Should the statute of limitations for murder and other serious crimes be abolished?

Sunday 25th October, 03:34 AM JST

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 22 Total Comments Show All

bdaniel08 at 10:45 AM JST - 26th October

I wasn`t quite reading the question correctly before I posted. Change my vote, toss in a Hell Yes.

me too, i dont why i vote "no" i was thinking "yes", of course 100% Yes.
TheQuestion at 12:36 PM JST - 26th October

I think a statute of limitation is the cornerstone of any just society.

I thought that was bureaucracy, my mistake.
USNinJapan2 at 01:47 PM JST - 26th October

There are 70+ votes above for maintaining the various statutes of limitations on serious crimes. I would like to hear from those that voted as such as to why. For what reason(s) do you believe the statutes of limitations should be kept? I am honestly curious because I can't think of a single good/valid reason.
smithinjapan at 03:26 PM JST - 26th October

I have absolutely no clue as to why anyone in their right mind could possibly vote 'no' to this, except that currently Japan has a statute of limitations and they might be the type that think if something is in the constitution or law, it should not be changed because some people want it to.

USNinJapan2: Exactly my thoughts, and what I was just posting when I read yours (I'll keep mine the way it was, anyway). As I said, I kind of akin the people who voted 'no' to people who think things like the US constitution simply can't be changed because the founding fathers wrote and signed it. I don't want anyone to get offended by the allusion -- I'm not bashing Americans or anything -- but it's the best example I can think of for people who don't take into account that when something was made law long ago, it may not be realistic for the expectations or reality of today. Okay, so, there never SHOULD have been a statute of limitations in the first place, unlike what went into the US Constitution, but hey, I'm talking about the rationale for not changing things -- they were written, so they should remain. My guess is, as such, that the people who voted no are almost entirely if not all Japanese.
moonbeams at 05:33 PM JST - 26th October

I think 99 people are not paying attention to what they read or just like to cause some kind of reaction on a message board.
Ah_so at 05:50 PM JST - 26th October

I think a statute of limitation is the cornerstone of any just society.

What? Why? I cannot fathom what you are getting at here. Let me get this straight - you believe that evading detection or arrest for a relatively short period of time, and so avoiding being brought to justice, is the cornerstone of a just society?

Explain yourself. It seems to me to be quite the opposite - a symptom of an unjust society
farhaan at 10:58 PM JST - 26th October

Above I said "should be extended to minimum 75 years" because if a person committed a crime at the age of 20 yrs old and that criminal may still be living after 75 years and can be prosecuted.
DocLeod at 08:41 AM JST - 27th October

The statute of limitations should be abolished. Letting a murderer walk free because he was able to avoid prosecution does not benefit anyone. That the statute is so short in Japan is incredible.
Mark_McCracken at 08:20 PM JST - 27th October

Seems like a no-brainer. Yes.

Perhaps some of the 148 who (to date) have voted no could explain their opinion.
usaexpat at 12:02 AM JST - 28th October

I'm torn on this one, I voted no because when you get too many years beyond the crime important evidence is lost and witnesses die. The chance for a fair trial diminishes with each passingt year.
Ah_so at 05:31 PM JST - 28th October

I'm torn on this one, I voted no because when you get too many years beyond the crime important evidence is lost and witnesses die. The chance for a fair trial diminishes with each passingt year.

If that is the case, the evidence will be judged inadmissable. Let this be judged on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket number of years that applies to all.
flammenwerfer at 11:57 PM JST - 28th October

especially in the DNA world, where time becomes..... irrelevant so yes absolutely, the S.O.L is archaic and must be abolished.
realist at 11:09 PM JST - 31st October

Sorry I have no idea what this question means.
anderstungtwist at 04:55 AM JST - 1st November

Although I did vote "Yes" I do believe murder is a necessary part of society. Without the possibility of murder, just think how bad we would treat each other. Thanks to TV shows like C.S.I., I know I'll never get caught if I need to murder someone.
USNinJapan2 at 10:00 AM JST - 1st November

anderstungtwist

What? Your post made no sense whatsoever.