NationStates Jolt Archive

Believing that ex post facto laws are violations of both the rule of law and the right of persons to fair treatment by the criminal justice system;

Asserting that one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;

Further, asserting that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of the law as it existed at the time;

Defining Ex Post Facto Law as a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law;

The General Assembly Of The United Nations Hereby Declares:

(I) That no person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offense because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offense under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

(II) That no government within any UN Nation may pass any Ex Post Facto law and that any Ex Post Facto laws currently in effect shall be rendered null and void.

So?

What I'm looking for is advice and constructive criticism, specifically on the category/strength. I'm thinking Human Rights - Significant. Others have suggested Furtherment of Democracy.

Asshatery will be ignored.

Pitchers have the right to throw at batters when they start crowding the plate.

I would go with Human Rights, Significant.

Also, unlike so many other attempts at increasing human rights world wide this isn't micromanagement. Ellelt can vote for this.

V. Khernynko.
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

I would go with Human Rights, Significant.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I wrote it with the intention that it would be HR, but I'm willing to listen to arguments in favor of it being FoD. I'm not sure about the strength. It can't be "strong" whatever category it's in because it addresses a rather narrow area of law.

We believe this is clearly within the "Human Rights" category. It advances the fundamental right of persons to be treated fairly under the law.

As we've discussed with the distinguished representative of Yelda elsewhere, we recommend the deletion of "and that any Ex Post Facto laws currently in effect shall be rendered null and void" from the final clause. We believe that this is amply covered by clause I, in that, even if such a law remained on the books, any ex post facto prosecution under it would be prohibited.

We look forward to supporting this excellent legislation on its way to passage.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

As we've discussed with the distinguished representative of Yelda elsewhere, we recommend the deletion of "and that any Ex Post Facto laws currently in effect shall be rendered null and void" from the final clause. We believe that this is amply covered by clause I, in that, even if such a law remained on the books, any ex post facto prosecution under it would be prohibited.
I may still take that out too. Here is my reasoning for leaving it in:
What I meant by putting that in there was laws that authorize retroactive punishment. Let's say that the nation of Whateverland has a law on the books outlawing the operation of automobiles. It also provides for the prosecution of anyone ever known to have operated an automobile. They are currently using it to prosecute people who were photographed 20 years ago driving a car. An extreme example, but that's what I was getting at.

OOC: Looks like a plain case of Human Rights to me too.

I'll probably call it meddling and oppose it ICly, but it's a pretty good draft.

I may still take that out too. Here is my reasoning for leaving it in:

Originally Posted by Me, at some other place
What I meant by putting that in there was laws that authorize retroactive punishment. Let's say that the nation of Whateverland has a law on the books outlawing the operation of automobiles. It also provides for the prosecution of anyone ever known to have operated an automobile. They are currently using it to prosecute people who were photographed 20 years ago driving a car. An extreme example, but that's what I was getting at.



But, as we read the proposal, such a prosecution would be illegal under the first operative clause. The retroactive provision could still be on the books, but it would be moot. No one could be prosecuted under it.

Now, why take the language out? Let's say I have a law on the books with 43 provisions. Section 22 provides for retroactive application. Clause (II) would void the whole law. We don't see any need for that, since no one could be prosecuted under the retroactive provision anyway. Why should we have to pass new legislation with the other 42 provisions -- and probably a non-retroactive Section 22?

This isn't a deal-breaker for us by any means. We just don't see it as necessary. It just gives the lawyers something more to fuss with. ;)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

LAE fully support this proposal. I'm not good at these really strange categories, but Human Rights seems Ok for me.
I will once again use RL references, but the constitutions of many democracies and other nations in RL include this principle of non-retroactivity for charges and punishments.

Also, please, I would like to ask the following question:
It seems to me that non-retroactivity is best to apply to charges and punishments; but for example if an alcohol prohibition law in a nation is repealed, then it seems to me that people who traded alcohol, at the time of prohibition have not to be charged after the repeal. Does this proposal, written as such, affect something in this scenario or not at all?

The problem we have with this is that with new technologies, new crimes are created that are not covered by current law. The other day someone sold bubblegum with nanites in it that made one experience a pornographic dream. We have laws against certain types of obscenity for example, but are dreams covered by them, no. Technology changes the constraints for the law. Adapting new situtations to old law creates problems. With this law in place, after someone creates a new type of crime, we would not be able to prosecute the people who had been committing it in the past. Identifying future crimes is a problem, there has to be a period ex post facto where we can prosecute some of the culpriits. There are some situations where it is necessary to round up the culprits before the crime gets out of hand.

LAE fully support this proposal. I'm not good at these really strange categories, but Human Rights seems Ok for me.
I will once again use RL references, but the constitutions of many democracies and other nations in RL include this principle of non-retroactivity for charges and punishments.

Also, please, I would like to ask the following question:
It seems to me that non-retroactivity is best to apply to charges and punishments; but for example if an alcohol prohibition law in a nation is repealed, then it seems to me that people who traded alcohol, at the time of prohibition have not to be charged after the repeal. Does this proposal, written as such, affect something in this scenario or not at all?

We're pleased to see the honorable representative of Love and esterel supporting this proposal. To answer his question...

This proposal would not have the effect you suggest. The prohibition law made trading in alcohol illegal. If you traded in alcohol while that law was in effect, you could be charged with that violation of the law, even if the law was later repealed. You violated the law as it existed at the time you committed the act.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The problem we have with this is that with new technologies, new crimes are created that are not covered by current law. Technology changes the constraints for the law. Adapting new situtations to old law creates problems. With this law in place, after someone creates a new type of crime, we would not be able to prosecute the people who had been committing it in the past. Identifying future crimes is a problem, there has to be a period ex post facto where we can prosecute some of the culpriits. There are some situations where it is necessary to round up the culprits before the crime gets out of hand.

The Kingdom of Altanar has no choice but to reject this argument in its entirety. There have been new criminals, and new crimes, constantly being invented as long as sentient species have been in existence. This is not justification for the unjustifiable act of punishing someone for doing something that was not a crime when they did it. Nor does it justify the immense possibility of abuse under ex post facto laws; namely, a government could declare anything illegal and punish anyone for doing it, even though it wasn't illegal at the time of their act.

Ex post facto laws are a foul taste in the mouths of freedom-loving peoples. Altanar will support this effort to eliminate such unjustifiable laws.

The problem we have with this is that with new technologies, new crimes are created that are not covered by current law. The other day someone sold bubblegum with nanites in it that made one experience a pornographic dream. We have laws against certain types of obscenity for example, but are dreams covered by them, no. Technology changes the constraints for the law. Adapting new situtations to old law creates problems. With this law in place, after someone creates a new type of crime, we would not be able to prosecute the people who had been committing it in the past. Identifying future crimes is a problem, there has to be a period ex post facto where we can prosecute some of the culpriits. There are some situations where it is necessary to round up the culprits before the crime gets out of hand.

So, the representative thinks it's fair to punish people for doing something that wasn't against the law when they did it? Sorry, we can't buy that for a minute.

The representative is quite correct that the law must keep up with changing technologies. Having competent legislative bodies is the way to do that. Having ex post facto laws isn't. They simply make a mockery of the rule of law. How is someone supposed to know that you're later going to decide that something's illegal?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We will give a further example of why some leniency in ex post facto laws be made. Recently we desired to create a registry for criminals caled The Child Protection Act. It required offenders to register for their past crimes. This is in effect an ex post facto law. Certain categories of crime are based on habitual behaviors.

Further in our prosecution of Daemonica Labs for war crimes and crimes against humanity after the Vodais Plague Wars was Ex Post Facto prosecution. It is often impossible to prosecute terrorists and war criminals except for Ex Post Facto.

OOC: The Nuremburg Trials are considered by many to be Ex Post Facto.

We will give a further example of why some leniency in ex post facto laws be made. Recently we desired to create a registry for criminal violent, child oriented, and sexual behavior. It required offenders to register for their past crimes. This is in effect an ex post facto law. Certain categories of crime are based on habitual behaviors.

Requiring someone to register for a crime they have already committed doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with an ex post facto law. All a registry does is track people who have already committed a crime. The argument that registries somehow justify ex post facto laws is a stretch at best.

Requiring registry also requires that a person follow certain actions, namely not live within a certain distance of a daycare, school, or similar institution and not being allowed to be hired or work at such institution, so there are legal consequences as part of the registry that cause Ex Post Facto concerns. Certain actions are proscribed with the registry.

We are looking at a way to reduce crime by requiring registration of our "hard drug" offenders Ex Post Facto in a universal rehabilitation program run by the Department of Mental Hygiene.

Requiring registry also requires that a person follow certain actions, namely not live within a certain distance of a daycare, school, or similar institution and not being allowed to be hired or work at such institution, so there are legal consequences as part of the registry that cause Ex Post Facto concerns. Certain actions are proscribed with the registry.

We are looking at a way to reduce crime by requiring registration of our "hard drug" offenders Ex Post Facto in a universal rehabilitation program run by the Department of Mental Hygiene.

With all due respect, do you even know what ex post facto means? None of the actions you are describing relate to charging someone with a crime for doing something that wasn't illegal when they did it. Everything you're talking about is punishment or control for something that was a crime when they did it. I can't think of a single way that a registry would cause an ex post facto concern, unless the registry was filled with people charged for doing something that wasn't illegal at the time of the offense.

To answer his question...

This proposal would not have the effect you suggest. The prohibition law made trading in alcohol illegal. If you traded in alcohol while that law was in effect, you could be charged with that violation of the law, even if the law was later repealed. You violated the law as it existed at the time you committed the act.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We would like to thanks the Ambassador-at-Large of Ausserland for the answer.

But, this explanation light up the pb we were not sure about.
i really think that in this case, (a repealed prohibition law), people who traded alcohol at the time of the prohibition have not to be charged after the repeal is passed.

Please consider the following of my post as an interrogation I ask and not yet a suggestion, as I'm not sure myself but i just would like we focus on this matter.

In the RL nation where I live, as in Switzerland, it's seems to me that law cannot be retroactive when and only when they put charges on individuals (and maybe administrations organisations ..)

So, once again i'm not sure, but, Will this proposal be better with only clause 1, without clause 2 at all?

Thanks for discussing this matter with me, and please forgive me if i fail totally at understanding this topic, I'm just trying.

The wikipedia page summarize this topic in many nations in RL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

On the contrary Ex Post Facto law is directly related to forced registration of individuals. If there was a law that said you were not allowed to be a member of a specific group or perform specific actions, a registry would force recognition that you belonged to a specific group at one point. Lets say you were once prosecuted for homosexuality in a Muslim country. Requiring you to be on a permanent open registry would be quite dangerous. Registration can be seen as a form of judicial punishment.

You are creating additional legislation for something that happened in the past for a past crime. It is in effect retroactive. Registration is a form of punishment in the mind of the person being registered. Maybe the person has already served a full sentence for the crime they committed, five years reeducation for example in the past. They view that they have "served" their time. Now, it is ten years later.

Maybe they fear being registered will open them to attacks by extremists, suddenly you basically have a blue star.

On the contrary Ex Post Facto law is directly related to forced registration of individuals. If there was a law that said you were not allowed to be a member of a specific group or perform specific actions, a registry would force recognition that you belonged to a specific group at one point. Lets say you were once prosecuted for homosexuality in a Muslim country. Requiring you to be on a permanent open registry would be quite dangerous. Registration can be seen as a form of judicial punishment.

Registration can be seen as a form of punishment as well as a mechanism for tracking. We acknowledge this. But how is this related to ex post facto? In your example of homosexuality in a country that bars the practice, the reason the individual would be placed on the registry is because they broke the existing laws against it....not as a retroactive punishment. The same would apply with anyone placed on a registry for being part of a barred group. The only way we could see a registry having anything to do with an ex post facto application of a law is if people were placed on that registry for doing something that was not illegal at the time they did it. If that does not happen, a registry is not an ex post facto act.

OOC: since it was brought up, the Nuremburg trials dealt with things like genocide and severe atrocities against fundamental human rights. These things were illegal before the war. The crime happened in the past, yes, but it was considered a crime at the time that it occured.

IC: As it regards the registry, these people committed a crime and served their full sentence. They have been released and have stayed on the straight and narrow for five years, in your example. Why, then, do you wish to apply further punishment upon them? They paid their debt to society and, by all accounts, have learned their lesson. Leave them be until the break the law again.

We fully support this endeavor. It is fundamentally flawed to prosecute people based on actions not illegal at the time of their commitment.


Most courteously,

We will give a further example of why some leniency in ex post facto laws be made. Recently we desired to create a registry for criminals caled The Child Protection Act. It required offenders to register for their past crimes. This is in effect an ex post facto law. Certain categories of crime are based on habitual behaviors.

Further in our prosecution of Daemonica Labs for war crimes and crimes against humanity after the Vodais Plague Wars was Ex Post Facto prosecution. It is often impossible to prosecute terrorists and war criminals except for Ex Post Facto.

OOC: The Nuremburg Trials are considered by many to be Ex Post Facto.

Requiring people to register if they have committed a crime in the past is not an ex post facto law. Their crimes were violations of law as it existed at the time of the acts.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We would like to thanks the Ambassador-at-Large of Ausserland for the answer.

But, this explanation light up the pb we were not sure about.
i really think that in this case, (a repealed prohibition law), people who traded alcohol at the time of the prohibition have not to be charged after the repeal is passed.

Please consider the following of my post as an interrogation I ask and not yet a suggestion, as I'm not sure myself but i just would like we focus on this matter.

In the RL nation where I live, as in Switzerland, it's seems to me that law cannot be retroactive when and only when they put charges on individuals (and maybe administrations organisations ..)

So, once again i'm not sure, but, Will this proposal be better with only clause 1, without clause 2 at all?

Thanks for discussing this matter with me, and please forgive me if i fail totally at understanding this topic, I'm just trying.

The wikipedia page summarize this topic in many nations in RL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

We understand the honorable representative's point. But punishing someone for violating a law after it's been repealed is something very different from an ex post facto law. It's not making something a crime retroactively. If you want to stop prosecutions under the law that's been repealed, it's easy to do it. Let's use a little case study:

1995: The Prohibition Act is passed, making trading in alcohol a criminal offense.

1997: You trade in alcohol. You commit a crime under the law as it exists.

1999: The Prohibition Act is repealed.

2000: The government charges you with the crime of trading in alcohol. This is not an ex post facto prosecution. What you did was a crime when you did it, and you are liable to be punished for it. There's nothing unfair or unjust about that.

If, when the Prohibition Act is repealed, you want to prevent people from being prosecuted for crimes under it, that's easy. You just put language like this in the repeal legislation: "No person shall be charged with, prosecuted for, or convicted of any violation of the Prohibition Act." It may very well be a good idea to do that, but it may not be. That should be decided in each individual case of repeal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

What about people who are currently interned based on such laws?

I'll also hoist the FoD flag briefly: I tend to view legal rights as being political rather than civil, but I can't really explain this very well. I certainly am not about to complain if it is human Rights.

What about people who are currently interned based on such laws?

I'll also hoist the FoD flag briefly: I tend to view legal rights as being political rather than civil, but I can't really explain this very well. I certainly am not about to complain if it is human Rights.
Yes, you're right. That will need to be included. What if I changed (II) to:

"(II) That no government within any UN Nation may pass any Ex Post Facto law and further that any person convicted under Ex Post Facto laws currently in effect shall be......something"

My mind is blank right now. Anyway, persons convicted under EPF laws shall be released, declared innocent, sentence rescinded etc. I'll work out the exact wording later.

As for the FoD category, my thinking is that even a dictatorship could recognize that EPF laws are unjust and not use them. So the right not to be convicted under these laws could exist even in a nation that had no political freedoms. It just seems to me that it is a right which could exist regardless of the nation's political system. Or maybe independently of the political system would be more accurate.

As for the FoD category, my thinking is that even a dictatorship could recognize that EPF laws are unjust and not use them. So the right not to be convicted under these laws could exist even in a nation that had no political freedoms. It just seems to me that it is a right which could exist regardless of the nation's political system. Or maybe independently of the political system would be more accurate.

Or there could be a democratic nation that votes in an ex post facto law following [insert event here]. It'd be classic tyranny by majority if it happened, but it's a valid hypothetical event. So I agree that this proposal can be thought of as independent of political rights.

We agree that the question of people previously convicted under ex post facto laws should be addressed. But we have to be a little careful here. A person can be convicted of multiple offenses. Some could be under ex post facto laws, others not. So we can't just say they'll be released. Maybe something about having the sentence or any portion of it imposed for that offense remitted, or something like that. We'll have to give this some thought when we're not sleepy.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Pitchers have the right to throw at batters when they start crowding the plate.Damn straight they do. Nothing like a little chin music.

How about...

"(II) VOIDS any existing Ex Post Facto laws in UN member Nations and Forbids the passing of any new Ex Post Facto laws. Any persons under sentence as a result of these Ex Post Facto laws shall have their sentence for any Ex Post Facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these Ex Post Facto offenses."

1, you gotta worry about the actual sentence but also Criminal records which would be matters for consideration should for some reason or another a person convicted of Ex Post Facto criminal activity re-commit the same offense or commit a different offense.

I like that.

"(II) That no government within any UN Nation may pass any Ex Post Facto law and further that any sentence imposed under Ex Post Facto laws shall be nullified and all records of convictions under the condition of Ex Post Facto to be expunged from any and all criminal records."

How's that?

That still allows Ex Post Facto laws to be on the books just forbids new ones from being made and forbids them from being enforced, I'd like the actual Ex Post Facto laws to be scrunched up and thrown away, at least if this get's repealed they have to go through the process of enacting new Ex Post Facto laws instead of just starting to enforce the ones they have.

That still allows Ex Post Facto laws to be on the books just forbids new ones from being made and forbids them from being enforced, I'd like the actual Ex Post Facto laws to be scrunched up and thrown away, at least if this get's repealed they have to go through the process of enacting new Ex Post Facto laws instead of just starting to enforce the ones they have.
You're right. I think I'll go with your version.
"(II) VOIDS any existing Ex Post Facto laws in UN member Nations and Forbids the passing of any new Ex Post Facto laws. Any persons under sentence as a result of these Ex Post Facto laws shall have their sentence for any Ex Post Facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these Ex Post Facto offenses."

Damn straight they do. Nothing like a little chin music.
Of course, a corollary to that rule is that batters may, at their own discretion, choose to charge the mound. Should the batter choose to exercise this right, pitchers may take whatever actions they deem necessary, as illustrated here by Nolan Ryan:

http://www.grandstandsports.com/images/3400.jpg

Ive noticed in this thread that there has been some confusion of what an Ex Post Facto law is.

Now my understanding of Latin is limited at best but I do know what an Ex Post Facto law is.

So I would add a definition to this proposal to cut some of the confusion during the approval debate.

Maybe something along the lines of:

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION Ex Post Facto laws shall be defined as laws that criminalize acts committed prior to the date of the ratification, announcement, proclamation or promulgation of criminal or civil laws.

Or including the basic sentiment of that to the current. We would want to make it as clear as possible in the definition department. So clear that someone would have to be less than stupid to misunderstand what we mean by an ex post facto law.

VK

So I would add a definition to this proposal to cut some of the confusion during the approval debate.

Maybe something along the lines of:
Or maybe just use the definition that's already included in the text.

Defining Ex Post Facto Law as a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law;


There are problems with this.

1. Ellelt passes a law saying that say possession of cocaine will carry a sentence of 10 years of hard labor on say 21 December 2006. Previous law would have been say 5 years hard labor.

But on 20 December 2006, John X-ovich is caught by the New Stalingrad police with cocaine. And is brought to trial. Naturally the right thing to do would be sentence him to five years rather than the 10.

Both times he broke the law but seeing as he was tried in January 2007 the current law would be 10 years hard labor, not 5 years hard labor.

Technically that would not be an ex post facto law, but it would confuse the legal authority as to how to punish him....Is the sentence 5 years or 10.

While we could apply this definition correctly not everyone would and the definition should be as clear as possible.

2. Joan X-ovich goes and buys a gun for self defense on say 12 February 2005, but hasn't told anyone and she keeps it in her purse. The Supreme Soviet in a moment of insanity decides to ban all civilian gun ownership in the nation but doesn't tell anyone but the law enforcement people on 20 February 2006.

On 20 December 2006 at a random papers check a policeman spots Joan X-ovich's fire arm and arrests her. Now just hypothetically say there is no legal record of her purchasing the fire arm prior to the enactment of the new law.

It is possible that Joan would have been prosecuted under an Ex Post Facto Law.

My definition would be clearer I think, I'm by no means demanding you use it.

Now, I have yet to see the most recent draft but also perhaps a requirement for governments to regularly announce their new laws to the populace would be a good idea.

There are problems with this.
No, there aren't.
My definition would be clearer I think,
I don't.
I'm by no means demanding you use it.
Good, because I'm not going to.
perhaps a requirement for governments to regularly announce their new laws to the populace would be a good idea.
What has that got to do with this?

I don't find either of those cases directly relevant - reasons follow.

There are problems with this.

1. Ellelt passes a law saying that say possession of cocaine will carry a sentence of 10 years of hard labor on say 21 December 2006. Previous law would have been say 5 years hard labor.

But on 20 December 2006, John X-ovich is caught by the New Stalingrad police with cocaine. And is brought to trial. Naturally the right thing to do would be sentence him to five years rather than the 10.

This deals with sentencing, not criminalization. Cocaine possession, in this hypothetical case, was illegal before and continues to be illegal at the present date. The proposal being drafted does not directly address the issue of sentencing, regardless of when the crime was committed.

If the laws in question specifically mandated an unchangeable sentence, on the other hand, John would be prosecuted under the earlier law rather than the later one. This is why Krioval does not specifically legislate sentencing guidelines at the same time as it modifies the criminal code.

2. Joan X-ovich goes and buys a gun for self defense on say 12 February 2005, but hasn't told anyone and she keeps it in her purse. The Supreme Soviet in a moment of insanity decides to ban all civilian gun ownership in the nation but doesn't tell anyone but the law enforcement people on 20 February 2006.

On 20 December 2006 at a random papers check a policeman spots Joan X-ovich's fire arm and arrests her. Now just hypothetically say there is no legal record of her purchasing the fire arm prior to the enactment of the new law.

It is possible that Joan would have been prosecuted under an Ex Post Facto Law.

In this case, mere possession is illegal - it is a continuing crime that began on 20 February 2006. Technically, Joan has been in violation of the law since that date. And honestly, if a government doesn't want to inform its population of laws on the books, it is highly unlikely that such a government will function effectively. I think it is safe to assume that most governments are going to notify their citizenry as to what is legal or not. That seems to be a matter for another proposal, however, and not this one.

All of these comments are, naturally, simply my opinion, and not necessarily those of the author.

Ive noticed in this thread that there has been some confusion of what an Ex Post Facto law is."After the fact". I'm really not sure why this is such a difficult concept.


Should the batter choose to exercise this right, pitchers may take whatever actions they deem necessary, as illustrated here by Nolan Ryan:I prefer the Kyle Farnsworth body slam (http://cubscast.com/images/week11.jpg).

I prefer the Kyle Farnsworth body slam (http://cubscast.com/images/week11.jpg).

OOC: I don't even have to click on the link. I remember it very well. It was a thing of beauty. Of course, it helps that he played football in high school. Baseball coaches don't teach that move in spring training. :D

The problem with this law is it seems to target only case law in the courts the way it is written, ex post facto law should also cover government legislation if done properly. The government is capable of introducing bills which affect the courts in a sweeping manner.

Here is another even more intense idea. Lets say the government decides all people with a criminal past must be registered in a dna and full body scan-- foot size, fingerprints, physical description etc. database. This will automatically create more arrests for unsolved crimes. Would this be ex post facto. It would probably reduce crime at the cost of civil liberties.

The problem with this law is it seems to target only case law in the courts the way it is written, ex post facto law should also cover government legislation if done properly. The government is capable of introducing bills which affect the courts in a sweeping manner.

Here is another even more intense idea. Lets say the government decides all people with a criminal past must be registered in a dna and full body scan-- foot size, fingerprints, physical description etc. database. This will automatically create more arrests for unsolved crimes. Would this be ex post facto. It would probably reduce crime at the cost of civil liberties.

You continue to harp on this registration thing. It's not ex post facto. Just drop it and learn what "ex post facto" actually means before spouting off any further. Others have tried to explain it to you, but it seems you refuse to listen.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I prefer the Kyle Farnsworth body slam (http://cubscast.com/images/week11.jpg).
Heh. Yeah, that was a good one. Somewhere around here I have a photo of Billy Martin kicking some guy in the nuts. If I find it I'll scan it and share. Can't seem to find it online.

Heh. Yeah, that was a good one. Somewhere around here I have a photo of Billy Martin kicking some guy in the nuts. If I find it I'll scan it and share. Can't seem to find it online.

OOC: That was something like a quarter of a century ago. Good luck finding it on teh Intarwebs. :p

Latest:

Believing that ex post facto laws are violations of both the rule of law and the right of persons to fair treatment by the criminal justice system;

Asserting that one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;

Further, asserting that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of the law as it existed at the time;

Defining Ex Post Facto Law as a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law;

The General Assembly Of The United Nations Hereby Declares:

(I) That no person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offense because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offense under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

(II) That any existing Ex Post Facto laws in UN member Nations are void and the passing of any new Ex Post Facto laws is forbidden. Any persons under sentence as a result of these Ex Post Facto laws shall have their sentence for any Ex Post Facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these Ex Post Facto offenses.

OOC: That was something like a quarter of a century ago.
Longer than that. It was when he was a player.

Longer than that. It was when he was a player.

OOC: Yikes! Going back to the '60s?!? :eek: I know I've seen the clip, but now I feel way older than I should.

Well-written, simple, elegant, useful. What more could I want?

Approve.

OOC: Yikes! Going back to the '60s?!? :eek: I know I've seen the clip, but now I feel way older than I should.
'50's. I'm thinking it would have been '55 or '56.

'50's. I'm thinking it would have been '55 or '56.

OOC: Oy...where're my dentures? And my walker? Anyone seen 'em?

Requiring people to register if they have committed a crime in the past is not an ex post facto law. Their crimes were violations of law as it existed at the time of the acts.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I think his concern is that it would be adding new sentencing or punishments to old crimes. They were crimes at the time of commission, but those sentences did not apply at that time.

I personally maintain that there is little reason to apply new sentences to old crimes in such a fashion. While I understand the reasoning for wanting the registry, I don't see how it is relevant to this draft. If the ex-convict has been good since fulfilling thier sentence, leave them alone. There shouldn't be a need for further punishment on them.

(II) That any existing Ex Post Facto laws in UN member Nations are void and the passing of any new Ex Post Facto laws is forbidden. Any persons under sentence as a result of these Ex Post Facto laws shall have their sentence for any Ex Post Facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these Ex Post Facto offenses.

Could that possibly be changed to just apply to specific provisions within laws that create ex post facto situations? The scenario that Ms. Ahlmann provided earlier would be a pain to rectify if the whole law needed to be repassed over a single provision within it that could be removed.

Could that possibly be changed to just apply to specific provisions within laws that create ex post facto situations? The scenario that Ms. Ahlmann provided earlier would be a pain to rectify if the whole law needed to be repassed over a single provision within it that could be removed.
Heh. Yeah, it probably could, but I'm thinking they should be forced to remove the law and repass it as punishment for having passed the damned thing in the first place.

I think his concern is that it would be adding new sentencing or punishments to old crimes. They were crimes at the time of commission, but those sentences did not apply at that time.

I personally maintain that there is little reason to apply new sentences to old crimes in such a fashion. While I understand the reasoning for wanting the registry, I don't see how it is relevant to this draft. If the ex-convict has been good since fulfilling thier sentence, leave them alone. There shouldn't be a need for further punishment on them.

This comes down, I think, to whether you consider registration to be a punishment, or a measure taken to protect the public. Both views have merit, but we consider the latter to be the case. One thing, though... This is in no way a sentence. It's a legal requirement imposed, but not as a part of sentencing.

Could that possibly be changed to just apply to specific provisions within laws that create ex post facto situations? The scenario that Ms. Ahlmann provided earlier would be a pain to rectify if the whole law needed to be repassed over a single provision within it that could be removed.

That's a viable alternative and probably the best route to take. We continue to maintain, though, that rescinding laws with ex post facto provisions is unnecessary. If I can't prosecute someone under an ex post facto provision, it is, in reality, voided.

(II) No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions. Any ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.

We believe that, for the sake of clarity, the problem of persons imprisoned under ex post facto laws should be covered in a new clause (III). We're still waiting for our Ministry for Justice to give us some advice on the precise wording of that.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We believe that, for the sake of clarity, the problem of persons imprisoned under ex post facto laws should be covered in a new clause (III). We're still waiting for our Ministry for Justice to give us some advice on the precise wording of that.
So you would suggest this:
(II) No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions. Any ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.
For clause (II), and then a new clause (III) to cover persons imprisoned under ex post facto? Sounds good. I'll await what your Ministry for Justice comes up with.

So you would suggest this:

For clause (II), and then a new clause (III) to cover persons imprisoned under ex post facto? Sounds good. I'll await what your Ministry for Justice comes up with.

Yes, that is our recommendation. While we consider the second sentence to be unnecessary, others disagree. We believe their views can and should be accommodated.

We'll try to light a fire under the Ministry for Justice shy... er... lawyers. They seem to be arguing over the terms "remitted" and "voided". Why? Who knows?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Well those were some concerns that I had about the resolution as applied in other nations.

Our own would use the old law for old crimes, and as far as Joan X-ovich she, if she was a first time offender and really was ignorant of the law...which wouldn't happen in Ellelt anyway (but just saying if she were) would just have the firearm confiscated and been released.

As I have said earlier we will be supporting this resolution regardless, I think it to be well written and necessary to prevent abuses in other nations.

VK

Provisionally in favour, now that those latest changes have been made. I'll have to check with the government back home, but even though some people might object on NatSov grounds I think that official policy will probably be to approve it in the interests of justice...

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson,
Ambassador to the UN
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still required to wear this bloody penguin costume!)

"No person shall be charged with, prosecuted for, or convicted of any violation of the Prohibition Act."

I want to say that, LAE support this proposal, I'm just short on this topic and trying to undertsand it.

But it just seems to me that what you just said is retroactif. Not sure

Not sure either, but it's why I would like to suggest that (II) deal only with Ex Post Facto laws establishing charges/punishments/conviction for criminal offense.

This comes down, I think, to whether you consider registration to be a punishment, or a measure taken to protect the public. Both views have merit, but we consider the latter to be the case. One thing, though... This is in no way a sentence. It's a legal requirement imposed, but not as a part of sentencing.

We believe the former, oddly enough, though we fully agree that it isn't really part of sentencing. I suppose it fall under the same category as requiring people that drive to have a license, regardless if they were driving before that requirement was enacted. Not the best analogy, but I'm not disagreeing with you, so maybe we can just let it slide.

Believing that ex post facto laws are violations of both the rule of law and the right of persons to fair treatment by the criminal justice system;

Asserting that one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;

Further, asserting that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of the law as it existed at the time;

Defining Ex Post Facto Law as a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law;

The General Assembly Of The United Nations Hereby Declares:

(I) That no person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offense because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offense under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

(II) That no nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions. Any ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.

(III) That any persons under sentence as a result of Ex Post Facto laws shall have their sentence for any Ex Post Facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these Ex Post Facto offenses.

New Article (III). I'm still not sure if "nullified" is the term to use or if "voided", "remitted" or something else would be better.

I'd like to make a test submission. I'm thinking the category and strength should "Human Rights"- "Significant". Any disagreement with this?

I agree with the category. But I think this proposal may produce one of the most infuriating/confusing debates in a while.

I agree with the category.
Significant strength, or mild?
But I think this proposal may produce one of the most infuriating/confusing debates in a while.
Well, let's hope so.

Significant strength, or mild?
Significant. Although it's a narrow focus, retroactive laws are generally considered Bad M'Kay by human rights monitors, and the resolution is pretty emphatic on that point. Plus, you're letting a load of filthy criminals loose.

Significant it is then. Submitted.

Plus, you're letting a load of filthy criminals loose.


If you are worried about letting out those filthy criminals of yours...Ellelt will take them. We could charge them with, espionage or something like that and send them all to Ziberia. We're running out of hippies you know.

Or failing that you could always execute them before the resolution passes

:D

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Alexis Pasterniak
Department of the Interpretation of International Law, Ministry of Justice.

I agree with the category. But I think this proposal may produce one of the most infuriating/confusing debates in a while.

Well, let's hope so.

Yeah, as if I need yet another bout with migraines that not even 110-proof Cluichstani whiskey can help...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

This received about 50 approvals without a TG campaign. Nevertheless, it will not be submitted and the effort is being officially abandoned, by ME. Article 1 of Fair Sentencing Act, combined with provisions contained within earlier resolutions (which are too numerous to mention) and the "reasonable nation concept" would prevent any UN nation from using EX Post Facto laws. This proposal is therefore unnecessary and would merely clutter the books with more needless paperwork.

We are appalled at the abandonment of this excellent legislative effort by its author. We believe that the Representative of Iron Felix is badly mistaken in thinking that this subject is adequately covered by existing NSUN legislation.

We would point out that Article 1 of the "Fair Sentencing Act" is not a mandatory clause and provides no substantive protection in this regard. The "Universal Bill of Rights" has no provision on the subject. "Habeus Corpus", "Fair Trial", and "Definition of Fair Trial" cover only the judicial process and are silent on the subject of the laws under which prosecution may be brought. We find no credible protection in any extant NSUN legislation against the despicable practice of ex post facto prosecution.

We strongly urge the representative of Iron Felix to reconsider this decision. We believe that abandoning this effort would be a blow to the cause of justice in the world of NationStates.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

At the direction of the President of the Protectorate of Wailele Island, I join in the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ausserland.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island

We are appalled at the abandonment of this excellent legislative effort by its author. We believe that the Representative of Iron Felix is badly mistaken in thinking that this subject is adequately covered by existing NSUN legislation.

We would point out that Article 1 of the "Fair Sentencing Act" is not a mandatory clause and provides no substantive protection in this regard. The "Universal Bill of Rights" has no provision on the subject. "Habeus Corpus", "Fair Trial", and "Definition of Fair Trial" cover only the judicial process and are silent on the subject of the laws under which prosecution may be brought. We find no credible protection in any extant NSUN legislation against the despicable practice of ex post facto prosecution.

We strongly urge the representative of Iron Felix to reconsider this decision. We believe that abandoning this effort would be a blow to the cause of justice in the world of NationStates.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

At the direction of the President of the Protectorate of Wailele Island, I join in the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ausserland.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island

Pazu-Leny Kasigi-Nero would like to join Patrick T. Olembe, Miulana Kapalaoa and His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland in supporting this proposal.

Furthermore he would like to point out that the resolution "Fair sentencing act" Declares only:
the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=179
and doesn't define what a crime is.
Your proposal defines that a crime has to be to considered as such only when an existing law at the time of the related action is broken and this is very clause to common sense.

This received about 50 approvals without a TG campaign. Nevertheless, it will not be submitted and the effort is being officially abandoned, by ME. Article 1 of Fair Sentencing Act, combined with provisions contained within earlier resolutions (which are too numerous to mention) and the "reasonable nation concept" would prevent any UN nation from using EX Post Facto laws. This proposal is therefore unnecessary and would merely clutter the books with more needless paperwork.
OOC: Felix made that statement for tactical ressons during the Repeal FSA debate. Obviously, Article 1 of FSA is not mandatory and neither "Habeus Corpus", "Fair Trial", "Definition of Fair Trial" nor any other earlier Resolution would prevent the passage and use of Ex Post Facto laws.

IC: It is apparent that Comrade Felix had been in the vodka when he said that and no further comment is necessary.

This will be submitted Sunday. Now is the time for any final comments and suggestions.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Believing that ex post facto laws are violations of both the rule of law and the right of persons to fair treatment by the criminal justice system;

Asserting that one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;

Further, asserting that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of the law as it existed at the time;

Defining Ex Post Facto Law as a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law;

The General Assembly Of The United Nations Hereby Declares:

(I) That no person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offense because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offense under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

(II) That no nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions. Any ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.

(III) That any persons under sentence as a result of Ex Post Facto laws shall have their sentence for any Ex Post Facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these Ex Post Facto offenses.

I want to say that, LAE support this proposal, I'm just short on this topic and trying to undertsand it.

But it just seems to me that what you just said is retroactif. Not sure

Not sure either, but it's why I would like to suggest that (II) deal only with Ex Post Facto laws establishing charges/punishments/conviction for criminal offense.
I think this is a valid point. There are instances where a law could be passed to retroactively benefit accused persons, such as when weaker sentences are now applicable but were not applicable at the time of conviction. I'm not sure if I want to change "provisions" in (II), or alter the definition to accomodate this.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

How about if (II) is changed to this:
(II) That no nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions which would criminalize an act which was legal when it occurred, or which would increase the sentence or punishment of a person already convicted. Any such ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.
Is the part about "increase the sentence or punishment" legal under FSA?

If the government can't even criminalize the act, how could they justify extending a criminal sentence for it? I don't think the language is needed.

The Federal Republic will likely abstain if and when this comes to vote.

If the government can't even criminalize the act, how could they justify extending a criminal sentence for it? I don't think the language is needed.
No, what I meant was increasing the punishment for something that someone was already convicted of. For instance, a person is convicted of assault and sentenced to 5 years. Then a law is passed increasing the sentence for assault to 10 years. They make the new sentence apply to him retroactively.

I think it might be best to alter the definition anyway, instead of tinkering with (II). How about this:
Defining Ex Post Facto Law as a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law, so as to allow the criminalization of an act which was legal when it occurred;
This would make it clearer that this only applies to laws which would retroactively criminalize things, rather than laws which would decriminalize things or reduce sentences.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Then we could change (II) slightly to have it reference the definition.
(II) That no nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions as defined by this act. Any existing laws with ex post facto provisions, as defined by this act, shall be rendered null and void.

We're now thoroughly confused. We thought the intent was to accommodate the concern about retroactive increases in punishments. But this:

Defining Ex Post Facto Law as a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law, so as to allow the criminalization of an act which was legal when it occurred;

seems to specifically exclude retroactive increases in sentences. We have the nagging feeling that it might be best to leave well enough alone. Perhaps if we saw the complete text of the latest draft, we might be able to un-confuse ourselves.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We're now thoroughly confused.
It's understandable that you would be confused. I've been right here in the middle of all this and I'm confused. To make a long story short, the suggested changes came about as a result of TG exchanges between the LAE delegation and myself. They felt that as it is currently worded, it would prohibit "good" Ex Post Facto laws, in other words EPF laws that would benefit the accused person (for instance, if weaker sentences are now applicable but were not previously applicable).

Here is the current text, without my suggested changes:

Believing that ex post facto laws are violations of both the rule of law and the right of persons to fair treatment by the criminal justice system;

Asserting that one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;

Further, asserting that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of the law as it existed at the time;

Defining Ex Post Facto Law as a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law;

The General Assembly Of The United Nations Hereby Declares:

(I) That no person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offense because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offense under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

(II) That no nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions. Any ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.

(III) That any persons under sentence as a result of Ex Post Facto laws shall have their sentence for any Ex Post Facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these Ex Post Facto offenses.

Edit: I have just recieved this from the Ausserlander delegation:
Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an ex post facto law as one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed.

I will be using this definition and I would like to thank the Ausserlanders for supplying it.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

(II) That no nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions which would criminalize an act which was legal when it occurred, or which would increase the sentence or punishment of a person already convicted. Any such ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.

I personnaly think that your sentence here is is the best way to do, as altering the definition will mean using a definition of "ex post facto law" with a different meaning that the one in every dictionnary.

But if you prefer alter the definition, may I suggest merging edit from your and ausserland to exclude "good" ex facto laws:

"Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an ex post facto law as one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law, so as, and only so as, to allow the criminalization of an act which was legal when committed or to allow retroactively increase in sentences for crimes already committed."

That say I'm not sure if it's the adequate grammatical structure.

I personnaly think that your sentence here is is the best way to do, as altering the definition will mean using a definition of "ex post facto law" with a different meaning that the one in every dictionnary.

But if you prefer alter the definition, may I suggest merging edit from your and ausserland to exclude "good" ex facto laws:

"Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an ex post facto law as one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law, so as, and only so as, to allow the criminalization of an act which was legal when committed or to allow retroactively increase in sentences for crimes already committed."

That say I'm not sure if it's the adequate grammatical structure.

The legality of an act must be what it was at the time of commission. The punishment for a crime must be what it was when the crime was committed. That's simple justice, and that's what this proposal ensures.

If a nation wants to decriminalize an act, it can. But it was a crime when it was committed. If the nation wants to issue pardons or expunge convictions, it can do that. If it wants to reduce sentences, it can remit the portions not served. Let's not clutter up this proposal with needless verbiage.

And the definition used here is most certainly not "a different meaning that the one in every dictionnary".

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I agree with Dr. Olembe's assessment and unless there are further substantive objections, this will be the text that is submitted.
Believing that ex post facto laws are violations of both the rule of law and the right of persons to fair treatment by the criminal justice system;

Asserting that one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;

Further, asserting that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of the law as it existed at the time;

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an ex post facto law as one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed;

Declares that:

(I) No person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offense because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offense under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

(II) No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions. Any ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.

(III) Any persons under sentence as a result of ex post facto laws shall have their sentence for any ex post facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these ex post facto offenses.
Spelling, grammar and punctuation check please.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

We've nit-picked and discovered only two very small nits to pick:

Change the initial letters of "Of", the second "The" and the "Hereby" in the introduction to the action clauses to lower case.

Change the initial letters of "Ex Post Facto" (3x) in (III) to lower case.

We're thoroughly ashamed that we couldn't find larger nits.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I would like to thank Ambassador-at-Large Ahlmann for the advice on capitalization. Helpful as always. The changes have been made to the text and submission is scheduled for later today.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

The legality of an act must be what it was at the time of commission. The punishment for a crime must be what it was when the crime was committed. That's simple justice, and that's what this proposal ensures.

I strongly disagree with this statement, as many criminal laws in history had been repealed, because being not seen as crime anymore (alcohol, freedom of information, abortion, euthanasia....)

If a former crime is not considered a crime anymore, I don't see why the legality of a crime must be automatically what it was at the time of commission; this is trully unfair.

Many nation in RL don't ban "good" expost facto laws, and there is no problem about that, you can have a look at it here, so why ban that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

The problem with ex post facto laws, in general, are only when there is a punishment/charge.

I strongly disagree with this statement, as many criminal laws in history had been repealed, because being not seen as crime anymore (alcohol, freedom of information, abortion, euthanasia....)
But nations would still be able to repeal their laws. Nothing in this act would prevent that.

If a former crime is not considered a crime anymore, I don't see why the legality of a crime must be automatically what it was at the time of commission; this is trully unfair.
Nothing in this act would prevent nations from pardoning prisoners or rescinding all or part of their sentence. If a law is repealed, no new law is needed to pardon those who were convicted under it. You simply release them.

The Resolution has been submitted and can be approved by using this link:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Ex%20Post%20Facto

But nations would still be able to repeal their laws. Nothing in this act would prevent that.

Nothing in this act would prevent nations from pardoning prisoners or rescinding all or part of their sentence. If a law is repealed, no new law is needed to pardon those who were convicted under it. You simply release them.

I really think there is difference between being "released" and not being a criminal anymore.

Furthermore "good" ex post facto laws are legal and don't pose any problem in many nations, including the one I live in RL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

• Canada - ex post facto criminal laws are constitutionally prohibited by section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms however if the punishment for a crime has varied between the time the crime was committed and the time of a conviction the convicted person is entitled to the lesser punishment.
• France - any ex post facto criminal law may only be applied if it benefits the accused person (for instance, if weaker sentences are now applicable but were not previously applicable); otherwise, prohibited by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
• Germany - Article 103 of the German basic law requires that an act may only be punished if it has already been punishable by law at the time it was committed (specifically: by written law, Germany following civil law).
• the Constitution of Iran.
• Italy - Article 25, paragraph 2, of the Italian Constitution establishing that "nobody can be punished but according to a law come into force before the deed was committed" prohibits indictment pursuant a retroactive laws.
•
• Ireland - The imposition of retrospective criminal sanctions is prohibited by Article 15.5.1° of the Constitution of Ireland. Retrospective changes of the civil law have also been found to violate the constitution when they would have resulted in the loss in a right to damages before the courts, the Irish Supreme Court having found that such a right is a constitutionally protected property right.
• South Africa - Prohibited in criminal law by clause 35.(3)(l) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; an exception exists for offences which were illegal under international law at the time of commission.
• Sweden - Retroactive penal sanctions and other retroactive legal effects of criminal acts due the State are prohibited by chapter 2, article 22, point 5 of the Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen). Retroactive taxes or charges are not prohibited but can only have retroactive effect reaching back to when a new taxbill was proposed by the government, the retoactive effect thus reaches from that time until the bill is passed by the parliament.
• United Kingdom - Ex post facto laws are permitted under the doctrine of the parliamentary sovereignty; in criminal law, however, ex post facto laws are prohibited by article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Why would you like to ban good ex post facto law in these nations, which aren't banning them?

I'm sorrybut you cannot ban something without a good explanation of why it should be banned, and I didn't read in this forum any explanation about why "good" expost facto laws have to be banned.

Approved.

I really think there is difference between being "released" and not being a criminal anymore.
Not if the person receives a full pardon and his record is expunged. Again, why would you need to pass a new law to do that?

Furthermore "good" ex post facto laws are legal and don't pose any problem in many nations, including the one I live in RL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
First, give me an example of a "good" ex post facto law that you would envision a NS nation attempting to pass and then we'll see if this act bans it. I think a lot of the things you're thinking of would not be banned under this, or wouldn't require any new "good" ex post facto legislation to accomplish.
• Canada - ex post facto criminal laws are constitutionally prohibited by section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms however if the punishment for a crime has varied between the time the crime was committed and the time of a conviction the convicted person is entitled to the lesser punishment.
This would be allowed and could be done without passing a new law.
• France - any ex post facto criminal law may only be applied if it benefits the accused person (for instance, if weaker sentences are now applicable but were not previously applicable); otherwise, prohibited by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
Could be done without passing a new law.
• Germany - Article 103 of the German basic law requires that an act may only be punished if it has already been punishable by law at the time it was committed (specifically: by written law, Germany following civil law).
This would be allowed under this act, in fact this is what this act is trying to accomplish.
• the Constitution of Iran.
?
• Italy - Article 25, paragraph 2, of the Italian Constitution establishing that "nobody can be punished but according to a law come into force before the deed was committed" prohibits indictment pursuant a retroactive laws.
•
See my comment on Germany.
• Ireland - The imposition of retrospective criminal sanctions is prohibited by Article 15.5.1° of the Constitution of Ireland. Retrospective changes of the civil law have also been found to violate the constitution when they would have resulted in the loss in a right to damages before the courts, the Irish Supreme Court having found that such a right is a constitutionally protected property right.
See my comment on Italy. Also, this deals with criminal, not civil law.
• South Africa - Prohibited in criminal law by clause 35.(3)(l) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; an exception exists for offences which were illegal under international law at the time of commission.
See my comment on Ireland.
• Sweden - Retroactive penal sanctions and other retroactive legal effects of criminal acts due the State are prohibited by chapter 2, article 22, point 5 of the Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen). Retroactive taxes or charges are not prohibited but can only have retroactive effect reaching back to when a new taxbill was proposed by the government, the retoactive effect thus reaches from that time until the bill is passed by the parliament.
See my comment on South Africa. Also, this act doesn't cover tax law.
• United Kingdom - Ex post facto laws are permitted under the doctrine of the parliamentary sovereignty; in criminal law, however, ex post facto laws are prohibited by article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
So they are permitted in the UK? Or not? This is the only one I'm not sure about. I'd have to look into the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Why would you like to ban good ex post facto law in these nations, which aren't banning them?
I'm not. This act doesn't affect RL nations. http://209.85.48.9/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/me being a smartass]

I'm sorrybut you cannot ban something without a good explanation of why it should be banned, and I didn't read in this forum any explanation about why "good" expost facto laws have to be banned.
I'm still not certain that the type of laws you're talking about would be banned by this, or that they would be necessary or desirable even if it does ban them. Give me some hypothetical examples. I think all of the things that these "good" ex post facto laws would do can be done without the passage of any new laws whatsoever.

I think by "good ex post facto laws" he means when the punishment has been lessened since the committing of the crime, and I would like to point out that applying the lesser punishment is NOT ex post facto.

Roderick Spear
Blah of Blah
Yadda of Yadda

I really think there is difference between being "released" and not being a criminal anymore.

Furthermore "good" ex post facto laws are legal and don't pose any problem in many nations, including the one I live in RL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law



Why would you like to ban good ex post facto law in these nations, which aren't banning them?

I'm sorrybut you cannot ban something without a good explanation of why it should be banned, and I didn't read in this forum any explanation about why "good" expost facto laws have to be banned.

From the descriptions in the examples cited, it appears that France is the only nation in the mythical land of RL that specifically allows "good" ex post facto laws. Some of the others may, but that's unclear from the text. That's hardly a convincing argument.

People are punished for committing crimes. A crime is an act that violates a law. It is simple justice, as well as logic, to hold them accountable for acts which violate the law as it is at the time of the act. If the government later decides that the law should not have been as it was, sentences can be remitted, convictions expunged, and all sorts of other things done to remedy the situation. There is simply no need for legislation to go back and try to rewrite history, pretending that no crime had been committed.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Approved. Best of luck.

sentences can be remitted, convictions expunged,

It seems to me that this very sentence is retroactive, this is a fine example of "good ex post law". What you just say: "sentences can be remitted, convictions expunged", if done by law: retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts.

There are many dictatorship in the world with strange criminal laws (freedom of information, freedom of movement, of the examples I give before, alcohol, abortion...) and this proposal written as such, ban these nations to later decriminalize these people.


Also it seems to me that all the nations in my previous post, don't ban any retroactive law, just some retroactive laws, not all. It's why i think we don't have to ban all of them.

If you want to ban something, I think you have to have a better argument. I'm sorry but it seems to me that the proof that "good ex post law" are really a problem is on your side.

I think by "good ex post facto laws" he means when the punishment has been lessened since the committing of the crime, and I would like to point out that applying the lesser punishment is NOT ex post facto.

Why not, there would be no probem if the definition of "ex post facto laws" was not including in the definition, but the actual definition of thisproposal sadly includes "good ex post facto laws"

This proposal deals with laws that have retroactive elements, Remitting Sentences and conviction expunging are firstly not laws and therefore are not affected but are standard judicial administrative functions.

Approved without reservation. Well written and concise.

It seems to me that this very sentence is retroactive, this is a fine example of "good ex post law". What you just say: "sentences can be remitted, convictions expunged", if done by law: retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts.

There are many dictatorship in the world with strange criminal laws (freedom of information, freedom of movement, of the examples I give before, alcohol, abortion...) and this proposal written as such, ban these nations to later decriminalize these people.


Even though it's been pointed out repeatedly, the representative of Love and esterel seems either unable or unwilling to understand that there are many ways, besides the passage of ex post facto laws, to remove the effects of criminal convictions. You don't need to pass ex post facto laws to do that.

The resolution most certainly does not ban the removal of criminal convictions from records, the remission of sentences, or anything like that. There is a distinct and important difference between laws and actions which are taken by executive or judicial authorities under the law.

Patrick T, Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Even though it's been pointed out repeatedly, the representative of Love and esterel seems either unable or unwilling to understand that there are many ways, besides the passage of ex post facto laws, to remove the effects of criminal convictions. You don't need to pass ex post facto laws to do that.

The resolution most certainly does not ban the removal of criminal convictions from records, the remission of sentences, or anything like that. There is a distinct and important difference between laws and actions which are taken by executive or judicial authorities under the law.

Patrick T, Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Even though it's been pointed out repeatedly, the representative of Ausserland never answered me about why "good ex post facto laws" have to be banned in the 1st place.

Also, even if you may remove the remove the effects, It seems to me that removing the fact that a crime has been comitted is also important.

Furthermore, I mentionned many civil-rights-respective democracies IN RL, that don't ban ALL ex post facto laws. This can be sometimes included in their constitution, and you lack of respect for these constitution of many civil-rights-respective democracies, without explaining why this is so wrong is stunning.

Congrats! This should come up to vote right after QoD's Extraordinary Rendition, on Monday. Should prove to be an interesting debate, if nothing else.

Excellent! When can we begin the defenestrations?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

why "good ex post facto laws" have to be banned in the 1st place.
I'll answer that. they should be banned because it is absurd to rewrite history, even for "good" reasons. The desired effects of these "good" ex post facto laws can be achieved without the passage of further legislation.

It seems to me that removing the fact that a crime has been comitted is also important.
But a crime was committed. The act was illegal at the time it occurred. The normal process to remedy this situation is to repeal the law, pardon those who were convicted under it, and then expunge their records.

Furthermore, I mentionned many civil-rights-respective democracies IN RL, that don't ban ALL ex post facto laws. This can be sometimes included in their constitution, and you lack of respect for these constitution of many civil-rights-respective democracies, without explaining why this is so wrong is stunning.
On that list, the only ones I saw were RL France and RL UK. And it wasn't entirely clear in either case if ex post facto laws were actually used there.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

I'll answer that. they should be banned because it is absurd to rewrite history, even for "good" reasons. The desired effects of these "good" ex post facto laws can be achieved without the passage of further legislation.


But a crime was committed. The act was illegal at the time it occurred. The normal process to remedy this situation is to repeal the law, pardon those who were convicted under it, and then expunge their records.


On that list, the only ones I saw were RL France and RL UK. And it wasn't entirely clear in either case if ex post facto laws were actually used there.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Thanks for your answer, I will try to study this topic as to know why ban of "ex post facto" laws are in so many nations only limited to "punishment" or "criminal sanctions".

But please you absolutly cannot say that it is only limited as UK and France:
all these nations don't ban ex post facto laws in general!

Canada - ex post facto criminal laws are constitutionally prohibited

Germany - ...an act may only be punished if...

Italy - ...that "nobody can be punished...

Ireland - The imposition of retrospective criminal sanctions is prohibited...

South Africa - Prohibited in criminal law...

Sweden - Retroactive penal sanctions and other retroactive legal effects of criminal acts...

European Convention on Human Rights. Article 7 of the convention prohibits ex post facto criminal laws

I fully agree that I'm not an expert on the topic, but it seems to me that no oone here is, and I just think we have to be carefull to ban something in general, when it it's only banned in particular ("punishment" or "criminal sanctions") in so many civil-right-respective democracies (please have a look at the list up)

Furthermore, the argument that something can be banned, just because its desired "good effects" can be obtained otherwise, seems very week.

But please you absolutly cannot say that it is only limited as UK and France:
all these nations don't ban ex post facto laws in general!

Canada - ex post facto criminal laws are constitutionally prohibited

Germany - ...an act may only be punished if...

Italy - ...that "nobody can be punished...

Ireland - The imposition of retrospective criminal sanctions is prohibited...

South Africa - Prohibited in criminal law...

Sweden - Retroactive penal sanctions and other retroactive legal effects of criminal acts...

European Convention on Human Rights. Article 7 of the convention prohibits ex post facto criminal laws
Umm...all of those are examples of nations that do ban ex post facto laws.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

On that list, the only ones I saw were RL France and RL UK. And it wasn't entirely clear in either case if ex post facto laws were actually used there.


Even if in the UK it is technically possible to pass an ex facto law (except in criminal law), it would be extremely rare and undoubtedly they wouldn't do it due to the reaction it would generate. My understanding of UK law was that one of the presumptions of interpreting UK legislation was that it was not retrospective.

Congrats for quorum, and even if we not agree with the entire proposal LAE will of course vote FOR.

Umm...all of those are examples of nations that do ban ex post facto laws.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but those nations don't ban all ex post facto laws. You may consider that they ban all, only if you use a definition such as:

"an ex post facto law is one that retroactively criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed."

For the simplest possible solution, any nation that wishes to reduce sentences or release prisoners as a result of a changed law, they can fairly simply pardon them for release, or spontaneously decide to let them off early "for good behaviour", having realized that their initial behaviour that landed them in jail wasn't that bad after all.

Alternatively, realizing that whatever that person did was against the law at the time of commission, the government could decide that the lesson that needs to be taught is that breaking the law is a bad thing, whether they change their mind about that law at a later date or not.

For the simplest possible solution, any nation that wishes to reduce sentences or release prisoners as a result of a changed law, they can fairly simply pardon them for release, or spontaneously decide to let them off early "for good behaviour", having realized that their initial behaviour that landed them in jail wasn't that bad after all.

Alternatively, realizing that whatever that person did was against the law at the time of commission, the government could decide that the lesson that needs to be taught is that breaking the law is a bad thing, whether they change their mind about that law at a later date or not.

Alternatively, realizing that whatever against the law at the time of commission, what a person did was good, a government could decide that the lesson that needs to be taught is that they change their mind about that law, wheter or not that the action was breaking the law at the time of the commission.

Let's imagine that a law forbid to teach that the earth is not flat!
Let's imagine that a law punish people who hide jews for preventing them to be sent you guess where!
Let's imagine that a law punish you from practicing your peacefull religion, for being different than the national one or for just practicing a religion!

Both cases can happen (the alternative you mentionned AND the one I mentionned), and I'm really sad his proposal try to ban one of this 2 cases.

I see LAE's point.

A pardon and release and expunging of one's criminal record does not make up for their incarceration and carries the stigma of still being a criminal. Think RL Richard Nixon -- RL Gerald Ford pardoned him, but it did not remove the stigma from Nixon's legacy.

That said, however, I cannot imagine such a "good" ex post facto situation as being very common, barring a drastic change in governments, some new scientific, cultural or spiritual breakthrough, or some similar tectonic shift in a nation's sense of right and wrong.

In short, this resolution defends more than it antagonizes by an order of magnitude. May it pass without significant opposition.

I will try to bring more examples, here is one this proposal try to ban: (as I understand this proposal, please let me know if i'm wrong):

http://www.ajr.org.uk/claimsconf.htm

Recent Changes Affecting Survivors

Until now, provisions of the Germany Social Security Code (Section 306) have blocked survivors from receiving the Ghetto Pension if they were already receiving a small social security pension (such as the child rearing payments). But a recent ruling by Germany's Federal Social Court provides the basis for reassessing certain of these older pensions. Survivors who were awarded very small Social Security pensions prior to the 1997 establishment of the Ghetto Pension may now also file claims to the Ghetto Pension.

Applicants who do so before June 30, 2006 are entitled to retroactive payments to July 1997 if approved. Applications received after that date are retroactive back to the date of application.

Another one:

http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/?ISS=12621&PUBID=35&Page=10&SID=469220&SM=&SearchStr=

Germany: Germany-Switzerland tax treaty

In December 2001, the German and Swiss negotiating teams reached agreement on changes to the tax treaty between Switzerland and Germany. The official protocol, dated March 12 2002, has since been released. Certain changes are retroactive to January 1 2002.

Any alterations to the punishment/rehabilitation of a convict is a change in sentencing, not a change of law, retroactive or otherwise.

As for those who are released having some stigma attached to the fact that they were incarcerated....well, unless you wish to put forward some UN mandate about governments issuing public apologies and recompensing the wrongly imprisoned, there is not much that can be done about public opinion.

And realistically, Nixon was pardoned, but what he did was still considered criminal at the time of his pardoning. So yeah, a certain stigma will be attached to the criminal who gets to walk free.

In the scenarios involving WWII, see almost all of my previous comments in this debate. RELEASE THEM FROM PRISON. There is nothing in this bill that will prevent your government from deciding that these people have served enough time in prison, and releasing them with full pardons.

Changing the law and releasing prisoners do not have to go hand in hand. To assume that they are as interconnected as you are making them out to be is being unnecessarily pedantic. To try to compare any rational government to Nazi Germany is needlessly irrational. To hold to these points, refusing to concede that your opposition has already satisfied them is irrationally belligerent.

I will try to bring more examples, here is one this proposal try to ban: (as I understand this proposal, please let me know if i'm wrong):

http://www.ajr.org.uk/claimsconf.htm



Another one:

http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/?ISS=12621&PUBID=35&Page=10&SID=469220&SM=&SearchStr=

You are wrong. A law with retroactive provisions is not necessarily an ex post facto law. Try reading the definition in the proposal again and you should see that the first example is not an ex post facto law under that definition.

As for the second example, a treaty is not a law.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You are wrong. A law with retroactive provisions is not necessarily an ex post facto law. Try reading the definition in the proposal again and you should see that the first example is not an ex post facto law under that definition.

As for the second example, a treaty is not a law.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

It seems to m that my 2 examples retroactively changes the legal status of facts. But I may of course be wrong and I would be very gratefull to you if you explain me where I' wrong, thanks you in advance.

I think using this definition can solve this problem:

"an ex post facto law is one that retroactively criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed."

Any alterations to the punishment/rehabilitation of a convict is a change in sentencing, not a change of law, retroactive or otherwise.

As for those who are released having some stigma attached to the fact that they were incarcerated....well, unless you wish to put forward some UN mandate about governments issuing public apologies and recompensing the wrongly imprisoned, there is not much that can be done about public opinion.

And realistically, Nixon was pardoned, but what he did was still considered criminal at the time of his pardoning. So yeah, a certain stigma will be attached to the criminal who gets to walk free.

In the scenarios involving WWII, see almost all of my previous comments in this debate. RELEASE THEM FROM PRISON. There is nothing in this bill that will prevent your government from deciding that these people have served enough time in prison, and releasing them with full pardons.

Changing the law and releasing prisoners do not have to go hand in hand. To assume that they are as interconnected as you are making them out to be is being unnecessarily pedantic. To try to compare any rational government to Nazi Germany is needlessly irrational. To hold to these points, refusing to concede that your opposition has already satisfied them is irrationally belligerent.

I'm sorry but once again, Idon't find in your argumentation, any indices about why "retroactive law" that don't criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed have to be banned.

I think when dealing with legislation you have to supply a strong argument to explain a ban, why this is bad?. Maybe there is one argument as such, but once again, all those expressed in this thread don't qualify, sorry.

*snip the good stuff*
To hold to these points, refusing to concede that your opposition has already satisfied them is irrationally belligerent.

And you were doing so well.

More belligerent still is to unilaterally declare that someone's arguments have been successfully satisfied when you have no basis to make that judgement for anyone but yourself.

I almost never agree with LAE, and I don't really agree now, but I refuse to stand by and let arrogant presumption stifle the debate on this issue.

That said, however, you are absolutely correct when you point out that laws which have retroactive provisions are IN NO WAY ex post facto. Ex post facto is a SPECIFIC situation wherein someone is subject to legal punishment because of a law that was enacted AFTER THE FACT of the commission of whatever act is being so criminalized. Example: I burn the flag. This starts a rash of flag burnings, so the legislature passes a law making that practice illegal. If I am punished under that new law for an act that was not illegal two years ago, I am being punished after the fact (ex post facto).

That has no connection to laws that make retroactive payment to those qualified by a new law, nor does it require clemency or amnesty for those whose crimes were committed before a new law decriminalizes their crime.

In short, I would plead that: LAE should read and learn -- if you still aren't clear about what this issue is about, please do some research. Further, I would plead that Kivisto convince instead of condemn -- it does nobody a service to label them as irrational when they are unclear on the concept.

And you were doing so well.

More belligerent still is to unilaterally declare that someone's arguments have been successfully satisfied when you have no basis to make that judgement for anyone but yourself.

I almost never agree with LAE, and I don't really agree now, but I refuse to stand by and let arrogant presumption stifle the debate on this issue.

That said, however, you are absolutely correct when you point out that laws which have retroactive provisions are IN NO WAY ex post facto. Ex post facto is a SPECIFIC situation wherein someone is subject to legal punishment because of a law that was enacted AFTER THE FACT of the commission of whatever act is being so criminalized. Example: I burn the flag. This starts a rash of flag burnings, so the legislature passes a law making that practice illegal. If I am punished under that new law for an act that was not illegal two years ago, I am being punished after the fact (ex post facto).

That has no connection to laws that make retroactive payment to those qualified by a new law, nor does it require clemency or amnesty for those whose crimes were committed before a new law decriminalizes their crime.

In short, I would plead that: LAE should read and learn -- if you still aren't clear about what this issue is about, please do some research. Further, I would plead that Kivisto convince instead of condemn -- it does nobody a service to label them as irrational when they are unclear on the concept.

In short, it seems to me you mean that:

"an ex post facto law is one that retroactively criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed."

and that the defnition of "ex post facto laws" in this proposal is not the good one.

LAE has said several time in this forum that we there would have been no problem with this kind of definition.
The problem with this proposal written as such, is that it is banning MORE than the definition of ex post facto law you provided, as the used definition is broader.

OOC: This is going to be a rather confusing debate, and I would urge everyone to show patience with those who may not be familiar with the concept of ex post facto laws. Best case: when it's over a lot of people will hopefully have learned something about a legal concept that they may not have been familiar with. Worst case: when it's over we'll all be so confused and frustrated that none of us will be certain what an ex post facto law is and will conclude that it is a subject that is best not thought about, much less discussed.

I think this is a subject that many Americans are probably going to be familiar with. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution, but the term isn't defined there. The discussion of it always comes up in civics classes, US History, etc..It is an odd phrase that sort of looks out of place there in Article I sections 9 and 10, so it catches peoples eyes and teachers always end up devoting some time to explaining just what these ex post facto laws are and why they are bad.

I'm not sure how familiar non-Americans will be with the concept, but most Americans should have at least a vague understanding of it and a general idea that ex post facto laws should be prohibited. Of course I may be wildly off-base with that prediction and it may turn out that Europeans, Canadians, Australians and others will have a firm grasp on what ex post facto laws are and firm opposition to them. It may be Americans who come in here screaming "ex post facto laws are necessary, we must have them!"

As it was taught to me -- mind you, this was 1986 -- the British would exert control over their American colonies in many ways: the army, the navy, taxes, excises, etc. When a colonist would find a loophole around British laws and manage to do something the British didn't want him to do, one of the things the British magistrates would see to was the passage of a law closing the loophole AND prosecuting those who'd discovered and used it, even though it was not illegal at the time they'd discovered it.

The colonists were being punished by a law prohibiting something after the fact (in Latin, the language of law, that's ex post facto) of the something's occurrence.

It goes something like this. You're a kid and you've never gotten in trouble for, say, jumping on the couch, you've been doing it for years. Then suddenly, out of the blue, Mom hauls off and smacks you upside the head for it, and continues smacking you for every time you've done it in the past. Suddenly, that which wasn't bad (illegal) now is, and you're paying the price for doing it even back when it wasn't bad.

What the British did in the colonies was much more complicated, but the basic principle of changing the rules is still there. In this case, it's changing the rules in order to punish someone for something that no rules had spoken to before then. It's bad because it's tantamount to using the law and legislation as a tool of revenge against someone who (until revolution) has no choice but to obey the laws you dictate. Sort of a "Loophole OUR laws, will you? Well it's illegal now, and you'll hang for those times you did it before the law was passed" kind of thing. Unfair, basically.

OOC: <snipped for brevity>

I'm not sure how familiar non-Americans will be with the concept, but most Americans should have at least a vague understanding of it and a general idea that ex post facto laws should be prohibited. Of course I may be wildly off-base with that prediction and it may turn out that Europeans, Canadians, Australians and others will have a firm grasp on what ex post facto laws are and firm opposition to them. It may be Americans who come in here screaming "ex post facto laws are necessary, we must have them!"

This particular American won't be, that's for sure. Excuse me while I go off and grumble about nations making their own damn domestic laws.

OOC: This is going to be a rather confusing debate, and I would urge everyone to show patience with those who may not be familiar with the concept of ex post facto laws. Best case: when it's over a lot of people will hopefully have learned something about a legal concept that they may not have been familiar with. Worst case: when it's over we'll all be so confused and frustrated that none of us will be certain what an ex post facto law is and will conclude that it is a subject that is best not thought about, much less discussed.

I think this is a subject that many Americans are probably going to be familiar with. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution, but the term isn't defined there. The discussion of it always comes up in civics classes, US History, etc..It is an odd phrase that sort of looks out of place there in Article I sections 9 and 10, so it catches peoples eyes and teachers always end up devoting some time to explaining just what these ex post facto laws are and why they are bad.

I'm not sure how familiar non-Americans will be with the concept, but most Americans should have at least a vague understanding of it and a general idea that ex post facto laws should be prohibited. Of course I may be wildly off-base with that prediction and it may turn out that Europeans, Canadians, Australians and others will have a firm grasp on what ex post facto laws are and firm opposition to them. It may be Americans who come in here screaming "ex post facto laws are necessary, we must have them!"

It now seems to me that there are 2 different possible definitions of what "ex post facto law" is.

The 1st one as defined in your proposal:
one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed;

and the second, similar to the one bring by Intangelon:
"an ex post facto law is one that retroactively criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed."

It seems to me that you, I and, it seems to me, those engaged in this discussion, fully agree on the ban using the 2nd definition.

And then, it's important to notice that there are some "good" laws with retractive effects wich fit into the 1st definition, but not the 2nd. and that no argument was stated, so far in this forum, against these "good" retroactive laws.

http://www.ajr.org.uk/claimsconf.htm
http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/?ISS=12621&PUBID=35&Page=10&SID=469220&SM=&SearchStr=

My whole point since the start of this thread few weeks ago is to ask, please, to stick the ban to what fit into the 2nd definition, without banning all retroactive laws, whatever the definition used, by either:
-changing the definition, or
-changing clause II.

That say, I'm really sorry, if there is indeed a confusion about this definition in the RL US, I share Yelda's analysis that this confusion may be what caused our present debate.

I'm also sorry if I didn't achieve to express this in a more easier way before, and would like also to agree with Yelda, that this topic is really important.

Just a quick apology. In my latest post, which I just reread, I got rather carried away, and I'm not really sure why. No disrespect or offence was intended towards anyone. I'll refresh my statements after I've reviewed the arguments thus far to ensure that I'm not sounding overly foolish.

http://www.ajr.org.uk/claimsconf.htm
http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/?ISS=12621&PUBID=35&Page=10&SID=469220&SM=&SearchStr=
Those aren't laws.

Needless to say, I'll be starting a new thread before this goes to vote. Hopefully the current discussion will have run its course by then.

Those aren't laws.

I agree that the 1st one is not a law, my fault, sorry. About the 2nd one I donno.
But that doesn't change the ambiguity about the definition and the burden of the proof against "good ex post law" fort hose wanting to ban them.

The second one, being a treaty, is a treaty. Laws are not treaties, much as cats are not dogs. So far, I have yet to see an example of a "good" ex-post facto law. You've offered plenty of treaties and conferences, but no actual laws.

Even setting aside the aparent non-existance of "good" ex-post facto laws, you're ignoring the fact that they aren't necessary. Anything that a "good" ex-post facto could do, could be done through other means.

Exactly. If I read LAE correctly, what he (she? I've never asked...) is calling "good" EPF laws are, in fact, laws with retroactive provisions beneficial for the class of person referred to within those laws (a reinstatement of a previously canceled pension plan, for example, that restores benefits retroactive to the date it was canceled).

EPF laws are specifically designed to punish people for doing something that those passing (or supporting) the law don't like but couldn't punish before a law criminalizing it was passed. Say there's no law against weed in your country. A member of the newly-elected majority party comes to a gathering at your house at which there's free weed and gets a contact high he doesn't like and has a really bad time. He goes back to the capitol and ramrods a law banning weed passed a week later. If he then has you arrested for possession of a banned substance because he was a witness to your party (a week before the law was enacted), that's ex post facto, and that's what this proposal would make illegal.

So it isn't really banning any laws in and of themselves, rather it's banning prosecution for acts which were committed before they became illegal.

I really hope that's it, 'cause I'm spent.