This article explains the definition and purpose of statutes of limitations, and discusses their adverse effects, especially for serious crimes. It argues that advances in forensic science and technology have led to the need to abolish statutes of limitations, and that institutional changes are needed to heal the wounds of crime victims and ensure justice is served.

What is a statute of limitations and its institutional significance

A statute of limitations is a system in which the right to punishment expires after a certain period of time after a crime is committed. It was introduced to ensure social stability and investigative efficiency. Once the statute of limitations has passed, it becomes impossible to prosecute or punish the offense. As a result, countless cases go unsolved and remain unsolved. For victims and their families, the passage of the statute of limitations does not make their pain go away. Under South Korea’s current law, robbery has a 10-year statute of limitations, rape has a 10-year statute of limitations, theft has a 7-year statute of limitations, and assault has a 5-year statute of limitations. While this system may be effective for some crimes, it has been debated as inadequate for serious crimes. Recently, an amendment was passed to eliminate the statute of limitations for homicide, but there is a growing consensus that it should be reconsidered for crimes other than homicide.

The need to abolish statutes of limitations

First, statutes of limitations can give criminals de facto immunity. The fact that criminals can hide and avoid punishment during the statute of limitations goes against the idea of justice. According to the National Police Agency, in the last five years, there have been 1,289 cases of the top five violent crimes that have been categorized as permanently open cases because the statute of limitations has expired. This leaves deep scars on many victims and their families, and even after the statute of limitations has expired, their pain does not go away. While criminals may claim to feel guilty and suffer, it is questionable whether they have felt the same pain as their victims. For criminals, the statute of limitations can simply become a waiting game to avoid punishment, which can distort the good intentions of the law.
Second, advances in forensic technology have increased the likelihood of solving previously unsolvable cases, which is why we should consider abolishing statutes of limitations. In the past, if a case was not solved during the statute of limitations, it was often impossible to catch the perpetrator, but nowadays, advances in DNA analysis, digital forensics, and other technologies allow for new evidence to be uncovered and cold cases to be solved. This makes the argument that “the passage of time makes it impossible to solve a case” less persuasive, especially since digitalized evidence management systems allow evidence to be preserved for longer periods of time than in the past, ensuring the continuity of investigations into long-term cold cases.
Third, abolishing statutes of limitations can help reduce public anxiety and increase trust in law enforcement. Many people fear that if a cold case is permanently unresolved due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the crime will recur. By abolishing statutes of limitations, the public can look forward to the resolution of cases and reduce anxiety. For victims and their families, a statute of limitations-free legal system can help heal their wounds and bring justice. The possibility of catching the perpetrator can be a great comfort to victims.

The logic behind statutes of limitations and their limitations

Nevertheless, there are good arguments in favor of keeping statutes of limitations. The first is investigative efficiency. The existence of a statute of limitations allows law enforcement to focus on new cases rather than relatively old ones, which allows for more efficient allocation of investigative resources. There is also the potential for evidence to be destroyed or memories to fade over time, making it harder to solve cases. Taking this into account, statutes of limitations reflect the realistic limitations of law enforcement.
Despite this logic, however, advocates of statute of limitations abolition emphasize that advances in investigative technology can overcome the limitations of the past. While cases may have gone unsolved in the past due to a lack of evidence, today’s forensic technology allows for cold cases to be solved based on newly discovered evidence. It is also argued that statutes of limitations should not be a deterrent to investigating long-standing cold cases, especially when the issue of evidence preservation has been addressed to some extent through digitized evidence management systems.

The need to adjust statute of limitations periods and their actual abolition

Some have argued that instead of abolishing statutes of limitations altogether, a more realistic alternative would be to significantly extend them. However, this also presents a clear problem. Excessively long statutes of limitations can have the same effect as having no statute of limitations at all, meaning that abolishing them altogether would be a more consistent solution than extending them. Furthermore, the very existence of statutes of limitations is a source of great anxiety for victims of crime and their families, so abolishing them would contribute to justice and restore social trust.

Conclusion

Statutes of limitations can have the side effect of giving criminals impunity, and modern advances in investigative techniques have made them less and less necessary. Abolishing statutes of limitations can also play an important role in addressing public anxiety and healing the wounds of victims. We should revisit the statute of limitations system and move towards realizing fairer and more just law enforcement.