Limitation

Art 101 § 1 Prosecution shall lapse if the time of its commission passed years:

1) 30 – when the act constitutes a crime of murder,

2) 20 – when the act constitutes another crime,

2) 15 – when the act is a transgression punishable by deprivation of liberty exceeding 5 years,

3) 10 – when the act is a transgression punishable by deprivation of liberty than 3 years

4) 5 – when it comes to other crimes.

5) (repealed).

§ 2 Prosecution, prosecution of private prosecution shall terminate at the end of one year from the time when the victim knew the person of the offender, but not later than the end of 3 years from the time of its commission.

§ 3 In the cases provided for in § 1 or 2, where no crime depends on the occurrence of a particular effect in the Act, the limitation period starts from the time when the effect occurred.

§ 4 Limitation of criminal offenses referred to in Article. 199 § 2 and 3, Art. 200, Art. 202 § 2 and 4 and Articles. 204 § 3, as well as the crimes defined in Article. 197, Art. 201, Art. 202 § 3, Art. Article 203. 204 § 4, where the victim is a minor – not before the expiry of 5 years from completion of the victim 18 years.

Article 102 If within the period provided for in Article. 101 proceedings were initiated against the person punishable offense committed by her referred to in § 1 item 1 – 3 shall cease at the end of 10 years, and in other cases – at the end of 5 years from the end of this period.

Article 103 § 1 Could not execute the penalty, if the conviction becomes final elapsed years:

1) 30 – in the event of a conviction to imprisonment exceeding 5 years or more severe penalty,

2) 15 – in the event of a conviction to imprisonment not exceeding 5 years,

3) 10 – in the event of a conviction for another penalty.

§ 2 Provision of § 1 paragraph 3 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the punitive measures listed in Article. 39 points 1-4 and 6 and 7, provision of § 1 paragraph 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to a corrective measure mentioned in Art. 39 points 5

Article 104 § 1 The period of limitation does not run, if the statutory provision does not permit the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings, but not for a lack of applications or private prosecution.

§ 2 Limitation in relation to the crimes defined in Article. 144, Art. 145 § 2 or 3, Art. 338 § 1 or 2, and Article. 339 runs from the time of making satisfy the obligation or the time at which the offender has ceased to weigh.

Article 105 § 1 Provisions of Article. 101-103 does not apply to crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes.

§ 2 Provisions of Article. 101-103 also do not apply to intentional crimes: murder, grievous bodily injury, serious bodily injury or deprivation of liberty combined with a special torment, committed by a public official in connection with the performance of official duties.

http://tinyurl.com/yfsczgu

For example in Poland even penalizing of murded is limited to only 30 years. After that time if murderer managed to avoid justice that long, he/she cannot be punished.

I am not saying whether this is right or not. I just want to point out that inevitability of punishemnt regardless of time lapse is not that obvious at all from the moral point of view, if they introduced such law in Europe.

I don’t know what is the statue of limitation for rape for example in Poland.
But if you are curious have a look at their penal code:
http://tinyurl.com/yfsczgu

Go figure.

As in POS. Or “piece of 13 year old *** that I’d really like to get my hands on.”

God knows why women defend Polanski, but I am starting to believe that every male who does so either has skeltons in the closet or fantasizes about doing what Polanski did.

There are some things even most libs can’t stomach, but alas, some have completely lost any sense of right and wrong.

I repeat: you are a morally corrupt liar who defends a child rapist.

Even the Wall Street Journal, with a primary focus on economics, argues that Polanski should return and pay the price for his crime.

I read the WSJ every day. The opinion page is about as far right as you will find in the MSM. The primary focus of editorials in the Journal is to bolster GOP talking points.

An editorial on the Polanski case that does not touch on any of the legal issues is simply bad journalism. Anne Applebaum at least took the time to address the facts in the case. One can defend the principles of justice without approving of the actions of criminals – in fact, this is the very basis of our legal system.

When such distinctions fail to be made, the Republic and the People inevitably suffer.

Peace.

DS