Hacker News Reader

Comment by badlibrarian | Hacker News Reader

Evidence degrades, memories fade, witnesses die. Generally the worse the crime, the longer the statute of limitations. Murder in most places has no limit.

Also, if someone hasn't committed a crime in, say, 20 years, there's questionable need to lock them up for three years to deter the behavior. Goal is to optimize the overall system even if some people slip through the cracks.

View on HN

>Evidence degrades

Maybe in the past, but with modern technology that isn't always true. Statue of limitations comes from a time before even cameras existed.

The purpose of the law isn't revenge.

Also, I see many other people in this thread confusing criminal law and civil law, which is a bit sad to see on a place like HN.

It absolutely is, if you arent going to punish someone who hurt my child then I will do it myself.

The state isn't in the business of revenge. It prosecutes crimes on your behalf because private vengeance escalates and frequently lands on the wrong person.

The state literally exists to manage violence, especially revenge. It basically provides "fair revenge" which is justice.

There is no such thing as fair revenge. It can run for generations.

Retribution is impersonal, proportional, principled, and employs safeguards like time limitations.

You could say "the state channels the impulse toward revenge into a procedure that mostly isn't revenge" but Hobbes figured that out in 1651.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com