Do you think the statute of limitations enforced in New York is right or wrong?

The statute of limitations in New York State is for many different things, crimes from kidnapping to fraud. Can you be more specific? Or is your question about any statute of limitations?

Yeah, you have to tell us what crime. Do I think a statute of limitation for stealing candy makes sense? Yes. Do I think a statute of limitation on killing someone makes sense? No.

No, what I mean, is, what are the benefits of limiting the years after which it’s impossible to denounce a person responsible for a crime?

The statute of limitations is there to protect the defendant against malicious prosecution and to help ensure (at least in theory) the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. There are, however, some crimes, such as murder, in which there is no statute of limitations.

@luigirovatti Your terms are mushy. You can always denounce a person for a crime, what the statute of limitations means is that you cannot prosecute them after a certain point. I definitely think there should be no statute of limitations for child molestation and sexual abuse because often a person has to be a strong enough adult to publicly accuse their abuser.

@janbb: You’re right. I should’ve said “prosecuted”, not “denonuced”.

@luigirovatti: You can make a new post with a rewritten question to make this clearer.

The justice system is designed around the idea of letting many guilty people go free to prevent even one innocent person going to prison—at least in theory. Many of our rights revolve around this principle of justice. As part of that principle, the defense should have every advantage in the trial. As memories get worse over time, evidence degrades or gets lost, witnesses die, etc. it becomes less-and-less fair to the defendant. That’s the main reason for it.

Why are we picking on New York here? It hardly alone in this.