With that reasoning aren't we then operating on the assumption of guilty until proven innocent? I though it was the prosecutions job to come up with the evidence of guilt? So it took 7 years, in this case, to come up with evidence, shouldn't he be tried on this evidence?the basis is not in rehabilitation over time, but in the unfairness of having to defend against accusations years or decades later when witnesses or other defenses are impossible to gather.
I'm not trying to start an arguement. I'm just really trying to understand the statute of limitations and this reason just doesn't make logical sense to me (though we know law and logic are not necessarily tied together ).