Editorial
Abolition of statute of limitations appropriate but more thought needed
The statute of limitations for murder and other heinous offenses should be abolished while the period for other fatal crimes should be doubled, according to recommendations made by the criminal law subcommittee of the Legislative Council, an advisory panel to the justice minister.
The government is poised to submit a bill to incorporate a change in the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Diet during the current session.
The change in policy was brought about as a result of calls by the bereaved families of crime victims, who have pointed out that it is irrational for law enforcers to be unable to arrest or prosecute criminals if the statute of limitations has run out.
As reasons for maintaining the statute of limitations, it is frequently explained that the sorrow of crime victims and bereaved families is healed as time goes by. However, the bereaved families of those who were murdered cannot easily be healed.
Forensic science such as DNA identification has been undergoing innovative changes in recent years. Major Western countries have abolished the statute of limitations for murder and other heinous offenses. Considering these trends, Japan's move to abolish and extend the statute of limitations should be regarded as an appropriate policy change.
However, some experts have voiced opposition to the move. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations has argued that evidence tends to be dispersed and lost as time lapses, making it difficult for criminal defendants and their defense lawyers to prove their alibis, an opinion worth taking into consideration.
It is especially important to preserve evidence in an appropriate manner. As evidence is preserved mostly at police facilities for technical reasons, it is indispensable to secure enough space and set rules on how to preserve evidence. In particular, law enforcers are urged to strictly manage DNA samples from crime suspects left at crime scenes. In the so-called Ashikaga incident, in which a man was apparently falsely convicted, sloppy preservation of DNA samples left at the murder scene has been criticized as a major problem.
The results of DNA tests, whose accuracy has been greatly enhanced, may be used as a clue to the identification of crime suspects. In preparation for that, rules should be worked out to require sufficient volumes of DNA samples be preserved to enable a third party to re-examine them.
If the legal revisions are approved, the statute of limitations will be abolished or extended for past crimes whose period has not yet run out. The move should be justified, considering that the government had studied the change in the system in response to calls from the bereaved families of crime victims.
However, the government should hold thorough discussions before deciding whether the abolition and extension of the statute of limitations should apply retroactively to past crimes if questions remain as to whether it would run counter to the constitutional provision that "no one shall be held criminally liable for an act which was lawful at the time it was committed."
It goes without saying that the top priority is to arrest crime suspects at an early date even if the statute of limitations is abolished or extended, and that police investigations are important. Police are urged to improve their initial investigations, such as the preservation of articles left at crime scenes.
Furthermore, even if the statute of limitations is abolished, it is apparently difficult for police to assign numerous investigators to certain cases over a long period. Police should consider the appropriate assignment of investigators and other responses to various unsolved crime cases.
Recently, police investigations into serial deaths of men under mysterious circumstances and other cases have raised questions about the insufficiency of autopsy procedures. If investigators fail to notice deaths caused by crimes, the abolition and extension of the statute of limitations would come to zero. Law enforcement authorities are required to step up efforts to clarify whether deaths have been caused by crimes.
(Mainichi Japan) February 9, 2010