) custody and there is no question of limitation since he has already been convicted and sentenced.  Preumably, the only question left to consider is whether sentence should be suspended on some discretionary ground.  (although it is possible his lawyers could challenge the validity of the old conviction).

I raise the point only b/c US citizens have posted suggesting prosecutors as a matter of policy should avoid prosecuting long cold cases.  Such a policy would in the US context involve effective prosecutorial nullification of the Legisalture's intent that certain crimes be punished regardless of the amount of time that has elapsed.

Under Canadian law there is no statute of limitations on indictable matters.   Matters from 60 years ago would be rather extreme, but it is not at all unusual for us to prosecute historical sexual assaults that are 30 or even 40 years old.

That being said, as a prosecutor there is always discretion in which cases you prosecute.  In every case we must answer whether a prosecution has a reasonable likelihood of conviction, and whether it serves the public interest.  And I've pulled cases because the accused was so old and infirm it no longer served the public interest to prosecute.  That discretion does not raise any issue of "prosecutorial nullification of the Legislature's intent".