Is there a link between the length of time between crime and trial?
April 2, 2013 5:22 PM Subscribe
Is there a link between the length of time between the time a crime's committed and the time the suspect/perpetrator is condemned guilty or not guilty?
I've just finished reading War and Peace by Tolstoy and a running theme, especially towards the end, tackles free-will and the way we see other peoples actions as being less arbitrary the further away in time they are from us.
The degree of our conception of freedom or inevitability depends in this respect on the greater or lesser lapse of time between the performance of the action and our judgement of it.
I was wondering if there was any sort of database showing the length of time between when a criminal act is committed and when the verdict is handed down? Or any specific cases that might seem to prove or disprove this? Or another author who speaks to this sort of thing?
Further reading on this subject is what I'm looking for, I guess.
I've just finished reading War and Peace by Tolstoy and a running theme, especially towards the end, tackles free-will and the way we see other peoples actions as being less arbitrary the further away in time they are from us.
The degree of our conception of freedom or inevitability depends in this respect on the greater or lesser lapse of time between the performance of the action and our judgement of it.
I was wondering if there was any sort of database showing the length of time between when a criminal act is committed and when the verdict is handed down? Or any specific cases that might seem to prove or disprove this? Or another author who speaks to this sort of thing?
Further reading on this subject is what I'm looking for, I guess.
Response by poster: Yeah that's exactly it, likelihood that they'll be found guilty or innocent, sorry.
posted by addelburgh at 5:35 PM on April 2, 2013
posted by addelburgh at 5:35 PM on April 2, 2013
Practically speaking, the quickest trials are the ones where the defendant pleads guilty and/or lacks a professional defense attorney. So longer trial probably equals higher likelihood of being acquitted.
(That's for the length of trial itself and not the length of time they spent awaiting trial, but still, well-off defendants with competent attorneys are usually able to postpone proceedings more than their poorer counterparts.)
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:40 PM on April 2, 2013
(That's for the length of trial itself and not the length of time they spent awaiting trial, but still, well-off defendants with competent attorneys are usually able to postpone proceedings more than their poorer counterparts.)
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:40 PM on April 2, 2013
There is a legal concept of trial within a reasonable time that can be used to dismiss criminal cases that take an excessive amount of time to go to trial after charges are laid. In some jurisdictions, for some classes of crime, statutes of limitations may prevent a suspect from being tried for a crime.
I suspect neither of the above is what you're getting at, and that concepts such as stale evidence and untrustworthy testimony based on eyewitness memory (which changes with time as well as with circumstances surrounding the original event and the relating of the testimony): forensics and psychology of memory may prove worthy areas in this case.
posted by thatdawnperson at 5:50 PM on April 2, 2013
I suspect neither of the above is what you're getting at, and that concepts such as stale evidence and untrustworthy testimony based on eyewitness memory (which changes with time as well as with circumstances surrounding the original event and the relating of the testimony): forensics and psychology of memory may prove worthy areas in this case.
posted by thatdawnperson at 5:50 PM on April 2, 2013
I see two separate issues here. The first is whether the fact that a crime took place a long time ago might have some psychological effect on jurors that would make them more or less likely to convict a defendant. The second is whether the fact that a crime took place a long time ago might weaken the evidence (e.g., witnesses die or leave the jurisdiction, physical evidence degrades, memories fade, paperwork gets lost) such that it would be harder for the prosecution to mount a case against someone, or harder for the defense to find evidence to refute that case. Are you talking about one or both of these?
posted by decathecting at 5:58 PM on April 2, 2013
posted by decathecting at 5:58 PM on April 2, 2013
In the shorter term there is the issue that judges are more lenient in the morning or after eating due to decision fatigue setting in late morning and in the afternoon.
posted by holloway at 6:34 PM on April 2, 2013
posted by holloway at 6:34 PM on April 2, 2013
When my brother was charged, they told us the best thing was to waive his right to a speedy trial and wait as long as possible. When you are relying heavily (or in his case, solely) on witness testimony (and in his case, extremely unreliable witnesses), it is to your benefit to wait as long as possible to give them time to forget, change their mind, disappear, etc. Also, it means that the statements from when the crime occurred and when they give testimony may be different enough to catch them on something.
Don't know if that helps. It's all based on what our (new, competent) lawyer has told us in the appeal process.
posted by guster4lovers at 9:10 PM on April 2, 2013
Don't know if that helps. It's all based on what our (new, competent) lawyer has told us in the appeal process.
posted by guster4lovers at 9:10 PM on April 2, 2013
Waiting can also give the prosecution all the time they need to develop an airtight case. They will have time to re-interview witnesses and make sure they all have their stories straight.
But the whole point of the justice system is to prevent the passions of the moment from clouding judgement. Lots of people were murdered because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the villagers weren't going to listen to any excuses. So it's probably a sort of bathtub curve. You want to wait long enough to be able to let passions quiet down and find a relatively dispassionate jury. But you probably don't want to wait so long as to give the jury or judge the impression you are stalling.
posted by gjc at 3:18 AM on April 3, 2013
But the whole point of the justice system is to prevent the passions of the moment from clouding judgement. Lots of people were murdered because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the villagers weren't going to listen to any excuses. So it's probably a sort of bathtub curve. You want to wait long enough to be able to let passions quiet down and find a relatively dispassionate jury. But you probably don't want to wait so long as to give the jury or judge the impression you are stalling.
posted by gjc at 3:18 AM on April 3, 2013
« Older I want to help and I really mean it! | Online courses in Medical Billing (with emphasis... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by teraflop at 5:31 PM on April 2, 2013