Do you think there should be a statute of limitations for murder cases?

Yes - 7 Years.

Can't catch him or prove it after 10 years. Let it go.

No, increasingly more accurate DNA evidence should be able to prove a murderer's guilt no matter how long it takes.

The victins are sentenced to a life without a loved one, so why would Anyone but the murderer want such a statute., Hunt them down until their dying day!

No vote. What is a Statue of limitations? It sounds AMERICAN.

Yeah the statute of limitations should end when the victim returns from the dead.

Why is this even a question Japan abolished it last year.

Yes it was 15 years in Japan until abolished last year. The time was that a suspect fled outside the country was not counted against the total. It seems to me that this 15-year limitation served as a "free pass" to criminals who managed to evade arrest, in that even one day after the expiration they could go on TV, confess to their crime, and not (in theory) be subject to prosecution murder -- although the victim's family might go after the killer in civil court (as was done in the O.J. Simpson case).

yes - but something like 100 years.

@FireyRei

Ignoramus.

No. All unsolved cases should be re-opened too.

Absolutely not.

No Statute Of Limitations on murder cases. Perhaps the best that a murderer should get is life in prison. (Personally, I think that's a fate worse than death.)

No limit.

Think about it. If you have a limitation of ... perhaps 10 years, then what is to prevent someone from killing someone and hiding the body, leaving the country to "disappear" for 10 yrs and 1 month, then returning and not being prosecuted?

Living in a different country isn't all that hard.

Longer times really don't make sense, unless we are just trying to let the police officially close cases after X years. Perhaps when the person killed would have reached age 90, that should be the limit? For a 20 yr old killed, then the statute limit would be 70 more years.

As one of the few who voted yes, I think most people watch too much darned TV and think DNA proves everything. A statute of limitations renews interest in cases that otherwise would just not get solved anyway, despite what you may think from watching fictional crime shows like Cold Case. And after the time limit, people confess giving the families some closure.

I hate the idea of people getting away with murder as much as anyone, but the statute of limitations actually does help prevent that. Its just counter-intuitive, intuition being famous being wrong.

chewitup Jul. 12, 2011 - 07:29AM JST. A statute of limitations renews interest in cases that otherwise would just not get solved anyway, despite what you may think from watching fictional crime shows like Cold Case

Depends on the case, the new technology DNA evidence has solved some of the old cases, and some cases were 20-30 years old so I wouldn't be jumping at closing the doors. DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible accuracy when biological evidence exists. By the same token, DNA can be used to clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused or convicted of crimes. It works both ways.

theFu@I think you missed my comment that laws here stipulate that any time a fugitive spends outside Japan is not counted against the statute of limitations. Anyone who flees would be well advised not to come back at all.

chewitup

And after the time limit, people confess giving the families some closure.

I think this is one of most asinine things I've read here.

@FireyRei: You don't do yourself any favours with a comment like that

I voted no. Would a war criminal be included in such a time limit?

I think this is one of most asinine things I've read here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/international/asia/12japan.html

I don't have all the details, but what I read about Shinya Wada suggested he only confessed because he knew he was protected by the statute of limitations. Even with the extra detail of the article, it is reasonable to believe that he did not did up Chikako Ishikawa's body and hide it elsewhere because of the statute. The family may well have the statute to thank for getting her remains back and knowing what happened. I know they are not "happy" with that I never expect them to be happy. But it would be better if they never knew?

I don't know how many confessions happened because of the statute. I don't exactly have a lot of translated data to sort through. But to call the concept asinine is asinine. I am sure its only a handful of the cases that got solved that way, but its also only a handful of 15 year old cases that ever get solved.

As further evidence to support the statute, look at Kazuko Fukuda. She was arrested just hours before the statute ran out. Its not a coincidence. The statute renewed interest in the case.

Depends on the case, the new technology DNA evidence has solved some of the old cases

You mean helped solve. But actually, I would not be surprised if more people who were wrongly jailed were freed than actual killers nabbed. DNA is great, but its no magic bullet. TV has made it out to be much more than it is. It sure did not help Casey Anthony's case. They could not tell if her body left a stain in a car or not, and that case was nowhere near 15 years old. Lucie Blackman's body was also not left for 15 years, yet nothing to link her Joji Obara. DNA is great, like I say, but its not a magic bullet.

chewitup

You consider a case solved if the murderer is identified AFTER the statute of limitations and s/he is never tried for the crime? Get real. The police may be able to close the case but because justice is never served for a crime, a heinous one at that, by a court of law it cannot be acceptable to the vicitm(s), kin, or society . May be that's why the US, almost all EU countries and the developed world don't have such statute of limitations on murder and other heinous crimes.

A case should stay open, even as a cold case, regardless of how remote the possibility may be that the killer is identified down the road. Sometimes new evidence becomes available. New investigative techniques and technologies are invented. Sometimes a killer gets caught because he's arrested for something else. The victims' families overwhelmingly are against a statute of limitations for murder and are the very people who are pushing the hardest for its abolition. Cherrypicking a couple of cases where the murder was brought to justice just short of the completion of prescription doesn't justify the existence of such an asinie, yes asinine, law.

The victims' families overwhelmingly are against a statute of limitations for murder and are the very people who are pushing the hardest for its abolition.

But they are not the people whose job it is to get the answers. And those people are booked solid.

Cherrypicking a couple of cases where the murder was brought to justice just short of the completion of prescription doesn't justify the existence of such an asinie, yes asinine, law.

The law was made by people who know more about these things than you. They enough that they are not running on emotion fumes. A good case can be made against the statute, sure, but your insistance in calling it asinine only makes it abundantly clear you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

And I really don't know what part of me not having translated specific data confused you. And I hardly think you know what cherrypicking means. Maybe if you are going to ignore my statements like that and accuse me of words you cannot define, maybe you could cough up some figures to show all those cold murder cases that get solved after 15 years where there is no statute? Or maybe you can get some comments from Gov. Charlie Crist about how some new tech is solving cold case by 3 times more than before...and never mind that he if full of crap.

May be that's why the US, almost all EU countries and the developed world don't have such statute of limitations on murder and other heinous crimes.

And the ad populum fallacy gets dragged out! Hi old friend!

chewitup

But they are not the people whose job it is to get the answers

Funny, you're the one who originially cited the victims' families as a reason for keeping the SofL, not me. And now they don't matter? How convenient.

The law was made by people who know more about these things than you.

You got me there, yup I'm not a lawyer. Still, a statute of limitations is ASININE and you're playing the devil's advocate and you know it. Then again, maybe you don't...

And the ad populum fallacy gets dragged out! Hi old friend!

That's strange, thought you anti-death penalty types loved ad populum fallacies. Hmmm. But, since we're talking about a law which is instituted by government officials who are elected by the majority vote, I don't believe you can categrorize this as an argumentum ad populum. If the majority of the citizens don't want it, then the law should go. Nothing fallacious with that, democratically anyway. At least it's not argumentum ad hominem, evidently your favorite.

I think Bartholomew Harte said it best. The victims are sentenced to a life without a loved one, so why can anyone but the murderer receive such a statute.

Funny, you're the one who originially cited the victims' families as a reason for keeping the SofL

I never said it was only the victims feelings that mattered! Lots more to consider!

You got me there, yup I'm not a lawyer. Still, a statute of limitations is ASININE

What is asinine is believing the statute was made for no good reason and that there are no benefits. The bad may well outweight the good, but to say there is no good and nothing to discuss is ASININE.

That's strange, thought you anti-death penalty types loved ad populum fallacies.

Since the DP is available in so many countries, it would be real hard to appy the fallacy.

But, since we're talking about a law which is instituted by government officials who are elected by the majority vote,

What grade are you in? Government officials are elected for a bunch of reasons, and stance on the DP has got to be on the bottom of the list! You want the people's opinion, you got to ask the people! That is democracy!

If the majority of the citizens don't want it, then the law should go.

In a real democracy. But none exist on this planet, and I highly doubt you would support one.

It would be crazy country to have every plumber, every carpenter, every ditch digger and every sanitation engineer deciding the minor rules of the legal system. I don't mind losing the statute so much, because it won't make much difference either way. I think we have more to worry about with the people who actually go to trial and get away with murder. Surely there are more of them than people getting off for the statute!

I can't believe 12% said yes. So, for example, if Ichihashi had gotten a better face job than he did and eluded the police for 15 years, he could then call the Hawker family and tell them he killed Lindsay, but there's nothing they can do about it. Ridiculous.

USNinJapan2JUL. 13, 2011 - 06:59PM JST chewitup

You consider a case solved if the murderer is identified AFTER the statute of limitations and s/he is never tried for the crime? Get real. The police may be able to close the case but because justice is never served for a crime, a heinous one at that, by a court of law it cannot be acceptable to the vicitm(s), kin, or society . May be that's why the US, almost all EU countries and the developed world don't have such statute of limitations on murder and other heinous crimes.

A case should stay open, even as a cold case, regardless of how remote the possibility may be that the killer is identified down the road. Sometimes new evidence becomes available. New investigative techniques and technologies are invented. Sometimes a killer gets caught because he's arrested for something else. The victims' families overwhelmingly are against a statute of limitations for murder and are the very people who are pushing the hardest for its abolition. Cherrypicking a couple of cases where the murder was brought to justice just short of the completion of prescription doesn't justify the existence of such an asinie, yes asinine, law.

I can't agree with you more. Very well said!

No. Like in most countries until the perpetrators are caught the cases should remain open.

I can't believe 12% said yes.

I can't believe people hang on to their unrealized dreams of cold cases getting solved without any hard data. Dreaming of cold cases getting solved does not get them solved.

he could then call the Hawker family and tell them he killed Lindsay, but there's nothing they can do about it. Ridiculous.

It would be ridiculous. But that does not mean its the only ridiculous thing to consider. The world is ridiculously unfair for example.

I think that if Ichihashi had managed to stay on the lam until just before the statute ran out, the extra press generated by that fact could have gotten new information and got him arrested. It has happened before. I think it is more ridiculous to throw away such an opportunity than to get upset that a murderer is free and known whereas he would have been free but unknown. Is it better to not know? Because the question of freedom hasn't changed.

No, Never, There should be no limitations on Murder, or anything this.

I personally think there shouldn't be a limitations on murder because there is no justice for the victim or their family if the perpetrator is never tried for their crimes. I know DNA evidence isn't perfect but a person shouldn't be able to kill someone and get away with it because they know there is a set time that they can get away with it like x years. BTW, I'm American so maybe I'm biased but it's crazy to ever have limitations on murder or other heinous crimes.