Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AcusTwinhammer t1_j9zvsam wrote

As a matter of official process, nothing. The fact that something is no longer legal now does not mean you didn't commit an offense when it was illegal in the past. By much the same logic, if something is made illegal now, that doesn't mean you can be charged for doing it when it was still legal.

That being said, there are methods for the government (usually via the executive branch in the US) to grand clemency in some form or another to many of those convicted of something that is no longer illegal.

56

EggyRepublic t1_ja0bkw3 wrote

Is it possible for the government to retroactively charge people with crimes, or is that unconstitutional?

5

The-Wright t1_ja0fo57 wrote

Retroactively charging someone for an action that was legal when they performed it is called an ex post facto charge, and the US Constitution explicitly prohibits both federal and state authorities from pursuing them

64

Chrona_trigger t1_ja2afky wrote

I'm glad that wasn't attempted by the umpa lumpa

Only because the idea didn't occur to him, I'm sure.

1

Dorocche t1_ja1tmrp wrote

Yes, it's unconstitutional in the US according to Article 1, Section 9

8

wojtekpolska t1_ja2r4dg wrote

"lex prospicit non respicit" (the law works foward, not backwards) has been a fundamental part in any legal systems, going all the way back to the holy roman empire

so yes, people cannot be charged for something, that was not illegal when they did it. when someone is charged for something, only the laws that were in effect at the time of the "crime" are considered

3

quintazore t1_ja2ig6h wrote

That very thing was legal back in Ancient Rome. Odd to think people accepted such a scary concept

1

greatdrams23 t1_ja10ffg wrote

"By much the same logic, if something is made illegal now, that doesn't mean you can be charged for doing it when it was still legal"

This 'reverse' case is not the same Logic in reverse.

If something was PREVIOUSLY LEGAL but now illegal, then it would be wrong to convict retrospectively, because that person kept to the law.

But...

If something was PREVIOUSLY ILLEGAL but now legalised, then their conviction was THEN first, but CONTINUED punishment means you continue to punish a person for something that is now deemed legal.

2

caraamon t1_ja15hdc wrote

There's two arguments I can think of for this.

Among whatever other reasons for sentencing someone, there's an almost circular logic element of punishing people for breaking the law. In modern society there's an unspoken agreement that people will follow the law, even if they don't agree with it. Therefor, in essence, breaking the law itself is breaking the law, which doesn't change even if the act they did later becomes legal.

Second is the practical element of a clogged "justice" system. It might be simple to release a person who was convicted of a newly legal act, but it still requires review. Plus what about other cases, where they might have been convicted of multiple counts of different crimes? You'd need to resentence them since it may not be clear how much of the total sentence was derived from each crime. What about people who were only fined? Under the same logic, wouldn't they deserve their fines back? And how far back would you go with these repayments?

And on another practical level, if a change in law results in "criminals" being released and large repayments, voters that would be supportive, or at least apathetic, may come to oppose it.

9

Llanite t1_ja1ns6h wrote

They are punished because they violated the laws and broke a social contract. The punishment is that they are no longer part of the society.

The fact that a law was amended doesn't mean they did not break it in the past.

4

NextSoft2224 t1_ja2fqwl wrote

Genuine question: How about for cases that a law violates human rights? Alan Turing's case for example.

0

Llanite t1_ja3ojcy wrote

Human rights are just something we made up. Slavery used to be something we considered ok, now we don't and it's illegal, then we made freedom a human right and grant clemency to everyone.

1

SoNic67 t1_ja2ikue wrote

Punishment was for breaking an existing law at that time. Not for breaking it NOW.

1

pbrart2 t1_ja2mn5k wrote

That’s kinda like how the old bar in town can sell you a 6 pack over the counter to take home versus the bar that opened a few years ago can’t legally do that?

1