Should offenders who committed crimes over 30 years ago be spared prosecution?
Mountain_Runner
Posts: 1,927 Forum Member
✭✭✭
If a person commit a criminal offence over 30 years ago and since that offence, has commit no other crime at all should they be spared prosecution?
The reason behind this is a lot has happened in that time. We've had 3 different governments, and 5 prime ministers, the law has changed with the human rights act and different sentencing.
People and attitudes have changed too we are now much more liberally minded.
30 years is a very long time, in any case it was not only in the last century it was the in last millennium! The millennium was meant to be a new start with a good new government.
What is the point of wasting tax payers money on prosecutions and jail for crimes that were commit such a long time ago especially since if they'd be caught back in 1985 they would have served their sentence by now.
Please let us know your opinions. It's for a college essay.
The reason behind this is a lot has happened in that time. We've had 3 different governments, and 5 prime ministers, the law has changed with the human rights act and different sentencing.
People and attitudes have changed too we are now much more liberally minded.
30 years is a very long time, in any case it was not only in the last century it was the in last millennium! The millennium was meant to be a new start with a good new government.
What is the point of wasting tax payers money on prosecutions and jail for crimes that were commit such a long time ago especially since if they'd be caught back in 1985 they would have served their sentence by now.
Please let us know your opinions. It's for a college essay.
0
Comments
Minor crimes you have a point
Longer answer - it's only serious offenses that are prosecuted after that length of time, and the idea that murders, rapists, fraudsters, armed robbers and the like could get away with it by evading prosecution for long enough is wrong.
The point is that they HAVEN'T served their sentence, and if sufficient evidence exists for a case to be made, then that is exactly what we pay our taxes for.
You aren't going to be prosecuted for that Freddo you lifted from Woolworths in 1982 though.
Exactly, I would think it's common sense to pursue people who murdered someone, rape someone and etc, even after 30 years. Would you not be persecuted murderers, just because it's past the "sell by date"?
However, I do believe there's a statute of limitations in America for rape though. I'm glad the UK does not, as people shouldn't be allowed to get away with serious crimes.
True but even if it is a serious crime and they have committed absolutely no other offence, not even received a caution in 30 years should they be spared prosecution for that offence committed pre-1985?
How would you know whether someone had or hadn't committed a subsequent crime?
So what? If they abused a child or if they killed someone are you seriously suggesting that we just ignore this because it was a long time ago?
At the risk of envoking Godwin. How would you feel about Oskar Groening avoiding trial? In fairness he was a fairly minor player. But others like Eichmann (15+ years) and Mengele (35+ years) were a larger and, certainly in the case of Mengele, would have avoid prosecution. I know Mengele never faced trial anyway. But are we reaaly suggesting he could have lived out his days as a free man?
Forensic evidence taken at the time might not be able to identify a perpetrator, but after 30 years the identity may be able to be proved.
I actually believed this has happened.
One example was James Hanratty being posthumously tested for DNA and proving beyond doubt that he was guilty of the murder for which he was hanged.
If you mean purely for minor crimes then I see your point however.
No, he wasn't, and no, it didn't. The evidence had all been kept in a cardboard box for over 50 years, and so was contaminated. DNA testing proved nothing.
b) it depends on the victim in some cases...does every victim of a rapist 30 years ago want to have to give evidence...and why should we force them...and tbh if they don't want to and the case would fall because of that we have to respect that.
c)...unpopularity alert...you also have to be assured the ALLEGED perpetrator is physically/mentally capable of contributing to their own defence and giving evidence...unless there are some who would suggest people in comas should be prosecuted.
For cases that are decades old the problem for a defendant is going to be their alibi remembering where you were on a particular day decades ago is going to be more of a problem than it would for a recent crime and having corroborating testimony or evidence for you alibi from other people remembering where you were on that day or document evidence like work schedules or bill receipts or other evidence like cctv camera footage, etc is going to be far more unlikely than if the crime was recent. While the victim or next of kin in the case of murder are going to remember the horrific event and the police are going to have evidence taken at the time of the original investigation and whatever forensic evidence led to the arrest of the accused. It becomes forensic evidence and the memory of others about horrific events, vs the word of the accused who if innocent probably cannot clearly remember where they were and probably has no corroborating evidence for their alibi. The safety of the conviction becomes in major part dependent on your faith in the reliability of the forensic evidence.
What's the difference between 1985 and 1986?
For summary offences only, there is a 6 month time limit on prosecution anyway. For more serious offences, there isn't, but there are not too many old crimes prosecuted anyway, because the public interest element, plus evidence available are considerations.
Murder will always be prosecuted, if detected, and so it should. We've had a spate of sex offenders who commit numerous crimes prosecuted recently, but beyond those examples, not too many old crimes are even looked at.
No need to change that. The option is there to prosecute old offences if they should be.
For cases that are decades old the problem for a defendant is going to be their alibi remembering where you were on a particular day decades ago is going to be more of a problem than it would for a recent crime and having corroborating testimony or evidence for you alibi from other people remembering where you were on that day or document evidence like work schedules or bill receipts or other evidence like cctv camera footage, etc is going to be far more unlikely than if the crime was recent. While the victim or next of kin in the case of murder are going to remember the horrific event and the police are going to have evidence taken at the time of the original investigation and whatever forensic evidence led to the arrest of the accused. It becomes forensic evidence and the memory of others about horrific events, vs the word of the accused who probably cannot clearly remember where they were and probably has no corroborating evidence for their alibi. The safety of the conviction becomes in major part dependent on your faith in the reliability of the forensic evidence.[/QUOTE]
Yes it does but since the question was specifically about thirty years ago I answered it accordingly...when the question is about crimes committed yesterday I will do the same.
What I would say is that an offence which has (or had at the time) a maximum sentence of less than 5 years should have a limit of say 25 years.