I Always Thought There Was NO Statute Of Limitations On Murder...WTF?!
 

Kin Rage Over '82 Slayer's Release

New Jersey - The family of a teenager beaten to death with a hammer is furious that her killer was set free moments after being convicted.
A jury found Marc Ferrara of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, guilty of aggravated manslaughter this week in the 1982 death of 17-year-old Rosie Lorincz.

However, there was a five-year statute of limitations on the crime in 1982, so Ferrara won't do any time.

"It just doesn't seem fair," said Andrea Lorincz, the victim's sister. "He walks free, and we are left without a sister and a daughter, and no justice."

Had he been convicted of murder - for which there is no statute of limitations - Ferrara, 43, could have been sentenced to life in prison.

Because of a Supreme Court ruling that prevents a judge from telling a jury someone can go free even with a guilty verdict, jurors were unaware of the disparity between the two types of convictions.

Ferrara's lawyer, Dennis McAlevy, said there was no choice but to let his client walk.

"The law is what it is, and anybody that's blaming the judge for following the law is obviously mistaken] at the least," he said. "In this country, we don't let the jury get involved in punishment."

The case had remained open until 2002, when Ferrara's sister told cops her brother made her help him get rid of Lorincz's body by dumping it into the Hudson River.

The body, which surfaced nine days after the slaying, was exhumed and identified via DNA testing.

Because it was manslaughter, there is a statute of limitations. If it had even been 2nd degree murder, there would not have been. Gotta love the court system. WSemantics can make the difference between justice and a scumbag going free.

I am also of the mind that sexual crimes should have no statute...

She says no, you do it anyway, you will pay eventually. End of story.

It isn't semantics. There is generally a big difference in what goes into common law murder or first degree murder (statute) and manslaughter.

With that said, I don't know why NJ has a SOL on manslaughter. That is idiotic. Maybe this case will change that in the future.

Ya know, personally I don't care what anyone wants to classify it as...If you bludgeon someone with a hammer, and they die...It's murder...

How can 'the law' be so stupid?

I agree with you on both things. Especially about the sex crimes. If you rape a women or expose yourself to an eight year old, your sick ass belongs in prison for a long ass time! who cares if you committed the crime 15-20 years ago. If you get caught (even if it takes years to catch you) you do time!

Call the jury stupid, not the law. They placed it in that category for some unknown reason. No one here has the evidence to know what happened. The article doesn't state the facts surrounding the death.

Generally there are four categories.

1. First Degree Murder (it is a statute in that jurisdiction)

2. Common Law Murder (sometimes called 2nd Degree Murder)

3. Voluntary Manslaughter

4. Involuntary Manslaughter

Without having the evidence here, I have no idea why the jury selected #3 instead of #2 or #1 (assuming NY has #1). Maybe the guy didn't beat her with a hammer like the article leads you to believe. Maybe they fought and he threw the hammer at her and didn't have the intent to be common law murder.