Great resource! Thanks, Jean!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean Didier" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 10:03:03 AM
Subject: Re: Question
Sally and All,
This information Brief from the Minnesota House of Representatives offers a short summary of the reasons for and against statutes of limitations:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/statlmt.pdf
Jean
Jean M. Didier
Assistant Professor
Department of Global Business Leadership
College of Saint Benedicts/Saint John Univeristy
164 Simons Hall
Collegeville, MN 56321
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kurt Schulzke
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 8:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question
Sally,
Yes, it is true that for many criminal charges, there is a statute of limitations. For others, however, there is none. For example, there is no statute of limitations for federal income tax fraud. The statutes vary depending on the crime and the jurisdiction. In Georgia, most felonies -- other than rape (15) and murder (none) -- have a four-year SOL.
One rationale for statutes of limitations is that over time, evidence degrades as memory fades and entropy works its wonders.
Kurt S. Schulzke, JD, CPA, CFE
Associate Professor of Accounting & Business Law Director - Law, Ethics & Regulation Corporate Governance Center Kennesaw State University
+ 1-470-578-6379 (O)
+ 1-404-861-5729 (C)
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtschulzke/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Gunz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:53:07 AM
Subject: Question
Colleagues:
We keep on hearing here that there is a statute of limitations for
laying criminal charges in the US. Is this the case? And if so, what
would be the rationale? I understand that time makes charges harder to
prove but the onus remains with the prosecution (I won't say "crown"!)
to prove and if they can't, they can't. But why, particularly with
charges where there are known obstacles to bringing forward accusations,
such as in sexual assault cases, would there be such an obstacle?
I raise this issue as we hear people say things about a certain
gentleman from the US who is currently touring Canada as being 'innocent
until proven guilty'. Of course that is correct in the true sense of the
law. But it does allow for the inference that 'if he was guilty he would
be charged' to come into the conversation. And if he can't be charged we
will never know.
Sally
|
