News Navigator
News Navigator: Will statute of limitations be abolished for past crime cases?
The Mainichi answers common questions readers may have about the Legislative Council's recommendations that the statute of limitations be abolished for murder and other heinous crimes.
Question: The criminal law subcommittee of the Legislative Council (an advisory panel to the justice minister) has decided to recommend that the statute of limitations be abolished for murder and other heinous crimes. It will apply to past crimes, but why?
Mainichi: The review was triggered by calls from the bereaved families of victims of heinous crimes for the abolition of the statute of limitations. In 2005, the Code of Criminal Procedure was revised to extend the statute of limitations for murder and other cruel crimes from 15 years to 25 years. At the time, those involved in the amendment did not assume that it would retroactively apply to crimes committed before the revisions. The statute of limitations for murder cases that occurred before the revisions remains at 15 years. However, the advisory panel is poised to recommend that the extension should apply to unsolved cases that took place before the planned amendment.
Q: Will the statute of limitations be abolished for all heinous crimes that occurred a long time ago?
A: No. The panel has concluded that the new system should apply to unsolved crimes for which the current statute of limitations has not run out by the time the new legislation is enacted. Even if the recommended changes are incorporated in the revised law, they will not apply to crimes for which the statute of limitations has expired.
Q: Isn't it fair for the new system to apply retroactively to cases for which the statute of limitations has not run out?
A: It's true from the standpoint of the bereaved families of the victims. However, the proposal has stirred controversy over whether it is consistent with Article 39 of the Constitution, which bans the retroactive punishment of criminals. It would be detrimental to fugitives who are hoping that the statute of limitations for their cases will run out. However, panel members have concluded that it is constitutional because the punishment of the fugitives will not be stiffened and there is no need for legal protection of criminals who are hiding until the statute of limitations runs out in a bid to evade punishment.
Q: Why was the statute of limitations established in the first place?
A: It was introduced because 1) evidence tends to be dispersed as time lapses; 2) the bereaved families of victims and the public's calls for punishment diminish as time goes by and 3) there are opinions that criminals' evasion of punishment for a certain period should be considered. The third reason has been cited from the viewpoint of respecting the rights of the perpetrator. However, opinion is growing among the public that it is irrational for criminals to evade being punished even though they have been identified, only because the statute of limitations has run out, which has led to the review of the system. The opinion that criminals should not evade punishment by hiding led to the recommendation that the abolition and extension of the statute of limitations should apply to unsolved crimes whose statute of limitations has not run out. (By Junichi Ishikawa, City News Department)
Click here for the original Japanese story
(Mainichi Japan) February 9, 2010