Why do crimes have a statute of limitations

Society also has come to understand more about the physical, emotional, and psychological effects of sexual violence and the reasons why a victim may not immediately report the crime. In addition to pursuing criminal charges, many victims are eligible to seek victim compensation from a state agency or to file a civil suit a lawsuit in civil court that may seek monetary compensation, protection, or other remedies.

Sign Up. Skip to main content. Que es la Linea de Ayuda? Understanding Statutes of Limitations for Sex Crimes. What is a criminal statute of limitations? What can keep the clock running, or what ensures that certain victims, such as children, have ample time to come forward and report the crime? How are statutes of limitations created and applied?

To do this, prosecutors consider some of the following questions: What type of crime occurred? The more serious the crime, for example a felony sex crime as opposed to a misdemeanor, the longer prosecutors typically have to charge suspects. When did the crime occur? However, the length of time the statute allows for a victim to bring legal action against the suspected wrong-doer can vary from one jurisdiction to another and the nature of the offense.

In general, the time allowed under a statute of limitations varies depending upon the nature of the offense. In most cases, statutes of limitations apply to civil cases. For example, in some states, the statute of limitations on medical malpractice claims is two years, so that means you have two years to sue for medical malpractice. If you wait so much as one day over the two-year deadline, you can no longer sue for medical malpractice.

Criminal offenses can also have statutes of limitations. However, cases involving serious crimes, like murder, typically have no maximum period under a statute of limitations. In some states, sex offenses involving minors, or violent crimes like kidnapping or arson, have no statute of limitations. Under international law, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide have no statute of limitations, according to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity and Article 29 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

A statute of limitations is sometimes controversial due to cases where legal action cannot be brought against an offender because the maximum length of time has elapsed. Proponents of a statute of limitations argue that, for practical reasons, it is most equitable to limit the initiation of legal proceedings to a reasonable period after the event. As time goes on, important evidence may be lost, and the memories of witnesses can grow foggy.

Legal proceedings brought under these circumstances may not be fair to all parties. Statutes of limitations can also apply to consumer debt because creditors have a certain amount of time in which to collect on the debt. The statute of limitations on consumer debt depends on the laws of the state in question, and the type of debt.

Making any payment towards a time-barred debt can restart the clock on the statute of limitations. For example, on Feb. The extension gives victims more time to seek criminal charges in general and allows for a one-time month litigation window for adult victims of all ages who were abused as children.

Under the law, victims can seek criminal charges against their abusers until age 28, versus the previous cutoff of age 23, and can file civil suits until age The law also includes a one-year litigation window for victims of any age to file lawsuits; one of the biggest sticking points that kept the law from being approved previously.

In the past, one of the biggest opponents to the extension of the statute of limitations and inclusion of the one-year litigation window was the Catholic Church. At the time, the Republican-controlled state Senate blocked the legislation for a decade, but after a Democratic majority was voted through, the Senate and Democrat-controlled Assembly approved the legislation.

Debt Management. Although the federal crime of conspiracy is complete when one of the plotters commits an affirmative act in its name, the period for conspiracies begins with the last affirmative act committed in furtherance of the scheme.

Other so-called continuing offenses include various possession crimes and some that impose continuing obligations to register or report. The federal courts have long held that a statute of limitations may be enlarged retroactively as long as the previously applicable period of limitation has not expired.

The Supreme Court recently confirmed that view; the ex post facto proscription precludes legislative revival of an expired period of limitation. A list of federal statutes of limitation in criminal cases and a rough chart of comparable state provisions are attached. Limitation-related constitutional challenges arise most often under the Constitution's ex post facto and due process clauses.

Due process condemns pre-indictment delays even when permitted by the statute of limitations if the prosecution wrongfully caused the delay and the accused's defense suffered actual, substantial harm as a consequence. The Constitution's Speedy Trial Clause 1 protects the criminally accused against unreasonable delays between his indictment and trial. Before indictment, the statutes of limitation, and in extreme circumstances, the Due Process Clauses 2 protect the accused from unreasonable delays.

This is an overview of federal law relating to the statutes of limitation in criminal cases, including those changes produced by the act. The phrase "statute of limitations" refers to the time period within which formal criminal charges must be brought after a crime has been committed. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past.

Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity. Statutes of limitation are creatures of statute. The common law recognized no period of limitation.

Limitations are recognized today only to the extent that a statute or due process dictates their recognition. Federal statutes of limitation are as old as federal crimes. When the Founders assembled in the First Congress, they passed not only the first federal criminal laws but made prosecution under those laws subject to specific statutes of limitation. Federal capital offenses may be prosecuted at any time, 10 but unless some more specific arrangement has been made a general five-year statute of limitations covers all other federal crimes.

Aside from capital offenses, 15 crimes which Congress associated with terrorism may be prosecuted at any time if they result in a death or serious injury or create a foreseeable risk of death or serious injury. Although the majority of federal crimes are governed by the general five-year statute of limitations, Congress has chosen longer periods for specific types of crimes—20 years for the theft of art work; 19 10 years for arson, 20 for certain crimes against financial institutions, 21 and for immigration offenses; 22 and 8 years for the nonviolent terrorist offenses that may be prosecuted at any time if committed under violent circumstances.

The five-year rule may yield to circumstances other than the type of crime to be prosecuted. For example, an otherwise applicable limitation period may be suspended or extended in cases involving child abuse, 27 the concealment of the assets of an estate in bankruptcy, 28 wartime fraud against the government, 29 dismissal of original charges, 30 fugitives, 31 foreign evidence, 32 or DNA evidence. The child protection section, 18 U. There are two DNA provisions. One, 18 U.

As noted earlier, prosecution for such crimes may be brought at any time under 18 U. Section b is the narrower of the two DNA provisions. It only applies to offenses proscribed in 18 U. Chapter A outlaws abusive sexual contact, sexual abuse, and aggravated sexual abuse when any of these offenses is committed in a federal prison, or within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Section applies to any federal felony. Rather than suspend the statute of limitations, it marks the beginning of the period of limitation, not from the commission of the crime, but from the time when DNA testing implicates an individual.

The statute of limitations on offenses which involve concealing bankruptcy assets does not begin to run until a final decision discharging or refusing to discharge the debtor: "The concealment of assets of a debtor in a case under Title 11 shall be deemed to be a continuing offense until the debtor shall have been finally discharged or a discharge denied, and the period of limitations shall not begin to run until such final discharge or denial of discharge.

Section establishes a suspension of the statute of limitations covering wartime frauds committed against the United States 45 that allows for prosecution at any time up to five years after the end of the war. In , Congress amended the section to make it clear that the provision covers misconduct during both declared wars and periods of armed conflict for which Congress has explicitly authorized use of the Armed Forces. The statute of limitations runs until an indictment or information is found and returned to the court.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow the magistrate to whom the indictment is returned to seal it until the defendant is apprehended or released on bail. The statute of limitations remains tolled if the original indictment is replaced by a superseding indictment, as long as the superseding indictment does not substantially alter the original charge. If the indictment or information is subsequently dismissed, federal law extends the statute of limitations an additional six months 30 days if the indictment or information is dismissed on appeal and there is a grand jury with jurisdiction in place.

Section was enacted to compensate for the delays the Justice Department experienced when it sought to secure bank records and other evidence located overseas. Construction of Section has been something less than uniform, thus far. The statute demands that the government bear the burden of establishing to the court its right to a suspension by a preponderance of the evidence. As for the nature of the overseas evidence, it is no bar to suspension that the evidence might be obtained in this country or that without it the grand jury has enough evidence to indict.

The suspension begins when the government submits its official request to a foreign source. Some courts suggest that final action occurs with a dispositive response, i. A provision exempting fugitives accompanied passage of the first federal statute of limitations. United States , 80 hold that the government must establish that the accused acted with an intent to avoid prosecution. Statutes of limitation "normally begin to run when the crime is complete," 89 which occurs when the last element of the crime has been satisfied.

Thus, the statute of limitations for such conspiracies begins to run not with the first overt act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy but with the last. Concealment of the criminal plot after its completion is considered a natural component of all conspiracies.

Consequently, overt acts of concealment after the objectives of the conspiracy have been accomplished may not be used to delay the running of the statute of limitations. There are other crimes, which, like conspiracy, continue on long after all the elements necessary for their prosecution fall into place. The applicable statute of limitations for these continuing crimes is delayed if either "the explicit language of the substantive criminal statute compels such a conclusion, or the nature of the crime involved is such that Congress must assuredly have intended that it be treated as a continuing one.

Historically, constitutional challenges to the application of various statutes of limitation have arisen most often under the ex post facto or due process clauses. The Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from enacting ex post facto laws.

Bull , it prohibits the following:. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. The lower federal appellate courts had long felt that a statute that extended a period of limitation before its expiration did not offend the ex post facto clauses, but that the clauses do ban laws that attempt to revive and extend an expired statute of limitations. California , however, there were well regarded contrary opinions.

The California Supreme Court in Frazer , for example, at one point concluded that the ex post facto clauses in fact pose no impediment to the revival of an expired statute of limitations. Youngblood decision where the Court seemed to repudiate at least the evidentiary component of the traditional Calder understanding.

As the California court read Collins , the Supreme Court had not only indicated that evidentiary changes were beyond the realm of ex post facto protection but that ex post facto protection reached no further than retroactive changes in a crime's elements or punishment. The Supreme Court subsequently warned that Collins should not be read as a repudiation of Calder's four prohibited classes, but instead that " Collins held that it was a mistake to stray beyond Calder's four categories.

The Frazer analysis was in error nonetheless. The United States Supreme Court in Stogner characterized the California legislative revival of an expired period of limitation as not only "manifestly unjust and oppressive," but among those laws that run afoul of Calder's second standard, i.

Retroactivity aside, the due process clauses may be implicated when a crime has no statute of limitations or when the period of limitation has not run. Although statutes of limitation alone generally govern the extent of permissible pre-indictment delay, extraordinary circumstances may trigger due process implications. The Supreme Court in Marion observed that even "the Government concedes that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment would require dismissal of [an] indictment if it were shown at trial that the pre-indictment delay The Court later made clear that due process contemplates more than a claimant's showing of adverse impact caused by pre-indictment delay: "Thus Marion makes clear that proof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim, and that the due process inquiry must consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused.

Perhaps because so few defendants have been able to show sufficient prejudice to necessitate further close inquiry, the lower federal appellate courts seem at odds over exactly what else due process demands before it will require dismissal. Most have held that the defendant bears the burden of establishing both prejudice and government deficiency; others, that once the defendant establishes prejudice the burden shifts to the government to negate the second prong; and still others, that once the defendant shows prejudice the court must balance the harm against the justifications for delay.

Any time: attempted commission or commission of - homicide; class 2 felony sex offense or sexual exploitation of children; violent sexual assault; misuse of public money; felony falsification of public records Ariz. Any time: committing, attempting, conspiring to commit, or soliciting commit - murder, treason, kidnaping, forgery, or sex offenses against a child Colo. Any time: capital or class A felony; arson-murder; or 1 st degree escape Conn.

Any time: commit or attempt to commit murder, class A felony, or various sex offenses Del. Code Ann. Any time: homicide, attempted murder, treason, arson, or forgery Ill. Any time: murder, terrorism, rape, or use of weapons of mass destruction Kan.

Any time: murder, 1 st or 2d degree homicide, or various sexual offenses against a minor Me. Any time subject to occasional individual statutory exceptions, e. Laws Ann. Any time: murder, rape, kidnaping, arson, manslaughter, burglary, aggravated assault, forgery, counterfeiting, robbery, larceny, fraud, embezzlement, or various sexual offenses against minors Miss. Any time: class A felony or 1 st degree rape, sexual criminal act, or sexual conduct against a child N. Any time: capital felony, murder, manslaughter, various sex offenses against a minor, or kidnaping Utah Code Ann.

Note : Recently, state legislatures have regularly enlarged or eliminated the statute of limitations for a number of offenses. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that can be lost either explicitly, by pleading guilty, or by failure to raise it at or before trial. Musacchio v. United States, S. Fernandez, F.

Woodard, F. Wilbur, F. Hsu, F. Flood, F. Doggett v. United States , U. At some point events pass into history and due process restricts the extent to which they may be resurrected to build a criminal accusation, with or without an applicable statute of limitations, United States v. Marion , U. Capsulized descriptions of the various state criminal statutes of limitation governing felony prosecutions are appended. Except for murder and forgery, the statute of limitations for the prosecution of all federal capital offenses was three years; the statute of limitations for all noncapital crimes was two years, 1 Stat.

Between the Supreme Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia , U. The question arose whether the term "offenses punishable by death" in the statute of limitations referred to offenses made capital by statute or only to offenses for which the death penalty might constitutionally be imposed. The courts concluded that Congress intended the term to refer to offenses which it made capital by statute. United States v.

Emery , F. Edwards , F. Manning , 56 F. A list of the federal capital offenses is appended. The list includes those crimes made capital by operation of other provisions of law such as 18 U. A list of crimes cross referenced in 18 U. The list of crimes which Section b makes prosecutable at any time consists of those crimes listed in 18 U. Had Congress wished the waiver of the statutes of limitation to apply only to terrorists accused of these offenses presumably it would have referred to 18 U.

The felonies in Chapters A, and include violations of 18 U. See also 18 US. Weingarten v. United States, F. Schneider, F. Diehl, F. Carpenter, F. Coutentos, F. See e.