NY Times has an op-ed from Scott Turow, novelist and criminal defense attorney, who notes the dilemma in DNA evidence in criminal law: what does this mean for statute of limitations, if we can prove who did what x years ago?
The law is a fluid thing, and there is an inherent unfairness in initiating a prosecution decades later when legal rules and community expectations have changed. If a jury — or the police and prosecutors — now strongly disapprove of conduct to which they would have once turned a blind eye, it’s natural to wonder whether the defendant would have acted the same way in today’s ethical climate.
Statutes of limitations have also traditionally embodied a moral judgment that if a person has lived blamelessly for a significant time, he should not have the anxiety of potential prosecution hanging over him forever. Violent crimes are usually the province of young men, and it is often the case that one of the principal purposes of the criminal justice system — keeping the criminally inclined off the streets — vanishes with time. [….]
And if we decide that today’s scientific evidence should allow the statute of limitations to be removed on more serious offenses like rapes, kidnappings and hate crimes, there will be a push to remove the statute for lesser offenses too. It’s an inevitable consequence that in investigating old and serious crimes, evidence of more minor offenses will emerge.
Identifiable DNA will turn up in the saliva underneath the stamp on a threatening letter a murder victim received, or in a smudged and otherwise unreadable fingerprint on currency stolen during a bank robbery in which hostages were taken. Having committed the resources to cold-case investigations, the police and prosecutors will be reluctant to allow those newly provable offenses to go unpunished, especially when, as in examples like these, there is reason to suspect that the offender also committed the more serious crime.
The wide variables — the gravity of the offense, the strength of the new evidence, the difficulty of mounting an effective defense, the degree to which changed expectations drive the new prosecution — call for applying balancing tests in deciding whether a statute of limitations should be exceeded in a given case. But criminal law, generally speaking, is the legal area that most favors clear rules, both to rein in prosecutorial discretion and to give fair notice to everybody — victims, perpetrators and the community at large — about what to expect.
Pushed to choose, most contemporary legislatures inevitably vote to toughen criminal rules, and thus we can expect statutes of limitations to be eliminated or tightened in future years. And with their retreat will go an element of lenience that has always reflected the complex moral judgments that are necessary when crimes fall under the lengthening shadow of time.
Columbia Law’s Prof. Tim Wu (and Slate contributor) tries to travel in Thailand using Wikitravel, only to find that the travel guide Lonely Planet is far better a resource. Hmm. Guess you don’t have to be a law prof to see that – but good persuasive writing on the prof’s part (well, no, you don’t have to persuade me to stick with travel books).
Last but not least: been watching NBC’s “Raines,” starring Jeff Goldblum – developing some fondness for the show, which has its charms. I want to like Goldblum’s Detective Michael Raines, the creative eccentric traumatized over losing his partner and realizing that his talent of imagining and talking to murder victims may help him solve cases; problem is, I feel like I’m watching Goldblum, not Raines (not to say that Goldblum’s not a good actor – he is – I just wish they’d let his character develop organically a little better). At the least, Raines is a sensitive guy – a nice guy, even. Hope he can keep at it; nice guys don’t always win (kind of why House manages to last as long as he has, and so has Jack Bauer, for that matter).
The supporting cast seems very interesting. Matt Craven – the character actor who keeps coming back on tv – yeah! – this time, as Raines’s captain, who figures Raines needed psychological help (no, really?) and forces him to take it. And, Linda Park – formerly Ensign Sato of “Star Trek: Enterprise,” trying to prove that, yes, there is life after Star Trek (good for her, really; her character on “Raines” seems to have some moxie; then again, she plays a uniformed cop – even better, to show that APA’s as cops are out there). Madeline Stowe as Raines’ tough cookie psychiatrist – hmm. Curious to see how she’ll either help or hinder Raines. I suspect she has chemistry with Raines’ captain – but I’ve only seen the first two or three episodes, so depends on what’s next.
It can’t help to be on Friday nights, though – well, for ratings’ purposes anyway. The mysteries so far are at least interesting, and give something different than what’s been portrayed about L.A., or at least a little more compassion than how other cop shows have been demonstrating.
Tuesday’s “House” was funny, but left much to be desired. Poor Dr. Chase’s heart will be ripped out and crushed by Dr. Cameron – when the rather-narrow-minded colleagues kept thinking that Cameron was going to be the one hurt by the outcome of the Cameron-Chase affair (ah, undermining the stereotype that women get more emotional involved in relationships than men). Dr. Wilson… well, he’s lonely – and foolish as usual when it concerns women. And, House… well, he’s House.