At best, this is a reactionary review spurred by the tragic nature of D’Annunzio’s death and could have unintended consequences for future cases.

In Michigan, there is no statute of limitations for murder. The state can pursue suspects in a murder case for as long as it wants. But state prosecutors have determined that this is a manslaughter case; that there was no intent to kill D’Annunzio. For manslaughter, there’s a 10-year statue of limitations. Ten years typically is more than enough for the state to find evidence, identify suspects and prosecute said suspects.

This is an atypical case; this time, 10 years wasn’t enough. That’s a tragedy. But laws are not written to cater to tragedies. They’re written to do the most good for the most people, they’re written for everyday, and with good reason. Laws must be (or should be) written for clarity and with an eye to address things that happen down the road.

Although this event might prove to be a catalyst for well thought-out legislation, at the moment it seems rushed. It feels as if the laws are being reviewed to help do something about this case as opposed to similar situations in the future.

How is one supposed to raise a defense based on events happening 10 years in the past? Not simply the suspect in the D’Annunzio case, but in other, less extreme cases?

Even if there was a way to pursue the extension of the statute of limitations because of the D’Annunzio case, it would have to be done using second-hand testimony, on account of hearsay. There still are no first-hand accounts of what happened that night. The state has assumptions on the events that occurred that night, but no witnesses to take the stand and declare that under oath; it would be prosecuting under what’s essentially a 10-year-old game of telephone.

Not to mention the unintended consequences of such a change in legislation. If the statute on manslaughter is raised to 20 years (a proposal favored by Jones), what of other cases, suddenly revived by a 10-year extension? Those will bring the defendants more of the same headaches; if it’s difficult to raise a defense based upon events that happened 10 years ago, it’s going to be doubly so to raise a defense on events that happened 20 years ago.

To see what happens when legislators quickly try to create laws to correct tragedies, look no further than the fallout from the Casey Anthony trial. As a result of the not guilty verdict, there’s been rushed legislation to create “Caylee’s Law,” which would make failing to notify authorities of a missing child a felony.

The legislation, although well-intentioned, has the potential to wreak havoc with divorce proceedings and cause many false alarms among parents who don’t know where their children are but don’t want to be felons either. It’s the height of reactionary legislature, yet two dozen states have rushed to put out some version of it.

What happened to D’Annunzio on Oct. 11, 2000, is tragic and, like all tragedies, it is frustrating and heartbreaking. Rushed legislation as a result of tragedy allows emotion to overcome law and reason, allows our hearts to rule our heads. And while that might be acceptable on a personal scale, it’s no way for people to collectively be tried under the law.