A study panel of the Justice Ministry has issued a final report urging abolition of the statute of limitations for serious crimes such as murder. It will ask the ministry's Legislative Council to discuss revisions to the Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws. The statute of limitations was first introduced to Japan's penal policy by an 1880 law. Abolition of it will drastically change the penal policy, so careful consideration is needed.

Meanwhile, the panel proposed prolonging the statute of limitations for crimes such as inflicting injuries leading to death or reckless driving that causes death. The panel's recommendations are a response to some crime victims' family members who have demanded justice for the perpetrators of serious crimes, contending that improvements in DNA analysis can sustain investigations long after crimes have been committed. The panel said it should no longer be assumed that victims' or family members' demands for harsh punishment wane with time.

But the panel has failed to fully consider what will happen with suspects and their lawyers if the time limit is abolished. The longer the period between the time a crime is committed and the attempt to prosecute a suspect, the more likely it is that evidence will have been compromised and that suspects and their lawyers will have difficulties ascertaining facts and establishing alibis. Thus the possibility of false charges could increase.

Moreover, maintaining long-term investigation teams and preserving evidence indefinitely will take a lot more tax money, which could be used for other measures that contribute to crime prevention. There is also the constitutional question of whether the panel's proposal can be applied to past crimes for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired.

In 2005, the statute of limitations on crimes whose maximum punishments are a death sentence and life imprisonment was prolonged from 15 years to 25 years and from 10 years to 15 years, respectively. Both the Legislative Council and the public should carefully discuss the ramifications with an eye toward preventing prosecution on false charges.