Crimes that happened ages ago. Should we still prosecute?

Stealing sweets is hardly on the same level as rape and murder. Of course he should be prosecuted. The fact that he has ‘turned his life around since’ may be offered in mitigation when sentencing.

I'm thinking more in terms of the principle; but if the severity of the crime is important, against what level of crime should action be taken years later?

I believe that, for instance, war criminals should still be prosecuted, even if they are 99 years old. The message has to be that there is no escape from crimes of genocide, how ever much time has passed.

I am less sure about 'one-off' instances where someone has 'snapped' or given in to temptation, and shown no signs of being likely to reoffend - what would be the point?

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a victimless crime, so maybe there should always be attempts made to bring perpetrators to justice (which is, of course, why I brought in the sweets - not because there is any equivalence in severity)?

I don't see it as a simple matter at all.

I suppose if a member of my family had been killed by someone (maybe murdered, maybe the victim of a hit and run), I would want that person to face justice if they were ever found. Even if the perpetrator of the crime has since led an impeccable life I think the message has to be that if they are caught they must serve whatever sentence is considered by society, represented by the criminal justice system, to be appropriate. If the crime was committed by a child the sentence would take that into account.

Then his crime is discovered. If he is exposed, his wife and family (who know nothing of the crime) will lose everything^
How can his crime be 'discovered' but not exposed? Who discovered it? Surely the discovery has exposed it.

Rape and murder are seldom one-off instances though.

Chestnut

Then his crime is discovered. If he is exposed, his wife and family (who know nothing of the crime) will lose everything^
How can his crime be 'discovered' but not exposed? Who discovered it? Surely the discovery has exposed it.

It was a fictional story, which I didn't want to spoil as the thread is more about the principle, but the clue is in the title . The crime was recorded in a diary which was discovered when a quarry was drained.

Germanshepherdsmum

I suppose if a member of my family had been killed by someone (maybe murdered, maybe the victim of a hit and run), I would want that person to face justice if they were ever found. Even if the perpetrator of the crime has since led an impeccable life I think the message has to be that if they are caught they must serve whatever sentence is considered by society, represented by the criminal justice system, to be appropriate. If the crime was committed by a child the sentence would take that into account.

I think that this must underpin the punitive side of justice. Luckily, I have no experience of losing someone to crime, so don't know how I would feel - murderous, possibly.

I wonder if the law should be based on revenge, though? Is it not better to have a system based on what is likely to benefit society (by removing people who are a threat, deterring crime with the threat of punishment or whatever)?

GSM’s post reflects some faith in our criminal justice system. My working life led me to have some confidence in our Courts and the people who work in them.
People can change but, only if they see the need and are committed to the process. I haven’t read enough about the man charged with the murder of Rikki Neeve but he seems to have led a decent life as an adult. Yes he should be prosecuted and the sentence reflect the fact he was a child when he killed and so far as is known, hasn’t led a violent criminal adult life.

I haven’t read the book - thanks for the recommendation doodle