NationStates Jolt Archive

The text of this Resolution has changed considerably since it was originally posted, so I decided that a new thread with the text that will be voted on in the first post might help avoid some confusion This will be the official discussion thread.
No Ex Post Facto Laws

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Yelda

Description: 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.
The old thread can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510776

We will be proudly supporting this legislative endeavour. Our congratulations to the noble and cheesy people of Yelda on getting to to quorum.

-- Coriolanus Digweed
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

OOC: Psst...you made it a multivote.

OOC: Psst...you made it a multivote.
OOC: I meant too.

OOC: Okay. Just making sure. (I've accidentally made polls multivotes many times.)

Not exactly sure if you worded that correctly, but your proposal seems pretty sound. I'll vote for it.

LAE Vote FOR, but we fully regret that this proposal ban more than for what it can povide arguments.

This proposal only provides arguments to ban laws that retroactively criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed.

But this proposal ban all retroactive laws, even those that don't retroactively criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed.

LAE Vote FOR, but we fully regret that this proposal ban more than for what it can povide arguments.

This proposal only provides arguments to ban laws that retroactively criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed.

But this proposal ban all retroactive laws, even those that don't retroactively criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed.

The representative of Love and esterel states he's voting for the proposal. We can only assume he hopes it passes. We wonder then, why he continues to beat the dead horse about allegedly "good" ex post facto laws. That can only hurt the proposal's chances of passage.

For heaven's sake, please give it a rest!

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We have had much difficulty in formulating a stance on this proposal, and I have had to commune with the higher echelons of the Emperor's government to come to a conclusion.

The idea of Ex Pos Facto laws is a new one to the Empire. Our sovereignty operates on the unshakins principle of the Emperor's divine infallibilty, and all authority derives from his personage. His decrees are immutable, his will inscrutable, and his judgment fair, just, and righteous. From a purely theological standpoint, ex post facto laws are possible with the Imperial Will, for as the manifestation of heaven he is incapable of erring, and thus capable of punishing any for committing crimes, whether committed during a time of legality or not. This was the case with past Emperors.

However, our current Emperor does not share this absolutist view. The Grand Privy Council has debated, and though conservative elements (who had, incidentally, been responsible for the elimination of our nation's only democratic body), sought to advance their own agenda, the Emperor himself set their opinions aside.

In his own divine words, he stated that it was a travesty to condemn those who had done acts legal at the time of committance, and to condemn them after the fact would be neither righteous nor holy. We do not further wish to burden this body with the higher politics or religious discussions, therefore I will cut to the chase.

By the divine word of the Emperor himself, I have been instructed to vote FOR this resolution.

Most courteously,

Is the Resolution basically saying that a criminal's acts can't be punished by any laws that came into existence after those acts were performed?

If so, the Constitutional Monarchy of Daffolia strongly disagrees. When laws are changed it is because they are an improvement to the original ones, and when they are added it's because they are needed to make your nation a better place. So why should the criminal be punished by laws that were seen as not good enough?

Is the Resolution basically saying that a criminal's acts can't be punished by any laws that came into existence after those acts were performed?

If so, the Constitutional Monarchy of Daffolia strongly disagrees. When laws are changed it is because they are an improvement to the original ones, and when they are added it's because they are needed to make your nation a better place. So why should the criminal be punished by laws that were seen as not good enough?

Glad you could ask... Imagine a nation that has unusually relaxed gun laws, we'll call this nation Nation A. A citizen of this nation, Call this guy Citizen B, Citizen B legitamately and legally buys a gun. However another citizen, Citizen C comiitted some sort of atrocity with a Gun. Nation A puts in place laws that make guns harder to purchase and Citizen B would now be breaking the law if the same transaction occured now.

Is it right for Citizen B to be charged and convicted under the new gun laws that were not in force at time? There was no action that broke the law so there was no action that should be punished under the law.

Durko seldom agrees with "Human Rights" proposals, but we do agree with this one.

Hmm I know that this issue has most likely been addressed but what about criminal cases that where decided before the No Ex Post Facto Laws were inacted?

Not that this isn't an interesting piece of legislation but I believe that as new information about crime and crime prevention becomes available it should have the possibility to be applied to criminal acts that have already been under the scrutiny of the law. Doing that of course would require a second hearing in a court of law in order to fully map the present consequences of applying the new law to each criminal case.

That remark only makes us want to see a prohibition of double jeopardy reenacted by this body. Convicted criminals should only be granted a new trial if and when they request it, on the basis of new evidence that could prove their innocence. We see no international justification for allowing member states to try criminals twice or retroactively stiffen their penalties. It is in the interests of the United Nations to ensure a modicum of fairness in judicial proceedings.

Unless of course the accused is an Xt'Tapolopaquetl militant; in which case hurl the book at them as hard and as often as necessary.

That remark only makes us want to see a prohibition of double jeopardy reenacted by this body. Convicted criminals should only be granted a new trial if and when they request it, on the basis of new evidence that could prove their innocence. We see no international justification for allowing member states to try criminals twice or retroactively stiffen their penalties. It is in the interests of the United Nations to ensure a modicum of fairness in judicial proceedings.

Unless of course the accused is an Xt'Tapolopaquetl militant; in which case hurl the book at them as hard and as often as necessary.

And I agree, mostly, that one should not have their sentence extended at the whim of the government or those who despise them for commiting their crime. But at the same time your law, from my perspective, states that no new lawsuit can come to bear whether it is intended to reduce their sentence or re-afirm their guilt in that or several other crimes that they may have commited.

But in the cases of individuals who commited crimes in the past that were overlooked by the law or simply hid until the statute of limitations on their crimes went out. There is little in this No Ex Post Facto Law that would allow criminals to be brought to have their crimes brought under the scrutiny of the law after a certain ammount of time has past allowing them to commit even more crimes with virtually no fear of reprisal from their governing bodies.

Hmm I know that this issue has most likely been addressed but what about criminal cases that where decided before the No Ex Post Facto Laws were inacted?

Not that this isn't an interesting piece of legislation but I believe that as new information about crime and crime prevention becomes available it should have the possibility to be applied to criminal acts that have already been under the scrutiny of the law. Doing that of course would require a second hearing in a court of law in order to fully map the present consequences of applying the new law to each criminal case.

We think there's a confusion here between an ex post facto law and double jeopardy. Let's see if we can un-confuse things:

Ex post facto law: You do something. It's not a crime. It's perfectly legal. Months later, the government passes a law that makes what you did illegal, and it's an ex post facto law. They arrest you, try you, and toss you in prison -- even though what you did was perfectly legal when you did it.

Double jeopardy: You commit a crime. What you do is illegal. You're arrested and tried, but acquitted because there's not enough evidence. Later, they arrest you and try you again for the same offense, hoping to get a conviction this time.

This resolution deals strictly with ex post facto laws. It has nothing to do with double jeopardy.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We think there's a confusion here between an ex post facto law and double jeopardy. Let's see if we can un-confuse things:

Ex post facto law: You do something. It's not a crime. It's perfectly legal. Months later, the government passes a law that makes what you did illegal, and it's an ex post facto law. They arrest you, try you, and toss you in prison -- even though what you did was perfectly legal when you did it.

Double jeopardy: You commit a crime. What you do is illegal. You're arrested and tried, but acquitted because there's not enough evidence. Later, they arrest you and try you again for the same offense, hoping to get a conviction this time.

This resolution deals strictly with ex post facto laws. It has nothing to do with double jeopardy.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thank you for that clarification. But I still see a deficiancy in this law. Namely that a crime which was overlooked by a government because it was never an issue before and thus hadn't needed to be illegal at the time it was first commited openly, individuals commiting these types of crimes would be free as long as they were able to delay laws long enough so that their government had no legal reason, under the no ex post facto law, to prosecute them even though they and virtually everyone else knew that the crime and its commission were immoral even when it was legal.

I am still new to the political stage but I don't believe I am wrong in this view.

As to the representative of Ausserland's comment on Ex Post Facto laws, I would like to bring up the unfortunate case of Mister Sinister within our own country, but in opposing regard to Ausserland's definition.

Mr. Sinster was an oil company owner that was imprisoned in Matianus in the 70's for having drugs with intent to sell them (a formerly very, very serious crime; the jury actually considered the death penalty). He was found guilty and sent to imprisonment for three durations of his lifespan (As he was in his forties at the time, 150 years). Recently, it has been brought to Matianus' citizens awareness that drugs aren't that bad, and they've been meandering about trying to figure out a way to repeal the laws pertaining to the harsh sentencing of criminalized druggies. Should they meander longer than it would take for this resolution to pass, Mister Sinister would be unaffected entirely and would, despite the recent lessening of the punishment, sit in jail for the remainer of his sentence. That is because all ex post facto laws will have been nullified, making any law that attempts to reduce the harshness of Mr. Sinister's sentence void and illegal--internationally speaking.

But that is the long way of explaining things. The short way is not much shorter: The focus of this issue has, thus far, been laws imposed on the public after the legal event took place. However, Ex Post Facto laws cover both ends of the spectrum, including laws that attempt to impose themselves on the public after the illegal event took place. It would be wise to note this for future debate.

Despite our similar concerns with LAE on the subject, we are included to vote in favor of the resolution. We also feel that Ausserland should stop chiding people who are "beating a dead horse"* when they are bringing a valid point through the door with them. It makes Big Brother feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Jach Al' Mutin
Little Brother and President of Matianus.

Citing:We wonder then, why [LAE] continues to beat the dead horse about allegedly "good" ex post facto laws. That can only hurt the proposal's chances of passage.

For heaven's sake, please give it a rest!

How in the world can you propose a resolution to repeal ex Post Facto laws that contains an ex post facto clause?!!! :headbang:

(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.

I'm afraid that anyone who truly support the repael of ex post facto laws would have to vote AGAINST this resolution which uses ex post facto clauses to acheive it's purpose.

I voted AGAINST based on that principle.

Mr. Sinster was an oil company owner that was imprisoned in Matianus in the 70's for having drugs with intent to sell them (a formerly very, very serious crime; the jury actually considered the death penalty). He was found guilty and sent to imprisonment for three durations of his lifespan (As he was in his forties at the time, 150 years). Recently, it has been brought to Matianus' citizens awareness that drugs aren't that bad, and they've been meandering about trying to figure out a way to repeal the laws pertaining to the harsh sentencing of criminalized druggies. Should they meander longer than it would take for this resolution to pass, Mister Sinister would be unaffected entirely and would, despite the recent lessening of the punishment, sit in jail for the remainer of his sentence. That is because all ex post facto laws will have been nullified, making any law that attempts to reduce the harshness of Mr. Sinister's sentence void and illegal--internationally speaking.

But that is the long way of explaining things. The short way is not much shorter: The focus of this issue has, thus far, been laws imposed on the public after the legal event took place. However, Ex Post Facto laws cover both ends of the spectrum, including laws that attempt to impose themselves on the public after the illegal event took place. It would be wise to note this for future debate.You and LAE never heard of clemency? What about pardoning?

How in the world can you propose a resolution to repeal ex Post Facto laws that contains an ex post facto clause?!!! :headbang:



I'm afraid that anyone who truly support the repael of ex post facto laws would have to vote AGAINST this resolution which uses ex post facto clauses to acheive it's purpose.

I voted AGAINST based on that principle.

How else do you propose we get rid of ex post facto laws? Sometimes we have to sacrifice principle for results. There is no actual harm done by that clause.

Thaddeus son of Hiram son of Isus son of Simon son of Ignatius son of Samuel son of Corbin son of Edward son of Ogden
The Free Land of Eisophca

You and LAE never heard of clemency? What about pardoning?Frankly, Matianus has existed in a precarious position, legally speaking, for decades. The people decide what laws they dislike and repeal them and leave the rest as they are. If I were to walk to certain people, convicted by the populace, and declare that their crimes are forgiven or lessened by the state, the populace would be in uproar and I might have an insurrection that I would be forced to put down or pacify. Because of this, Matianus does not grant pardons to any criminals of the state (a matter of law now, which the populace isn't likely to repeal any time soon. They're also the only ones who can). So no, Matianus has never legally heard of clemency or pardoning.

Well, uh, I don't think this resolution was written with anarchies in mind.

According to the forum, the Federal Republic voted against. Do forgive the error on our part, as we see no real problems with this intitative.

I'm afraid that anyone who truly support the repael of ex post facto laws would have to vote AGAINST this resolution which uses ex post facto clauses to acheive it's purpose.

We would encourage the representative of Lermany to look at it this way. The clause in question is not punishing anyone after the fact for something they did that was legal at the time; it is setting aside ex post facto punishments that, by any standard of decency, should never have been enacted in the first place. The overall effect of the entire resolution is to ban ex post facto punishments entirely. Hopefully, your delegation will consider it in this light, see the merits of what it will do, and change your vote to one for the resolution.

And as we have previously stated, Altanar supports this resolution and will vote for it. Ex post facto laws are offensive to simple decency.

Well, uh, I don't think this resolution was written with anarchies in mind.The case we brought forth was done so to emphasize the other, ignored aspect of ex post facto laws.

Also, I wouldn't easily call Matianus an anarchistic state as there are firmly placed rules, police, and a military which serves to protect the people (in fact, the UN refers to Matianus as a Corrupt Dictatorship, which my family--err, advisors are sure to strongly disagree with). Just because Matianus' legal system defers from your own doesn't mean that we are immediately an anarchy. I could, if I wanted to, pardon people. It would be illegal of me, but I could do it, and when a mob organizes itself in revolt to the government's "oppression of the people's rights" comes along, I can use the military to do just that. It would be a regretable thing that would require my nation's resignation from the UN for legal reasons, but it would be possible.

How in the world can you propose a resolution to repeal ex Post Facto laws that contains an ex post facto clause?!!! :headbang:

"(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."

I'm afraid that anyone who truly support the repael of ex post facto laws would have to vote AGAINST this resolution which uses ex post facto clauses to acheive it's purpose.

I voted AGAINST based on that principle.

It seems to me also that as defined in this proposal, clause III of this proposal is an "ex post facto law".

How else do you propose we get rid of ex post facto laws? Sometimes we have to sacrifice principle for results. There is no actual harm done by that clause.

Thaddeus son of Hiram son of Isus son of Simon son of Ignatius son of Samuel son of Corbin son of Edward son of Ogden
The Free Land of Eisophca

As was suggested for weeks in the drafting thread, there are 2 options to do that:
-modify the definition, such as:
"an ex post facto law is one that retroactively criminalizes or punishes more severely acts done before the law was passed."
-replace "provisions" in clause II, by "charges/punishment/sentence"

The representative of Love and esterel states he's voting for the proposal. We can only assume he hopes it passes. We wonder then, why he continues to beat the dead horse about allegedly "good" ex post facto laws. That can only hurt the proposal's chances of passage.

For heaven's sake, please give it a rest!

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We didn't notice any dead horse, the odds of this proposal to pass is pretty high anyway even with it flaws and I don't see any contradition for being for a proposal without agreeing 100% with it and expressing why.

You and LAE never heard of clemency? What about pardoning?

Donno what you mean, but LAE had posted for weeks in this forum against the ban, by this proposal, of clemency done for the "legislative power".

I would like to announce a hopeful FOR vote from myself. Paradica's government feels that ex post facto laws are an abomination. Prime Minister George Strong did in fact intend to submit a constitution amendment banning ex post facto laws to the Paradican Senate, although he has stopped that as he knows of this proposal.

Roderick Spear
UN Ambassador for Paradica
UN Delegate of Charis (for a week)

Referring to this resolution's apparent fault revealed by Matianus using the Mr. Sinster example, even if a law is repealed, anyone who had carried out an action that was against the law at the time (in this case, Mr. Sinster's possession of drugs with intent to sell) is still liable for his/her crimes.

The reason why people are imprisoned is for breaking the law in the first place. To free someone just because the law no longer exists is sending contradicting messages.

Basically, my point is, we imprison people not because of the action, but because the action was illegal. If the action was illegal when it was carried out, then no matter what the status of the law now, the perpetrator is still guilty of breaking the law.

Long story short: The United Socialist States of Korbonis will vote FOR this resolution.

Hmm I know that this issue has most likely been addressed but what about criminal cases that where decided before the No Ex Post Facto Laws were inacted?

Not that this isn't an interesting piece of legislation but I believe that as new information about crime and crime prevention becomes available it should have the possibility to be applied to criminal acts that have already been under the scrutiny of the law. Doing that of course would require a second hearing in a court of law in order to fully map the present consequences of applying the new law to each criminal case.

Not really. If you're talking about surveillance of an action which isn't yet a crime, but is associated or linked to criminal activity (assuming such surveillance is legal under some sort of "probable cause" or surveilance law), you could arrest the person being watched IF the new law is passed making that person's actions illegal. Your hypothesis is slightly flawed because in it, you say "...criminal acts that have already been under the scrutiny of the law", which is contradictory to the situation. Whatever action is under scrutiny isn't criminal YET, until the new law passes, right?

And I agree, mostly, that one should not have their sentence extended at the whim of the government or those who despise them for commiting their crime. But at the same time your law, from my perspective, states that no new lawsuit can come to bear whether it is intended to reduce their sentence or re-afirm their guilt in that or several other crimes that they may have commited.

Reducing sentences is usually done via the pardon or parole process. Anyone jailed for a crime before a new law lessens the time spent in jail for that crime can have their sentence commuted without the need for legislation. Executive privilege/judicial review.

But in the cases of individuals who commited crimes in the past that were overlooked by the law or simply hid until the statute of limitations on their crimes went out. There is little in this No Ex Post Facto Law that would allow criminals to be brought to have their crimes brought under the scrutiny of the law after a certain ammount of time has past allowing them to commit even more crimes with virtually no fear of reprisal from their governing bodies.

You're confusing ex post facto with "statute of limitations." Again, if it isn't a crime (yet) the statute of limitations doesn't apply. You either need to clarify this complaint with a better example or admit that it's weightless. If I am doing something known to be illegal and the statute passes, then yes, I can't be tried for it. But if what I'm doing isn't illegal, there's no need for me to wait until the statute passes.

Thank you for that clarification. But I still see a deficiancy in this law. Namely that a crime which was overlooked by a government because it was never an issue before and thus hadn't needed to be illegal at the time it was first commited openly, individuals commiting these types of crimes would be free as long as they were able to delay laws long enough so that their government had no legal reason, under the no ex post facto law, to prosecute them even though they and virtually everyone else knew that the crime and its commission were immoral even when it was legal.

I am still new to the political stage but I don't believe I am wrong in this view.

"Never an issue before" -- does that mean that there's no law against it, or that there is a law, but nobody's bothered to enforce it for years? If there's never been a law, that's not the fault of the ones who commit the act, unless they commit it AFTER the law passes. "Hadn't needed to be illegal" is more of an opinion than a legal precedent. If it needed to be illegal, it would have been made so, one would assume, so long as the legislative/popular will was there to enact such a law. The statute of limitations applies, no matter when the law was passed (seven years from date of commission of the act is still seven years, regardless of whether the law against it was passed three centuries ago or next week). Waiting for the statute to expire is not a new concept that this resolution exacerbates.

As to the representative of Ausserland's comment on Ex Post Facto laws, I would like to bring up the unfortunate case of Mister Sinister within our own country, but in opposing regard to Ausserland's definition.

Mr. Sinster was an oil company owner that was imprisoned in Matianus in the 70's for having drugs with intent to sell them (a formerly very, very serious crime; the jury actually considered the death penalty). He was found guilty and sent to imprisonment for three durations of his lifespan (As he was in his forties at the time, 150 years). Recently, it has been brought to Matianus' citizens awareness that drugs aren't that bad, and they've been meandering about trying to figure out a way to repeal the laws pertaining to the harsh sentencing of criminalized druggies. Should they meander longer than it would take for this resolution to pass, Mister Sinister would be unaffected entirely and would, despite the recent lessening of the punishment, sit in jail for the remainer of his sentence. That is because all ex post facto laws will have been nullified, making any law that attempts to reduce the harshness of Mr. Sinister's sentence void and illegal--internationally speaking.

But that is the long way of explaining things. The short way is not much shorter: The focus of this issue has, thus far, been laws imposed on the public after the legal event took place. However, Ex Post Facto laws cover both ends of the spectrum, including laws that attempt to impose themselves on the public after the illegal event took place. It would be wise to note this for future debate.

*snip*


You've lost me. You don't need a law to reduce the harshness of a previously imposed penalty. That's what clemency, paroles and pardons are for. Mr. Sinister, upon applying for parole or through other legal channels (assuming such are available) could appeal his sentence or use the new law to aid in his petition for early release. This resolution does not affect, in any way, your nation's judicial will in reducing sentences or pardoning offenders. I've not done any research and have no links for this, but the decision to pardon or commute folks who were jailed under the RLUSA's 18th Amendment (alcohol prohibition) once the 21st (repeal of prohibition) was passed wasn't up to the legislative branch (and it wasn't even in the amendment itself), but the judicial.

How in the world can you propose a resolution to repeal ex Post Facto laws that contains an ex post facto clause?!!! :headbang:

Relax. I see no ex post facto clause. Could you delineate how Article III could be interpreted itself as ex post facto?

I'm afraid that anyone who truly support the repael of ex post facto laws would have to vote AGAINST this resolution which uses ex post facto clauses to acheive it's purpose.

I voted AGAINST based on that principle.

All Article III does is require anyone jailed under a law passed after the commission of a previously-legal act be released. This is not ex post facto, it's a redress of a grievous injustice. It's a law along the same lines as those passed after the RL Holocaust, which granted redress to survivors and their heirs.

Of course, you're always free to vote as you see fit, but perhaps I am unclear as to your obections.


Benjamin Royce
Intangible UN Minister

We need to vote against the current UN proposition, for we cannot control our people if we may not arrest them for terrorist acts which are not currently legislated by our laws.

Before the Ontario Parliament can form a stance on this issue, two clarifications are necessary.

Consider the following two scenarios.

(1) Citizen Y is in prison, given a life sentence for sodomy. A more liberal government comes to power and legalizes homosexuality. If this resolution passes, does citizen Y still have to serve a life sentence?

(2) Suppose a dictator legalizes killing members of a particular minority group, and citizen X takes advantage of this new liberty with great gusto and enthusiasm. The government collapses and a new democratic one is put in its place, which is appalled by the atrocities committed under the former dictator and wishes to try those responsible. If this resolution passes, does citizen X get away scot free?

As to the representative of Ausserland's comment on Ex Post Facto laws, I would like to bring up the unfortunate case of Mister Sinister within our own country, but in opposing regard to Ausserland's definition.

Mr. Sinster was an oil company owner that was imprisoned in Matianus in the 70's for having drugs with intent to sell them (a formerly very, very serious crime; the jury actually considered the death penalty). He was found guilty and sent to imprisonment for three durations of his lifespan (As he was in his forties at the time, 150 years). Recently, it has been brought to Matianus' citizens awareness that drugs aren't that bad, and they've been meandering about trying to figure out a way to repeal the laws pertaining to the harsh sentencing of criminalized druggies. Should they meander longer than it would take for this resolution to pass, Mister Sinister would be unaffected entirely and would, despite the recent lessening of the punishment, sit in jail for the remainer of his sentence. That is because all ex post facto laws will have been nullified, making any law that attempts to reduce the harshness of Mr. Sinister's sentence void and illegal--internationally speaking.

We'd point out to the honorable representative that there are many ways of providing relief to Mr. Sinster, should your government decide to do so after passage of this resolution. There's executive clemency, remission of sentence, pardons, etc. There is simply no need to have a law do it.

But that is the long way of explaining things. The short way is not much shorter: The focus of this issue has, thus far, been laws imposed on the public after the legal event took place. However, Ex Post Facto laws cover both ends of the spectrum, including laws that attempt to impose themselves on the public after the illegal event took place. It would be wise to note this for future debate.

We apologize, but we really can't understand this. Could we ask the representative to please clarify?

Despite our similar concerns with LAE on the subject, we are included to vote in favor of the resolution. We also feel that Ausserland should stop chiding people who are "beating a dead horse"* when they are bringing a valid point through the door with them. It makes Big Brother feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Jach Al' Mutin
Little Brother and President of Matianus.

Citing:

We chided our firend and colleague from Love and esterel because he made post after post in the drafting thread making this same point. He failed to convince the author and others who were involved with the resolution. To keep harping on it now simply lessens the chances of the resolution's passage. And, according to his vote, he supports it. We fully appreciate the good intentions of the representative of Love and esterel. We simply question the logic of raising objections to a resolution you support.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I'm afraid that anyone who truly support the repael of ex post facto laws would have to vote AGAINST this resolution which uses ex post facto clauses to acheive it's purpose.

I voted AGAINST based on that principle.All Article III does is require anyone jailed under a law passed after the commission of a previously-legal act be released. This is not ex post facto, it's a redress of a grievous injustice. It's a law along the same lines as those passed after the RL Holocaust, which granted redress to survivors and their heirs.

Sorry, I'm with Lermany on this one. Despite the fact that it's your contention that ex post facto laws created a "grave injustice", by your own internal logic they were in fact legal at the time. Whether you think that's just or not, you can't use the logic of this law to reverse history.

This proposal is internally inconsistent, as it does in fact contain an ex post facto law. I'm amazed nobody caught that before. It doesn't make it illegal, but it's surely a good reason to oppose.

Sorry, I'm with Lermany on this one. Despite the fact that it's your contention that ex post facto laws created a "grave injustice", by your own internal logic they were in fact legal at the time. Whether you think that's just or not, you can't use the logic of this law to reverse history.

This proposal is internally inconsistent, as it does in fact contain an ex post facto law. I'm amazed nobody caught that before. It doesn't make it illegal, but it's surely a good reason to oppose.

Decriminalizations does not necessarily count as an ex post facto law. If a criminal act is commited and is at the time illegal the individual would be sent to jail and follow standard procedure for the crime commited. If the law that made such an act illegal is repealed the releasing of the individual would not fall under ex post facto.

Let's say the crime commited is no longer a crime and the individual is released. The repealing of the law would be the same as for instance, presenting new evidence in an already closed case in which the sentence is already being carried out. If the act is no longer a crime, same procedure would follow as evidence proving innocence.

As a side note I do not like the fact that an overall good resolution is being voted against, for something which can be easily be ammended in the future.

Sorry, I'm with Lermany on this one. Despite the fact that it's your contention that ex post facto laws created a "grave injustice", by your own internal logic they were in fact legal at the time. Whether you think that's just or not, you can't use the logic of this law to reverse history.

This proposal is internally inconsistent, as it does in fact contain an ex post facto law. I'm amazed nobody caught that before. It doesn't make it illegal, but it's surely a good reason to oppose.

But what harm is being done?

We chided our firend and colleague from Love and esterel because he made post after post in the drafting thread making this same point. He failed to convince the author and others who were involved with the resolution. To keep harping on it now simply lessens the chances of the resolution's passage. And, according to his vote, he supports it. We fully appreciate the good intentions of the representative of Love and esterel. We simply question the logic of raising objections to a resolution you support.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Sorry to have made the same point, but you never answered my question: why ban something (good EPFL) without any argument in the 1st place; I also failed to find an example as convincing as Lermany's one.
About my choice, thank you for your interest about it, but it's my choice, I was torn, as I really think this topic bring here by Yelda is trully important, and I really would like to congratulates him for that. I always agreed with the most part of it, while in the same time fully opossed to the minor part. I had to make a choice and I choose to support it, hoping also that my argment will be stronger.

All Article III does is require anyone jailed under a law passed after the commission of a previously-legal act be released. This is not ex post facto, it's a redress of a grievous injustice. It's a law along the same lines as those passed after the RL Holocaust, which granted redress to survivors and their heirs.

With "your" definition of "EPFL", Article III is indeed not an EPFL, but with the definition of EPFL written in this proposal, Article III is an EPFL.

I think the confusion about the definition is the full cause of this confusion here, and I would like to fully echo the previous comment of the author about the importance of this topic.

But what harm is being done?


I'm sure that the sovereign nations that may have passed ex post facto laws to correct oversights in their legal codes made the same arguement. The fact remains that your proposal is internally inconsistant. To denounce ex post facto laws and then attempt to use the same process to "correct" their use is just poor governance. It attempts to overturn verdicts automatically and free convicted "persons" makes it an expost facto proposal.

... not that Lermany would have much first hand knowledge of these issues...
[quote]The United Socialist States of Lermany is a very large, devout nation, notable for its complete lack of prisons...Crime is totally unknown.[/qoute]

One Truly wonders what planet the proposers of this motion are on...:confused: :headbang:

If their Ideals are ones promoting Human Authenticity and Integrity ; We of the Republic of Pericord fail to see how this assists in the promotion of Human Rights in any way.

e.g. a corrupt government detects a minor loophole in international law which allows it to engage in a "technically legal" but utterly unjust aggressive war against a sovereign state. Or a fraudster detects a loophole in financial law which permits him to swindle millions out of their savings with no legal reprisals. Or a government undergoes a military coup d'etat and subsequently [albeit through fear] it performs perfectly "fair under international law" democratic elections and wins!! It then proceeds to implement [democratically] heinous tyrannical laws to impose a severe reign of terror - the military and the police force are permitted to torture and decimate all opposition - all legal under their new national laws. Now just suppose that military regime was opposed by a resistance - freedom fighters who ultimately succeed in overthrowing this brutal regime ? What follows if this UN proposal is implemented ?:sniper:
No matter what laws they re-introduce they will be unable to bring to justice any of the perpetrators of this genocide - because at the time it was legal!!??

This protocol should be recognised for what it is - A "Get out of Jail Free Card" for the powerful. A denial of justice for oppressed or violated citizens.:upyours:

We see no problem whatsoever in the implementation of a time limit for crimes to come to trial [e.g. 20 years] in order to ensure a fair and just trial; but seriously dudes...This law ties our hands!

The Law was created to protect and serve - this proposition would do neither. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm with Lermany on this one. Despite the fact that it's your contention that ex post facto laws created a "grave injustice", by your own internal logic they were in fact legal at the time. Whether you think that's just or not, you can't use the logic of this law to reverse history.

This proposal is internally inconsistent, as it does in fact contain an ex post facto law. I'm amazed nobody caught that before. It doesn't make it illegal, but it's surely a good reason to oppose.

Sorry, but we can't agree. Are the effects of the resolution inconsistent? Not at all. It prevents the gross injustice of ex post facto laws being committed in the future and provides mandatory relief for those subjected to it in the past. Would it make more sense to outlaw this practice and ignore those who have already been victimized by it?

We can't accept that this "inconsistency" is even a reason to oppose the resolution, let alone a good one.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

France 1337 believes that is is unacceptable for anyone to be punished for an action that was made illegal after he/she pursued that action and as such will therefor vote to pass this legislation and encourage all sound minded and logical States to do the same.

Thank you all
France 1337

Mr. Sinister, upon applying for parole or through other legal channels (assuming such are available) could appeal his sentence or use the new law to aid in his petition for early release.While it is true that most imprisoned persons would be able to apply for parole, Mr. Sinister is not due to the terms of the original sentence (fully being: 3 seperate lifetime sentences without parole, totaling in no less than one-hundred fifty years). Similarly, as I brought forth to the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny, pardoning is not within my power, nor the law-making branch, as the people have full right to repeal any law passed (which is why we still can't get a good stem cell law passed for long) with a 3/5 majority.

There is simply no need to have a law do it.Unfortunately, there is a need for Matianus, as we are extremely limited in our government's ability to repeal, pardon and what not. The daft people who wrote a recent amendment to please the commonplace decided it would be a good idea to let all of that fall onto the people, so as to make sure that they cannot easily yell at the government for being blatently corrupt. And we all know that the commonplace is a fickle thing that relies almost exclusively on the media to draw their attention to certain issues they might object to.

clarify?Certainly: Ex Post Facto laws, as it has been increasing discussed, are laws that retroactively...[change] the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.Using this term, this includes acts that were illegal (or legal) when committed as well as laws that retroactively decrease sentences for crimes already committed. It is just a point that we would like to keep in mind as other nations weigh the benefits and detriments of the proposed resolution.

We simply question the logic of raising objections to a resolution you support.Which is just what I am doing now. How can one ever constructively agree with something without first questioning it (by looking for errors)? If there are errors, they should be noted so that all nations can plainly see whether or not the errors outweigh the good of the whole.

In this case, Love and Esterel's representative (as well as myself) decided that the errors do not outweigh the good of the resolution and support it. However, just because we support something overall doesn't mean we can't disagree with smaller aspects of it.

Sorry, I'm with Lermany on this one. Despite the fact that it's your contention that ex post facto laws created a "grave injustice", by your own internal logic they were in fact legal at the time. Whether you think that's just or not, you can't use the logic of this law to reverse history.Can't say as I agree with you here, Fris. If this jobber demanded that any legislatures who wrote ex post facto laws be thrown in the clink or executed, then you might have a point. As it is, this strikes out a certain type of law and overturns some existing convictions. I'm not seeing that as being the same thing. It's no different than any other UN Resolution that forces a change of laws.

France 1337 believes that is is unacceptable for anyone to be punished for an action that was made illegal after he/she pursued that action and as such will therefor vote to pass this legislation and encourage all sound minded and logical States to do the same.

Thank you all
France 1337

Ditto, as in we agree, and have voted to do the same.

I'd say more in support of this resolution, but after reading all three pages in this thread so far, my head is swimming.

Best of luck with it Yelda.

Unfortunately, there is a need for Matianus, as we are extremely limited in our government's ability to repeal, pardon and what not.<etc>And I think this is where we raise the spectre of "Resonable Nations"...

(1) Citizen Y is in prison, given a life sentence for sodomy. A more liberal government comes to power and legalizes homosexuality. If this resolution passes, does citizen Y still have to serve a life sentence?That would be up to your government. You could pardon him. Or, since what he did was illegal at the time, he could still be made to serve his sentence. It's really up to your nation how that is handled though.

(2) Suppose a dictator legalizes killing members of a particular minority group, and citizen X takes advantage of this new liberty with great gusto and enthusiasm. The government collapses and a new democratic one is put in its place, which is appalled by the atrocities committed under the former dictator and wishes to try those responsible. If this resolution passes, does citizen X get away scot free?If it was illegal at the time under International Law then you could prosecute him, even if it was legal at the time under the laws of your nation.

"(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."

Sorry to have made the same point, but you never answered my question: why ban something (good EPFL) without any argument in the 1st place.
You have yet to provide any examples of what these "good" ex post facto laws might actually look like. Further, you have failed to show any reason why the effects of these "good" ex post facto laws could not be produced through normal judiciary means. Until you do either of those things, this will be my last comment on this particular topic.

:headbang: :sniper: :upyours: :rolleyes:
For future reference, if you want to guarantee that your statements will not be responded to by me just be sure to include this sort of sophomoric nonsense in them.

Piss off,
Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

How in the world can you propose a resolution to repeal ex Post Facto laws that contains an ex post facto clause?!!!

It seems to me also that as defined in this proposal, clause III of this proposal is an "ex post facto law".

Sorry, I'm with Lermany on this one. Despite the fact that it's your contention that ex post facto laws created a "grave injustice", by your own internal logic they were in fact legal at the time. Whether you think that's just or not, you can't use the logic of this law to reverse history.

This proposal is internally inconsistent, as it does in fact contain an ex post facto law. I'm amazed nobody caught that before. It doesn't make it illegal, but it's surely a good reason to oppose.
Article (III) does not constitute an ex post facto provision. It is simply requiring that these persons be released and their record expunged. It isn't saying that the act wasn't illegal when it was committed, just that you can't continue to imprison the person for it or keep the conviction on their record. It requires no rewriting of history or passage of laws or proclamations declaring that no crime was committed. In fact it requires no further legislative action at all. All it requires is a judge, or some authorized official to sign a pardon and then an order that the offense be expunged from the persons criminal record. Those things are done all the time and when they are nobody thinks "ex post facto".

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

The GPRG will be casting its vote in favour of this proposal. Like previous voices raised we fail to see the posed problem with Article (III).

With that said we would like to congratulate Ambassador Spøtyiú and the Yeldan UN-Office on writing a fine resolution. We present you with blue gnejsian cheese. We've heard you like cheese.

Linda Anaris
UN-Office
GPRG

That would be up to your government. You could pardon him. Or, since what he did was illegal at the time, he could still be made to serve his sentence. It's really up to your nation how that is handled though.

If it was illegal at the time under International Law then you could prosecute him, even if it was legal at the time under the laws of your nation.

"(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."

The Prime Minister adjusts his glasses and takes a second look at the the document in his hands.

"Oh, I missed that. Thank you. Well then, I'm staunchly in favour of this resolution."

I'm faintly surprised we never got round to doing this earlier.

Strong support.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

As it is, this strikes out a certain type of law and overturns some existing convictions.

It's only the second part that is ex post facto, and that's the part I have arguments with.Let's say I'm an incredibly inventive evil person (yeah, it's a stretch). I come up with a crime so heinous that no one ever even considered it possible, so they never passed a law preventing it. My nation, which permits ex post facto laws, passed a law criminalizing my act and throws me in the clink for life for retroactive abuse of said new law.

Now along comes the UN, which states unequivacably that I must be released following passage of this law. No judicial review, no mitigating circumstances, no considerations of any sort are allowed under this law. I'm now free to think up some new bizarre crime that nobody thought to criminalize, and there's not a damn thing you can do to stop me this time! Apart from leaving the UN, of course.Yes, it's nitpicky and an extreme case, but it's possible under this law. I don't even disagree with it conceptually, but you can't go on claiming it's not an ex post facto provision just because you think justice is being served. The proposal is self-contradictory, and the author is fooling himself if he doesn't think so.

The proposal is self-contradictory, and the author is fooling himself if he doesn't think so.
No, we're not. We do not consider that a true ex post facto provision, but if your nation wants to consider it such, then that's fine. Were we to rewrite the Resolution, we would include that provision in it again without hesitation. We offer no apologies.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Wow, Yelda. You're fooling and metafooling yourself.

Wow, Yelda. You're fooling and metafooling yourself.
OOC: I'm not fooling or metafooling myself. Even if the arguments were convincing and even if I were to admit that it is an ex post facto provision, I would still just shrug my shoulders and say "tough. It's in there. Deal with it". Like I said, if I had to rewrite this, I would include that Article in a heartbeat. It needs to be in there.

Before the Ontario Parliament can form a stance on this issue, two clarifications are necessary.

Consider the following two scenarios.

(1) Citizen Y is in prison, given a life sentence for sodomy. A more liberal government comes to power and legalizes homosexuality. If this resolution passes, does citizen Y still have to serve a life sentence?

If the "more liberal" executive pardons him, judicial review reduces or commutes his sentence or takes the new law into consideration for parole (that last option seemed to gain favor within my region's debate because of the fact that respect for the law is important...that was a heated debate), then no, citizen Y does not have to serve his life sentence.

(2) Suppose a dictator legalizes killing members of a particular minority group, and citizen X takes advantage of this new liberty with great gusto and enthusiasm. The government collapses and a new democratic one is put in its place, which is appalled by the atrocities committed under the former dictator and wishes to try those responsible. If this resolution passes, does citizen X get away scot free?

Any law legalizing murder for certain minorities (i.e. genocide) would be illegal in its own right via the UN's Universal Rights legislation. Much like the RL Slobodan Milosevic was tried for genocide without a declared war or war crimes tribunal.

Sorry, I'm with Lermany on this one. Despite the fact that it's your contention that ex post facto laws created a "grave injustice", by your own internal logic they were in fact legal at the time. Whether you think that's just or not, you can't use the logic of this law to reverse history.

This proposal is internally inconsistent, as it does in fact contain an ex post facto law. I'm amazed nobody caught that before. It doesn't make it illegal, but it's surely a good reason to oppose.

I see your point, Fris, but the problem lies not with Article III, but with the definition of ex post facto. Legally speaking:

EX POST FACTO - Term used to designate action taken to change the effect given to a set of circumstances. This action relates back to a prior time and places this new effect upon the same set of circumstances existing at that time. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

Not every change in a convicted person's situation violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. A law implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause only if it criminalizes conduct that was not a crime when it was committed, increases the punishment for a crime beyond what it was at the time the act was committed, or deprives a person of a defense available at the time the act was committed. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42-43 (1990). Courts have held that legislation may lawfully impose new requirements on convicted persons if the statute's 'overall design and effect' indicates a 'non-punitive intent.' United States v. Huss, 7 F.3d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir.'93).

Taken from the 'Lectric Law Library (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e052.htm). (Emphasis mine.)

I think the resolution assumes that this definition (from the RL US Constitution) was the common definition of ex post facto, which may have been a problem. I tried to make this point earlier, and LAE ran with it for a while, but it's been largely overlooked. Your point has made me rethink my vote and state, for the record, that I would rather vote for a resolution that features this or a very similar definition.

Thank you.

With "your" definition of "EPFL", Article III is indeed not an EPFL, but with the definition of EPFL written in this proposal, Article III is an EPFL.

I think the confusion about the definition is the full cause of this confusion here, and I would like to fully echo the previous comment of the author about the importance of this topic.

See my previous post -- by definition, there is no such thing as a good EPFL. That definition is not mine, it's codified in RLUS law.

Article (III) does not constitute an ex post facto provision. It is simply requiring that these persons be released and their record expunged.

Just to be nitpicky, that is requiring an alteration to their sentencing which has already occured. In other words, it is an ex post facto legal adjustment.

In fact it requires no further legislative action at all.

Then what would you call

All it requires is a judge, or some authorized official to sign a pardon and then an order that the offense be expunged from the persons criminal record.

that?

Those things are done all the time and when they are nobody thinks "ex post facto".

Apparently, some do.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

OOC:You've got to tell me how to pronounce that sometime.

Let's say I'm an incredibly inventive evil person (yeah, it's a stretch). I come up with a crime so heinous that no one ever even considered it possible, so they never passed a law preventing it. My nation, which permits ex post facto laws, passed a law criminalizing my act and throws me in the clink for life for retroactive abuse of said new law.

Now along comes the UN, which states unequivacably that I must be released following passage of this law. No judicial review, no mitigating circumstances, no considerations of any sort are allowed under this law. I'm now free to think up some new bizarre crime that nobody thought to criminalize, and there's not a damn thing you can do to stop me this time! Apart from leaving the UN, of course.Yes, it's nitpicky and an extreme case, but it's possible under this law. I don't even disagree with it conceptually, but you can't go on claiming it's not an ex post facto provision just because you think justice is being served.

I understand where you're coming from, but your case is actually weakened by attempting to use an example like the one you've offered. It is entirely likely that any attempt to do anything so utterly grandiose and extreme that there was never a thought to prohibit it would involve any number of lesser criminal offenses, for which the person could be arrested, tried, and convicted. While I accept that is it possible to avoid any legal infraction of this evil act, it is highly improbable.

That said, in any nation where the legal system is something for "criminals" to worry about, things like murder, rape, theft, assault, fraud, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum have all been outlawed for quite some time. As a result, for this evil genius to perpetrate some act that has never been legislated against and does not contravene any of the other acts which are proscribed by law, they would essentially end up with something along the lines of turning all the poodles blue when they get wet. Disturbing, maybe, but hardly something worth sending them to prison for.

For those nations whose laws are much more lenient, then they will have learned an important lesson from the whole experience about the capacity of those who wish to wreak havoc within their borders and will begin to legislate accordingly.


OOC: I'm not fooling or metafooling myself. Even if the arguments were convincing and even if I were to admit that it is an ex post facto provision, I would still just shrug my shoulders and say "tough. It's in there. Deal with it". Like I said, if I had to rewrite this, I would include that Article in a heartbeat. It needs to be in there.

Good for you. There's something to be said for sticking to your guns, sometimes.

Unless there is some delegation here that believes they can convince us otherwise, Kivisto is casting its vote FOR this resolution. We are unconcerned with what is perceived to be irony or hypocrisy within the text. The concept behind the law is sound, and the only issue that people seem to be hung up on is one that can easily be bypassed by any judicial system worth its salt, assuming the judiciary sees it to be an issue in the first place.

One Truly wonders what planet the proposers of this motion are on...:confused: :headbang:

If their Ideals are ones promoting Human Authenticity and Integrity ; We of the Republic of Pericord fail to see how this assists in the promotion of Human Rights in any way.

e.g. a corrupt government detects a minor loophole in international law which allows it to engage in a "technically legal" but utterly unjust aggressive war against a sovereign state. Or a fraudster detects a loophole in financial law which permits him to swindle millions out of their savings with no legal reprisals. Or a government undergoes a military coup d'etat and subsequently [albeit through fear] it performs perfectly "fair under international law" democratic elections and wins!! It then proceeds to implement [democratically] heinous tyrannical laws to impose a severe reign of terror - the military and the police force are permitted to torture and decimate all opposition - all legal under their new national laws. Now just suppose that military regime was opposed by a resistance - freedom fighters who ultimately succeed in overthrowing this brutal regime ? What follows if this UN proposal is implemented ?:sniper:
No matter what laws they re-introduce they will be unable to bring to justice any of the perpetrators of this genocide - because at the time it was legal!!??

This protocol should be recognised for what it is - A "Get out of Jail Free Card" for the powerful. A denial of justice for oppressed or violated citizens.:upyours:

We see no problem whatsoever in the implementation of a time limit for crimes to come to trial [e.g. 20 years] in order to ensure a fair and just trial; but seriously dudes...This law ties our hands!

The Law was created to protect and serve - this proposition would do neither. :rolleyes:

First off, welcome to the UN General Assembly, please check all superfluous smileys at the door.

Secondly, again, ex post facto has a strict legal definition that does NOT include allowing plotters of a coup to escape justice. See my earlier post with the legal definition of EPF. This law does not tie your hands unless you're a big fan of seeing a behavior you don't like in your populace, getting a law enacted that criminalizes it and then arresting those who engaged in that behavior BEFORE the law was passed. If you like screwing your citizens in that fashion, then yes, this law constrains you a bit.

Little request for Intangelon. Could you, perhaps, use the multi-quote button? It'll save you some time, and save us from reading multiple posts from the same author one right after the other.

ps-Intangelon's posts were made while I was formulating my last post, that's why this is in one of it's own.

Just to be nitpicky, that is requiring an alteration to their sentencing which has already occured. In other words, it is an ex post facto legal adjustment.



Then what would you call

All it requires is a judge, or some authorized official to sign a pardon and then an order that the offense be expunged from the persons criminal record.

that?


Yelda said that it requires no more legislation. A pardon is an executive or judicial action requiring no law be drafted and sent through the legislative process.

Yelda said that it requires no more legislation. A pardon is an executive or judicial action requiring no law be drafted and sent through the legislative process.

Well, in all fairness, he said legislative action, but your point is still valid. This will still require ex post facto alterations to the legal status of certain facts and individuals, though. The fact that these alterations are being made to situations that involve ex post facto laws themselves doesn't change that. It also doesn't change the fact that Kivisto doesn't have an issue with this resolution.

Let's say I'm an incredibly inventive evil person (yeah, it's a stretch). I come up with a crime so heinous that no one ever even considered it possible, so they never passed a law preventing it. My nation, which permits ex post facto laws, passed a law criminalizing my act and throws me in the clink for life for retroactive abuse of said new law.

The last time I saw a strawman this blatant it was along side a yellow-bricked road. There is no crime so heinous that it does not constitute some other crime. If there was such a crime so heinous that no one ever even considered it possible and one that did not cause any violations of any other laws, then the law should be written to prevent it from happening ever again.

If such a thing did happen then, shit, life’s tough and sometimes people get away with things. When you create an ex post facto law because you feel that someone has gotten away with something you have crossed the line of law and entered the land of revenge. To then suggest that the nullification of such a conviction is equally wrong is the height of hypocrisy.

More over, and most importantly such nullification is not in any way, shape for form an ex post facto law. Let’s look at the definition for a moment, “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.” The nullification is not in any shape for form retroactive as it applies from that moment onward not from a previous point in the past, “shall have their sentence for any ex post facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged.”

So it doesn’t change the past. The person may have his offenses nullified in the present and the future but the government still had “legally” arrested and convicted him according to the law, and the person has no legal standing to dispute that fact. As it only effects the present and the future it is not an ex post facto situation. Amnesty can be granted for whatever silly reason the law might think of. (And clause III is basically that of amnesty, removal of offenses and the expunging of records.)

EX POST FACTO - Term used to designate action taken to change the effect given to a set of circumstances. This action relates back to a prior time and places this new effect upon the same set of circumstances existing at that time. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

Not every change in a convicted person's situation violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. A law implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause only if it criminalizes conduct that was not a crime when it was committed, increases the punishment for a crime beyond what it was at the time the act was committed, or deprives a person of a defense available at the time the act was committed. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42-43 (1990). Courts have held that legislation may lawfully impose new requirements on convicted persons if the statute's 'overall design and effect' indicates a 'non-punitive intent.' United States v. Huss, 7 F.3d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir.'93).

Taken from the 'Lectric Law Library (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e052.htm). (Emphasis mine.)

I think the resolution assumes that this definition (from the RL US Constitution) was the common definition of ex post facto, which may have been a problem. I tried to make this point earlier, and LAE ran with it for a while, but it's been largely overlooked. Your point has made me rethink my vote and state, for the record, that I would rather vote for a resolution that features this or a very similar definition.

Thank you.

Intangelon, I understand what you mean, but NS is an international game (created in Australia and its forum maintened in the UK). Furthermore, this proposal use its own definition, not the one from a ruling in RL US, UK, Australia or India.

OOC: I'm not fooling or metafooling myself. Even if the arguments were convincing and even if I were to admit that it is an ex post facto provision, I would still just shrug my shoulders and say "tough. It's in there. Deal with it". Like I said, if I had to rewrite this, I would include that Article in a heartbeat. It needs to be in there.

I fully agree with you that article III is to be saved. The cause of the problem, and what will be best to be modified is either the wording of the definition OR the wording of article II, in order to stick the prohibition to what Intangelon describe in his/her post.
With such a modified defition or modified article II, then article III will not be a problem anymore.

I may be going out on a limb for what is basically my opposition, but Frisbeeteria might have a point with regard to one potentially unimagined crime. Someone please either correct me or back me up:

Prior to incidents of people deliberately infecting people with HIV as a form of revenge or other nastiness, was that specific act a crime or covered by any law? I seem to remember that legislation had to be passed making the deliberate and knowing transmission of an STD a crime -- a form of assault with a deadly (biological) weapon, I believe.

I'm not trying to stop the fire consuming Fris' strawman, but I want to be fair in my examination of his point.

More over, and most importantly such nullification is not in any way, shape for form an ex post facto law. Let’s look at the definition for a moment,

Yes. Let's.

“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.” The nullification is not in any shape for form retroactive as it applies from that moment onward not from a previous point in the past, “shall have their sentence for any ex post facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged.”

So, what you're saying is that, this bill will retroactively change the legal consequences of past acts by governments or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of this proposed legislation by nullifying any already extant sentences and expunging past criminal records.

So it doesn’t change the past.

Lacking a time machine, no, it doesn't.

The person may have his offenses nullified in the present and the future but the government still had “legally” arrested and convicted him according to the law, and the person has no legal standing to dispute that fact.

Actually, this is demanding that their offences be nullified now, and the person does have some legal standing to dispute the fact that they had been arrested, and possibly imprisoned, under an ex post facto law.

As it only effects the present and the future it is not an ex post facto situation.

Except for the parts where it legislates that legislative actions taken in the past be legally altered such that the status of facts regarding the criminality of actions in the past be adjusted. You know, most of the bill.

Amnesty can be granted for whatever silly reason the law might think of. (And clause III is basically that of amnesty, removal of offenses and the expunging of records.)

And by legislating that these offenses are removed and records are expunged after they have already been instituted is requiring an ex post facto adjustment to the legality of these cases. Yes, there are a thousand ways that a judiciary can grant amnesty without enacting epf laws. This bill, this international piece of legislation, does enact epf laws.

Why this is an issue is beyond me. Kivisto maintains its stance in favour of No Ex Post Facto Laws.

Intangelon, I understand what you mean, but NS is an international game (created in Australia and its forum maintened in the UK). Furthermore, this proposal use its own definition, not the one from a ruling in RL US, UK, Australia or India.


FIRST -- Sorry for not using multi-quote. Jolt is acting up.

SECOND -- OOC: LAE, are you serious?!? I've been here since April of 2005 with 3500+ posts, many of them in this place. Do you honestly think I don't know that NS is international? Why do you tihnk I had Ben Royce say "RLUS" ("Real Life United States")? That's how I was told, a long time ago, how to refer to real life principles without breaking the RL/NS barrier.

Not only that, but the whole concept of ex post facto COMES from the US Constitution -- there's no way AROUND mentioning the "RLUS". Yes, the proposal uses its own definition, but that definition is based on the original source.

IC: Huh? Game?

I may be going out on a limb for what is basically my opposition, but Frisbeeteria might have a point with regard to one potentially unimagined crime. Someone please either correct me or back me up:

Prior to incidents of people deliberately infecting people with HIV as a form of revenge or other nastiness, was that specific act a crime or covered by any law? I seem to remember that legislation had to be passed making the deliberate and knowing transmission of an STD a crime -- a form of assault with a deadly (biological) weapon, I believe.

I'm not trying to stop the fire consuming Fris' strawman, but I want to be fair in my examination of his point.


Fair enough, and there's nothing wrong with asking for clarification.

That specific act would not have been viewed as a crime unto itself, however it could easily fall under the purview of assault with intent, malicious endangerment, attempted murder, consiracy to commit any of the above, or a number of other related charges.

Edit: Sorry for not using multi-quote. Jolt is acting up.


lol. I shoulda guessed that. No prob, jolt can be wonky like that.

FIRST -- Sorry for not using multi-quote. Jolt is acting up.

SECOND -- OOC: LAE, are you serious?!? I've been here since April of 2005 with 3500+ posts, many of them in this place. Do you honestly think I don't know that NS is international? Why do you tihnk I had Ben Royce say "RLUS" ("Real Life United States")? That's how I was told, a long time ago, how to refer to real life principles without breaking the RL/NS barrier.

Not only that, but the whole concept of ex post facto COMES from the US Constitution -- there's no way AROUND mentioning the "RLUS". Yes, the proposal uses its own definition, but that definition is based on the original source.

IC: Huh? Game?

Intangelon, please forgive me if my post was ambiguous, I didn't intented to offense you.

Fair enough, and there's nothing wrong with asking for clarification.

That specific act would not have been viewed as a crime unto itself, however it could easily fall under the purview of assault with intent, malicious endangerment, attempted murder, consiracy to commit any of the above, or a number of other related charges.

Thanks. I figured that was the case, and I knew someone with more legal stuff in their head than I would point it out, thus burgeoning the "unimagined crime" strawman's pyre.

Thanks. I figured that was the case, and I knew someone with more legal stuff in their head would point it out, thus burgeoning the "unimagined crime" strawman's pyre.

In all fairness to that "strawman", it is possible, however unlikely, for someone to come up with something incredibly heinous that doesn't, in fact, break any currently standing laws. Imagine that some of the human race became telepathic. Some of these telepaths figure out ways to put this skill to the purpose of exploiting people's secrets. They haven't broken any privacy laws, nor have they harmed anyone physically, but there might be good reason for the government to enact laws dealing specifically with the privacy of one's own thoughts. Such laws would be brought about as a result of acts which were not illegal at the time of commission, but have become so from new legislation. Should these people be sent to jail for doing something malicious, even though it was legal at the time? I'd say no. The government might have reason to keep an eye on these individuals to ensure that they abide by the new law, but it would be unfair to throw them in prison for acts that were legal at the time they were performed.

Thanks for everyone's courtesy...ahem

[incidentally I personally loathe smilies - they were inserted to placate a sick son who wished to participate while I was writing.]

Ostensibly of course this law seems innocuous and beneficial to all, but may I remind everyone that circumstances require a modicum of flexibility.

[ IRL Finland had to alter its law in order to punish war criminals - Indonesia was barred under international law from being able to charge the Bali Bombers for the crimes they committed - Of course one may argue that any system which allows a judge's decision to set precedent acts retro-actively anyway.
Coming from the UK I feel more secure that we have a parliament which can technically enforce anything it bloody well wants to - because we have a judicial system which can fall back upon the House of Lords as a safety net.
The french Constitution actually bars any "detrimental" ex post facto laws but permits beneficial ones and if you take a close look at the US constitution it doesn't bar all ex post facto laws. Because it is the combination of two separate statutes it can be inferred that even though it says "no ex post facto" it's justification is grounded in those which are detrimental to any potential offender.]

Why can't we just have a simple insertion of the word "detrimental"?

[RL : I am reminded of a situation in the 80's regarding individual state's laws regarding the verdicts of the criminally Insane : Many states had a " Not Guilty on grounds of insanity " verdict. Ironically this caused many difficulties with State care and health Insurance and the mandatory treatment of these offenders [and in the process hundreds of people died or were injured at the hands of discharged mental patients] . Some states recognised the problem and allowed the insertion of the verdict "Guilty but Insane" and they could apply all the force on the state to the benefit of the offender/patient ; and they could not , under statute, neglect their responsibility to the offender. Of course nothing could be done retroactively for those who should have been assisted.]

At the moment I worry about the motives behind the legislation, and would ask that before any vote was passed every UN statute was scrutinised for loopholes.

The last thing we want is to vote on this one day and by the end of the week some belligerent country has noticed a loophole which allows them to nuke every military and trade competitor in their region with no reprisals whatsover under the law....

I'm just asking people to be a little bit careful...

Could I also remind people that if they are going to accuse someone of irrationality they actually accuse them of the right form of logical "wrong-thinking".

A Strawman fallacy is very specific . It's misdirection : Imagine Johnny Cochrane and the gloves or the Hitler allusions.

The proposal of a hypothetical regarding the potency of an action/retaliation of a principle is NOT the formation of a strawman.

e.g. I could argue that it should be necessary for medical personnel to wear body armour in a war zone. Someone may state that body armour wouldn't be much help in a direct hit from a missile or even a meteorite.It may seem an absolutely stupid comment and there are half a dozen fallacies which may apply to this but a strawman objection wouldn't because it is directly relational to the principle itself.

Ostensibly of course this law seems innocuous and beneficial to all, but may I remind everyone that circumstances require a modicum of flexibility.

Flexibility which can be granted through other channels. This has been gone over already.

[ IRL Finland had to alter its law in order to punish war criminals - Indonesia was barred under international law from being able to charge the Bali Bombers for the crimes they committed - Of course one may argue that any system which allows a judge's decision to set precedent acts retro-actively anyway.
Coming from the UK I feel more secure that we have a parliament which can technically enforce anything it bloody well wants to - because we have a judicial system which can fall back upon the House of Lords as a safety net.
The french Constitution actually bars any "detrimental" ex post facto laws but permits beneficial ones and if you take a close look at the US constitution it doesn't bar all ex post facto laws. Because it is the combination of two separate statutes it can be inferred that even though it says "no ex post facto" it's justification is grounded in those which are detrimental to any potential offender.]


I'd be more willing to accept these as viable issues if it weren't for the short-sightedness of the gov'ts in question. Bombers could have been charged with murder, or attempted murder, or destruction of public property, or a number of other things. The Finnish courts had simply to work up complicity charges against the war criminals to demonstrate how they aided and abetted in specific atrocities that were illegal at the time of commission. What comes to mind there is one of the charges levelled against Saddam Hussein, wherein he was charges with 143 counts of murder for killing a large group in cold blood. Why? Iraq didn't have war crime laws on the books either.

The RLUS may not ban all EPF laws, but there isn't any particular reason why we should follow their example either.

Why can't we just have a simple insertion of the word "detrimental"?

Because it's already at vote and cannot be altered at this point.

[RL : I am reminded of a situation in the 80's regarding individual state's laws regarding the verdicts of the criminally Insane : Many states had a " Not Guilty on grounds of insanity " verdict. Ironically this caused many difficulties with State care and health Insurance and the mandatory treatment of these offenders [and in the process hundreds of people died or were injured at the hands of discharged mental patients] . Some states recognised the problem and allowed the insertion of the verdict "Guilty but Insane" and they could apply all the force on the state to the benefit of the offender/patient ; and they could not , under statute, neglect their responsibility to the offender. Of course nothing could be done retroactively for those who should have been assisted.]

And what does that have to do with anything pertinent to this bill?

At the moment I worry about the motives behind the legislation, and would ask that before any vote was passed every UN statute was scrutinised for loopholes.

Trust me, they are scutinized by some of the most legalistic and loopholey people around. We're good at finding loopholes and either pointing them out or exploiting them.

Motives are inconsequential. What the author intended is irrelevant. What is included in the text is what will have bearing on member nations.

The last thing we want is to vote on this one day and by the end of the week some belligerent country has noticed a loophole which allows them to nuke every military and trade competitor in their region with no reprisals whatsover under the law....

Understandable concern, but not one that is relevant to the matter at hand.

I'm just asking people to be a little bit careful...

Some of us are, some not so much. There's too many UN nations to keep track of them all.

Could I also remind people that if they are going to accuse someone of irrationality they actually accuse them of the right form of logical "wrong-thinking".

A Strawman fallacy is very specific . It's misdirection : Imagine Johnny Cochrane and the gloves or the Hitler allusions.

The proposal of a hypothetical regarding the potency of an action/retaliation of a principle is NOT the formation of a strawman.

e.g. I could argue that it should be necessary for medical personnel to wear body armour in a war zone. Someone may state that body armour wouldn't be much help in a direct hit from a missile or even a meteorite.It may seem an absolutely stupid comment and there are half a dozen fallacies which may apply to this but a strawman objection wouldn't because it is directly relational to the principle itself.

So your contention is that they were not accusing someone of attempting to misdirect attention towards a fallacious situation. Fascinating. It would appear that that is exactly what they were doing. For that matter, I don't believe that the "Strawman Fallacy" is anywhere near as simple in its definition or history as you make it out to be, but that is not an argument for the here and now, as it has nothing to do with the resolution up for vote.

The vote of Kivisto remains unwavered.

The Holy Empire of Fastidem thoroughly supports this resolution. Ex Post Facto laws are only for use by tyrants and psychotic dictatorships. The Rule of Law can only be maintained if nations work against Ex Post Facto Laws.

Though, we would cite that Clause III is in itself an Ex Post Facto ruling...

OOC:You've got to tell me how to pronounce that sometime.
OOC: I already did, but it was on New Years day so we were both probably hungover and you missed it somehow..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12161510&postcount=15

OOC: Since I voted for the tired old meme...

http://agroman.bitacoras.com/chuck_norris_age_49.jpg

Chuck Norris once dug his way to the center of the Earth using only a jar of petroleum jelly and his penis. The government tried to pass an ex post facto law that would make this illegal, but he gave every legislator a roundhouse kick to the head, killing them all.

So, what you're saying is that, this bill will retroactively change the legal consequences of past acts by governments or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of this proposed legislation by nullifying any already extant sentences and expunging past criminal records.

There is nothing "retroactive" in the resolution. The effects of clause III are no different than the effects of a Pardon issued in the State of Connecticut. (Unfortunately my Google Fu Skill is weak, otherwise I would show you a convincing link.)

Actually, this is demanding that their offences be nullified now, and the person does have some legal standing to dispute the fact that they had been arrested, and possibly imprisoned, under an ex post facto law.

It does no such thing. In fact the argument to nullify the offensive as of some point in time implies that it was valid at some prior point in time.

Why this is an issue is beyond me. Kivisto maintains its stance in favour of No Ex Post Facto Laws.

On this I completely agree.

Ex Post Facto laws are only for use by tyrants and psychotic dictatorships.

I wasn't going to comment on this but I've changed my mind. Tyrants and psychotic dictatorships do not need to use ex post facto laws. If they are pissed at someone for doing something they haven't created a law for yet, they call their "assistants," fit the guy for cement boots and take him out swimming. Such people have no need for the complexity of a convoluted legal process.

Proibiting ex post facto laws provides a means of stability to a nation. It prevents people from fearing to do anything because of the posibility that some day in the future someone would make what they did in the past illegal.

The honorable state of Fourmania has read the proposed resolution and agrees that Article III, in reference to ex post facto as defined by the resolution itself, appears to be, prima facie, contradictory.

The resolution holds that ex post facto laws change the legal status of an individual, and while it does hold that examples of such action are when it criminalizes behavior that has beforehand been legal, it does not hold that those are the only possible actions and end results of ex post facto laws.

The definition clause says nothing that would inherently LIMIT ex post facto laws which can IMPROVE one's legal status. I think it is clear to all nations that this SHOULD be the case, that ex post facto laws SHOULD be defnied only as those that seek to increase punishment, but again, the definition AS STATED only says that increasing punishment is one possible example.

Because of this glaring incongruity, Fourmania feels that they must vote no on this resolution. To do otherwise would presume that the SPIRIT of the law and the LETTER of the law are identical, which is not true. Fourmania wholeheartedly agrees with the spirit of the resolution, and at first voted in the affirmative, but upon further review by the fair and honorific Legal Instant Replay Booth, we saw that the resolution's wording is flawed, and we regrettably must vote in the negative.

The honorable state of Fourmania has read the proposed resolution and agrees that Article III, in reference to ex post facto as defined by the resolution itself, appears to be, prima facie, contradictory.

The resolution holds that ex post facto laws change the legal status of an individual, and while it does hold that examples of such action are when it criminalizes behavior that has beforehand been legal, it does not hold that those are the only possible actions and end results of ex post facto laws.

The definition clause says nothing that would inherently LIMIT ex post facto laws which can IMPROVE one's legal status. I think it is clear to all nations that this SHOULD be the case, that ex post facto laws SHOULD be defnied only as those that seek to increase punishment, but again, the definition AS STATED only says that increasing punishment is one possible example.

Because of this glaring incongruity, Fourmania feels that they must vote no on this resolution. To do otherwise would presume that the SPIRIT of the law and the LETTER of the law are identical, which is not true. Fourmania wholeheartedly agrees with the spirit of the resolution, and at first voted in the affirmative, but upon further review by the fair and honorific Legal Instant Replay Booth, we saw that the resolution's wording is flawed, and we regrettably must vote in the negative.

By the legal definition of ex post facto, this kind of law CANNOT IMPROVE one's legal status. Please read the rest of the thread...

But we must vote on ex post facto as a term defined by this resolution -- is that correct, Mods? Even if a resolution defines a term, even a legal one, differently than RL definitions, we must vote on it using the terminology and denotations specified in the resolution, yes?

If that's the case, I withdraw the first paragraph of this reply.

...and Fourmania, can you tell me who makes those replay booths and how much they cost?

It is with pride that I announce that my region has decided in a 5-0 majority that I will be voting FOR this resolution. I would like to congratulate the author on its likely passage.

Roderick Spear
Person

There is nothing "retroactive" in the resolution. The effects of clause III are no different than the effects of a Pardon issued in the State of Connecticut. (Unfortunately my Google Fu Skill is weak, otherwise I would show you a convincing link.)


It's effect is that of changing the legal status of things that occured in the past, expunging the fact that there were criminal charges against the individual. Such alterations of the relationships of facts would qualify as ex post fact by the defnition used by this resolution.

It does no such thing. In fact the argument to nullify the offensive as of some point in time implies that it was valid at some prior point in time.


I may have said this before, but you can't just string a bunch of words together and assume that it will form a sentence. I have absolutely no idea what you were actually trying to say here.

On this I completely agree.

Yeah, I know. And normally I wouldn't argue with those on the same side of a debate, but there's not a lot of good argument going on, and I'm getting bored, so I'm going where there's decent debate to be had. It might be odd to argue with the side I'm on, but at least there's actual argument being used. I fear the continuance of this trend, as it may cause me to do something irrational.

I would like to echo the fear of kivisto here.

Even if we like the topic, this proposal does what it itself prohibit.
As such after a long deliberation the LAE UN team come to the conclusion that a reapeal + a new more sensible and coherent proposal will be necessary.

The new proposal will be best following Intengleon example, such as: prohibiting laws which criminalizes conduct that was not a crime when it was committed, increases the punishment for a crime beyond what it was at the time the act was committed, or deprives a person of a defense available at the time the act was committed.

Not only no argument were provided in the debate for prohibiting "good" retroactive laws, but there is one inside this proposal.

I know this is impossible, but once again i would like to publicly regret the abscence of "amendments" in our legislative porcess.

My bad. I wasn't very clear in speech. The trend I was intending to refer to was the boring debate, and lack of arguments.

It's effect is that of changing the legal status of things that occured in the past, expunging the fact that there were criminal charges against the individual. Such alterations of the relationships of facts would qualify as ex post fact by the defnition used by this resolution.

Changing the legal status of things that occured in the past is not ex post facto. Let us suppose that I was married some time in the past. If I were to get a divorce that would change the legal status of something that occured in the past. That divorce is not ex post facto. (Now if I were to get an annulment that states that the wedding never legally took place that is ex post facto.) Suppose I was purchased as a slave in the past and some nice man in a top hat frees the slaves. That doesn't mean that they were freed ex post facto.

Clause III does not say that convictions from ex post facto laws never took place, instead it specifically nullifies any convictions. I'm not sure how you can string together a string of words if you are totally confused between the past and the present tense.

You know this is the nicest debate we've had in a long time, even though I seem to be tense about tense. :D

Changing the legal status of things that occured in the past is not ex post facto.

Please, may I recall to the estimeed Ambassador of Retired WerePenguins the definiton used in this proposal:

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

A retroactive law (and an EPFL, defined as such in this proposal) does not imply that something which occured in the past never take place, it just changes its legal status/consequences by law.

Clause III change by law the legal status/consequences (sentence and criminal record) of various acts which occured in the past. It's why Clause III is retroactive and is also ex post facto law as defined in this proposal.

It's why Clause III is retroactive and is also ex post facto law as defined in this proposal.
I'm going to wade into this rigmarole one last time, then I'm done with it. The rest of you can continue arguing it to your heart's content.

All Article (III) is requiring is that the person's sentence be nullified and their record expunged. That is, they are to be pardoned and the arrest and conviction is to be removed from their criminal record, or "rap sheet", now. If it required that their record be edited to indicate that they were never arrested, or edited to show that they were acquitted, then you might have a point. I still wouldn't agree that Article (III) shouldn't have been included, but I might say "yeah, I see your point. It is trying to change the past".

This doesn't require that all evidence of the persons arrest, conviction and incarceration be removed or destroyed. The resolution does not specify to what extent the records are to be expunged. There would still be the court docket, newspaper clippings, medical, dental and other records from his stay in prison. We're not trying to rewrite history here and say that he was tried and acquitted when he plainly wasn't. We're not trying to say that he was never imprisoned. We're just pardoning and releasing him and then expunging (http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law--Expungement-FAQ.html) his record.

Also, note that Article (III) doesn't change the status of the law at the time the crime was committed, it reverts it to what it should have been.

But we must vote on ex post facto as a term defined by this resolution -- is that correct, Mods?If a Proposal defines a term, that definition must be used, regardless of any real world definition, legal or colloquial definition.

Also, note that Article (III) doesn't change the status of the law at the time the crime was committed, it reverts it to what it should have been.


I would like to notice the definition in this proposal:

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.

All Article (III) is requiring is that the person's sentence be nullified and their record expunged

(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.

By law, you are then changing retroactively his sentence.

It means that article III of your proposal is an example of what is prohibited by article II of your proposal.

(Or are you saying that law that retroactively change sentences are not "ex post facto law", as definded in your proposal? I don't think so.)

As has been said many times, it is not changing the sentence, it is ending it.

Roderick Spear

As has been said many times, it is not changing the sentence, it is ending it.

Roderick Spear

As logic might inform you, ending a process constitutes a rather significant change to it. If a person shortens a 5-page essay to 2 pages in length, have they not changed the essay by ending it prematurely?

Hellar Gray

Having reviewed the topic, and comments made by the assembled representatives, Hirota votes FOR the proposal.

i'm against this resolution, this give power to the UN to violate the sovergein of any country.

i'm against this resolution, this give power to the UN to violate the sovergein of any country.

Sen. Horatio Sulla looks up from his conversation with a gentleman sitting next to him. The man was wearing a white shirt with an image of a panther on the front of it, and a red kilt. The man was also holding what appeared to be a coconut.

"My good man, I can see you point, but what of it. The Palentine has been one nation that has been a grat supporter of national soverignity in the halls and without. The Palentine has been a nation that has give the proverbial finger to this august body, when it has felt the UN going too far into affairs best left to the local and national governments. However there are times when the cause of justice and right must sometimes trump all else. To put it bluntly Ex Post Facto laws trample on the inaliable rights of man. They are unfair to the very core of existance. To be jailed for something that one did years before the action became a crime is a mockery of the balenced hands of that fair lady Justice(OOC:at this point some of Sulla's staffers start quietly humming The Battle Hymn of the Republic behind him:p ). People should only be charged with a crime, when they have commited said crime. i have heard in these halls that this resolution punishes dictaors by makeing their actions illegal. Only a very amateurish dictator ever needs a law to declare someone a criminal, and make a person dissappear. a dictator by thier very nature rules by decree, not law. As the estemend late Senator from Arizona once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virture!" That being said the Palentine wishes to state its full support of this legislation, and wish to congradulate the Yeldan ambassador for bringing this lapse of justice to the attention of this body."

i'm against this resolution, this give power to the UN to violate the sovergein of any country.

My goodness! Gnomes raping monarchs! :eek:

Fortunately Retired Werepenguins has no "sovereign." Our First Navigator comes close so I will have to ask her for her opinion on the matter.

Altanar does have a sovereign, and will violently object to anyone trying to violate him. *raises eyebrow*

That being said, this resolution doesn't violate anything other than the "right" to punish people for something that wasn't even a crime when they did it.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Gotta agree with Sen. Horatio Sulla on this - this is a matter which transcends national soverignty considerations.

And people worry too much about being violated, it depends who is doing the violating ;)

By law, you are then changing retroactively his sentence.

It means that article III of your proposal is an example of what is prohibited by article II of your proposal.

(Or are you saying that law that retroactively change sentences are not "ex post facto law", as definded in your proposal? I don't think so.)

We've been listening to all this back-and-forth stuff about whether the last clause of this resolution is a contradiction of the rest of it or whatever. Now, there's argument on both sides. But when we come right down to it, here's how we see it: So what?

After all the word games are played and the logical knots knotted up even more, what are the effects of the resolution? It prohibits the travesties of justice called ex post facto laws. It requires that nations do what they can to eliminate or mitigate injustices that were committed under these laws.

If you believe that people should be held accountable for obeying the law as it exists, and not as somebody might decide it should have existed, vote for this resolution. If you believe people should have to guess what somebody might someday decide is or isn't a crime, vote against it.

We stand firm in our belief that ex post facto laws of any sort are an affront to justice. They make people play guessing games about the law, rather than being held duly accountable for obeying the law as it exists. And since we believe that all people have the right to be treated fairly by the justice system, we stand firm in our support of this fine resolution.

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

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

We stand firm in our belief that ex post facto laws of any sort are an affront to justice.
Mr. Prime Minister, we'll be delighted to concede the point that ex post facto laws are an affront to justice and should be expunged. If we were still UN members, we'd be voting for this proposal for precisely those reasons. We'd be willing to accept this, despite its massive flaw, because it mirrors laws already in place in the Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria. The flaw wouldn't affect us.

It doesn't change the fact that, for purely pedantic reasons, we think article III has no place in this resolution. It's clearly self-contradictory, and undermines the very principle we're trying to establish. The author hasn't managed to convince us from a legal and procedural standpoint that his argument has a logical leg to stand on.

If the representatives from Yelda want to take the moral high ground and state, "I want this because it's the right, just, and moral thing to do," I'd stand beside him gladly. Instead, he and others are insisting that it's also logical, procedurally correct, and internally consistent. That's like taking a giraffe and painting it pink, and calling it "pig". I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that.

With the highest of regards,

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus
Conglomerated Oligarchical Corporate States of Frisbeeteria

(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.

If the representatives from Yelda want to take the moral high ground and state, "I want this because it's the right, just, and moral thing to do,"

They're against EPF laws, yet they justify an EPF measure in this same proposal by using the position that it's the right thing to do. That this measure is enhancing justice and human rights.

It seems to me that that would be one of the cases an EPF law might be justified (punishing someone who clearly did something detrimental to society, yet in a way that was "legal"). Yet the same measure is outlawing all EPF laws. Furthermore, if EPF laws were legal in a nation state, then this measure is overturning what actually was the written law at the time (the written law that EPF laws could be passed).

While my nation does not make use of Ex Post Facto laws, I can see that there are many peoples and dictators (and other corrupt governments as well) that would want these laws. If the people have consented to a government where these laws are allowed, then why should a UN resolution outlaw them?

We've been listening to all this back-and-forth stuff about whether the last clause of this resolution is a contradiction of the rest of it or whatever. Now, there's argument on both sides. But when we come right down to it, here's how we see it: So what?

After all the word games are played and the logical knots knotted up even more, what are the effects of the resolution? It prohibits the travesties of justice called ex post facto laws. It requires that nations do what they can to eliminate or mitigate injustices that were committed under these laws.

Sadly, this proposal not only do that. In short this proposal, by including an ex post facto law, also say:
"Do what I say, not what I do"
and i don't think this is a good thing in legislation.

If you believe that people should be held accountable for obeying the law as it exists, and not as somebody might decide it should have existed, vote for this resolution. If you believe people should have to guess what somebody might someday decide is or isn't a crime, vote against it.

We stand firm in our belief that ex post facto laws of any sort are an affront to justice. They make people play guessing games about the law, rather than being held duly accountable for obeying the law as it exists. And since we believe that all people have the right to be treated fairly by the justice system, we stand firm in our support of this fine resolution.

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

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Ausserland, I'm sorry, but I'm scared by your argument, as it works in the same manner for clemency done by executive and judicial power than done by the legislative power. But also by supporting clause III, you de facto agree that sometimes retroactive laws can be good.

Many laws in history have been changed, for example many books have been banned in history for wrong reasons in many nations, and are now not banned any more, history is not static. Sometimes banned book need to be written.

OOC: I showed in the drafting thread that many european constitutions don't ban good retroactive laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

And Intangelon showed in this thread that the same principle rules the in RL US.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12217134&postcount=57Not every change in a convicted person's situation violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. A law implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause only if it criminalizes conduct that was not a crime when it was committed, increases the punishment for a crime beyond what it was at the time the act was committed, or deprives a person of a defense available at the time the act was committed. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42-43 (1990)

Do you really want to change that for all NS nations with similar constitutions or rulings than the RL US and those European nations for that matter, because of your belief that people should be held accountable for obeying any law as it exists, even when it happen those laws happen to be really bad (sadly in history and even today there are still many of them)?

We're delighted to have the opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished CEO Emeritus from Frisbeeteria.

Mr. Prime Minister, we'll be delighted to concede the point that ex post facto laws are an affront to justice and should be expunged. If we were still UN members, we'd be voting for this proposal for precisely those reasons. We'd be willing to accept this, despite its massive flaw, because it mirrors laws already in place in the Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria. The flaw wouldn't affect us.

Excellent. We can agree on this, the fundamental issue in question.

It doesn't change the fact that, for purely pedantic reasons, we think article III has no place in this resolution. It's clearly self-contradictory, and undermines the very principle we're trying to establish. The author hasn't managed to convince us from a legal and procedural standpoint that his argument has a logical leg to stand on.

This is where we part ways. Would you concede, sir, that international law is fundamentally different in its scope of application and, in many ways, its nature, from national law? If so, then we believe it unreasonable to judge it by the same standards as national law. The resolution prevents nations from enacting ex post facto laws. It further requires them to redress, insofar as possible, injustices inflicted upon their citizens by such laws in the past. We believe that the resolution is completely consistent in its effects as they apply to the individual citizen. And that, frankly, is what we care about.

If the representatives from Yelda want to take the moral high ground and state, "I want this because it's the right, just, and moral thing to do," I'd stand beside him gladly. Instead, he and others are insisting that it's also logical, procedurally correct, and internally consistent. That's like taking a giraffe and painting it pink, and calling it "pig". I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that.


To be blunt about it, we couldn't care less about the arguments put forth in debate by the resolution's author. We don't judge a resolution by the quality of argument for or against it in this Assembly. We listen carefully to the debate and weigh the arguments presented with equal care. But our decision on a resolution is based on our best reading of the text and our best judgment -- influenced often by sound, convincing argument by our colleagues -- concerning its effects. We will not be swayed by our opinion of the arguments. We vote on the resolution, not the debate. It is the resolution, not the debate, which will have effect on the people of our nation and our fellow nations.

Respectfully,

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

If a Proposal defines a term, that definition must be used, regardless of any real world definition, legal or colloquial definition.

Very well, then. The definition in the resolution is the definition in question.

As such, it isn't perfect -- very few definitions are -- but it will serve for the purposes of putting an end to criminalizing behavior and arresting/punishing those who engaged in it before it was a crime, which was why the entire concept of ex post facto was born.

You cannot, as a lawmaker/sovereign/head-of-whatever, look out your window in the morning, see kids skateboarding on the palace driveway, declare/enact/legislate a law making skateboarding in the palace driveway a crime, and then arrest those kids that afternoon (if they're no longer skating in the driveway).

Case closed.

To those still intent on picking nits off the bones of the dead horses represented by the flawed concept of "good" EPF laws or the false tautology of Article III, you're welcome. You're even welcome to try a repeal and enact a replacement that's more to your liking. Hell, I'll probably even vote for it, but I doubt I'll get the chance. Yelda has crafted a good piece of legislation -- and while no resolution is bulletproof, I'll wager this one will be around for a long time.

Benjamin "Benji" Royce
Intangible UN Minister

Ausserland, I'm sorry, but I'm scared by your argument, as it works in the same manner for clemency done by executive and judicial power than done by the legislative power.

Clemency as granted by executive and judicial branches are not retroactive in nature.

But also by supporting clause III, you de facto agree that sometimes retroactive laws can be good.

If you can come up with a few good examples of ex post facto laws, which you have failed to do thusfar, I will be more than happy to explain how that good can still be done without the retroactive application of any law.

Many laws in history have been changed, for example many books have been banned in history for wrong reasons in many nations, and are now not banned any more, history is not static. Sometimes banned book need to be written.

An alteration to a law need not be retroactive in effect. Were law enacted that said that book x by author y is hereby banned and all libraries that have ever carried it will be put to torch, that would be retroactive. A law simply stating that the book is banned (or is banned no longer) is not retroactive.

OOC: I showed in the drafting thread that many european constitutions don't ban good retroactive laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

There is absolutely nothing in that article that backs up your assertion that there are "good" ex post facto laws that will be affected by this. The closest that it gets is a reference to Precedent, which is a matter of judicial interpretation of legislation.

Do you really want to change that for all NS nations with similar constitutions or rulings than the RL US and those European nations for that matter, because of your belief that people should be held accountable for obeying any law as it exists, even when it happen those laws happen to be really bad (sadly in history and even today there are still many of them)?

You're actually questioning whether or not the UN, a large international legislature, wishes people to obey the law? Seriously? Are you aware of how foolish that sounds? Do the lawmakers want people to abide by the law? Yes. It is my deeply considered opinion that people should obey the law.

the flawed concept of "good" EPF laws or the false tautology of Article III,

I must have missed it. Who thought that Article III was tautological?

I'm definitely in full support of this resolution. "Ex post facto" means after the fact, of course. There is no need for those kind of laws in our society or world for that matter. Oh, it's true, it's true!

My government will vote for this proposal. Once we get into the UN.
__________
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7197/mumuhk3.jpg

To those still intent on picking nits off the bones of the dead horses represented by the flawed concept of "good" EPF laws

Do you refer to the defense of the priciple of the constitution and rulings of the RL US and several European nations which don't ban good retroactive laws?


Clemency as granted by executive and judicial branches are not retroactive in nature.

Thank you if you can read my post correctly, I was responding to the belief of Balthasar H. von Aschenbach:


If you believe that people should be held accountable for obeying the law as it exists,

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12224572&postcount=102

There are sadly many nations with laws opressing people and which do not care at all of basic human rights, in those nations I fail to see why people in these nations have to be held duly accountable for obeying those oppresive laws as they exists.

And I said that the belief presented by Balthasar H. von Aschenbach goes also in the same way against clemency by other powers.

An alteration to a law need not be retroactive in effect. Were law enacted that said that book x by author y is hereby banned and all libraries that have ever carried it will be put to torch, that would be retroactive. A law simply stating that the book is banned (or is banned no longer) is not retroactive.

It was an example against the belief of Ausserland and to show that people should not always be held accountable for obeying the law as it exists.

Of course course most of the the time they have to be held accountable for, but not always.

Our heartiest congratulations to the distinguished representative of Yelda on the passage of this excellent resolution by an overwhelming margin (10,325 to 2,238). And our thanks for his fine effort in making a significant and substantial contribution to the cause of true justice.

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

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

[OOC: I've probably posted this pic at least eight times already, but what the hey? I'm posting it again!]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/kennyyelda.jpgThe Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico has declared today We Love Yelda! Day in the Federal Republic. Not so much because of the resolution -- we doubt the president even knows what "ex post facto" means (although he really should be thankful that he is now legally protected from being prosecuted for sins in his past, things that probably should be illegal but aren't yet) -- but more because the Yeldans finally succeeded in making a certain persistent member of this Assembly to cork his cryhole. In celebration tonight, Paradise City's rent-a-rioters will be sure to blow up a few police vehicles, overturn some cars, cry havok and let slip the dogs of war on the streets of our nation's capital, cavort with ladies of loose and/or negotiable morals, consume mass quantities of Fine Yeldan Beers™, and party till the sun comes up. Of course, being in the Antarctic, that's not for another three months, so it's gonna take a heck of a lot of Fine Beers™ to hold us over till then. Could we possibly get some to go with our next regular shipment of Fine Cheeses™?

This delegation salutes the People's Democratic Republic of Yelda for yet another fine resolution to pass this body.Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

i comply

i comply
You don't need to keep doing this.

I must have missed it. Who thought that Article III was tautological?

Have I misdefined "tautology" again?

I though someone had posted that Article III itself was ex post facto in nature (or had an EPF component) -- would that not represent a tautology?

Do you refer to the defense of the priciple of the constitution and rulings of the RL US and several European nations which don't ban good retroactive laws?

No. I can't refer to that because you keep conflating "retroactive" with "ex post facto". I am stultified at your inability to understand the difference. But it's not entirely your fault. The definition within the resolution is broader than the definition for EPF with which I am familiar. I will assume it is that definition upon which your continued futile protest rely. That being the case, feel free to continue to bring it up -- I shall feel equally free to stop listening.

The definition within the resolution is broader than the definition for EPF with which I am familiar. I will assume it is that definition upon which your continued futile protest rely.

In substance, exactly; sorry if didn't expressed this in an easy way.

Anyway, I always said that this topic and the main thing that this proposal does are pretty important, and I would like to congratulate the author to have included this major topic inside the NSUN legislation book. I'm even fully surprised that nobody bring this topic here sooner than the 194th resolution.

The Free Land of Darwinianists sincerely hopes that the People's Democratic Republic of Yelda understands that Resolution #194 has compromised the fabric of the justice system as we know it. We are disappointed that Yelda has been so quick to dismiss hundreds of years of judicial practice in the effective abolishment of legal precedent, which, we add has been the foundation of the common law that we are all familiar with, today.

However, the Free Land of Darwinianists must add that we have voted FOR this resolution, due to our domestic interests in the promotion of the primeval doctrine of natural selection, which is supported by the corruption of the judicial institution exemplified by Resolution #194.

The Free Land of Darwinianists sincerely hopes that the People's Democratic Republic of Yelda understands that Resolution #194 has compromised the fabric of the justice system as we know it. We are disappointed that Yelda has been so quick to dismiss hundreds of years of judicial practice in the effective abolishment of legal precedent, which, we add has been the foundation of the common law that we are all familiar with, today.

However, the Free Land of Darwinianists must add that we have voted FOR this resolution, due to our domestic interests in the promotion of the primeval doctrine of natural selection, which is supported by the corruption of the judicial institution exemplified by Resolution #194.

We'd just like to point out to the representative that the use of precedent in legal decisions and ex post facto legislation are two completely different things. There isn't a single word in the resolution that has anything to do with using precedent.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We'd just like to point out to the representative that the use of precedent in legal decisions and ex post facto legislation are two completely different things. There isn't a single word in the resolution that has anything to do with using precedent.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

On an unofficial note, I would like to personally congratulate Mr. Ahlmann for his absolute grasp of semantics. You have fooled many - 10,325 nations, to be exact - but I will not be disillusioned by your rhetoric. While it is true that the resolution does not ban the use of precedent, you certainly cannot argue that ex post facto legislation does not eliminate the creation of new legal precedent. It is a catch 22 situation.

I must however, reiterate that I am - albeit due to different motives - on the same side as you. I am not here to debate the merits of this resolution, as my nation has explicitly instructed me to support it unquestioningly.

On an unofficial note, I would like to personally congratulate Mr. Ahlmann for his absolute grasp of semantics. You have fooled many - 10,325 nations, to be exact - but I will not be disillusioned by your rhetoric. While it is true that the resolution does not ban the use of precedent, you certainly cannot argue that ex post facto legislation does not eliminate the creation of new legal precedent. It is a catch 22 situation.

I must however, reiterate that I am - albeit due to different motives - on the same side as you. I am not here to debate the merits of this resolution, as my nation has explicitly instructed me to support it unquestioningly.

We won't "argue" that this does not eliminate the creation of new precedent. We'll state it as fact. Precedent establishes a principle or interpretation that guides future decision-making. There is absolutely nothing ex post facto about it.

You're not being "disillusioned" by our rhetoric. You're "disillusioned" -- more accurately, misled and confused -- by your lack of understanding of basic legal terms and principles.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The Free Land of Darwinianists sincerely hopes that the People's Democratic Republic of Yelda understands that Resolution #194 has compromised the fabric of the justice system as we know it.
*yawn* So repeal it.

However, the Free Land of Darwinianists must add that we have voted FOR this resolution,
Somehow I doubt that. You're a brand new nation with only 5 million pop. and you arrived from The South Pacific 8 hours ago. How could you have voted for it? Your nation didn't even exist when the vote ended. Run along.

Naella Sìorrui
Attaché, Committee for State Security

Yelda, have you ever heard of role play? Good job for researching my nation...anyone can click a button. However, I genuinly would have voted for your resolution if my nation was part of the UN during the voting period. Is my reasoning not good enough for you? My nation is called "The Free Land of Darwinianists"...it is so hard to believe that we are anti-institution? Wait. Let me make it even more blatant for you, because you are obviously too dense to get that. My motto is "The misery of the poor is a causation of institution". Apparently, you are able to read the time and date that my nation was created, but not the motto that I adhere to in the administration of my people. How about you try to defend your resolution IN ROLE instead of catching people on technicalities.

We won't "argue" that this does not eliminate the creation of new precedent. We'll state it as fact. Precedent establishes a principle or interpretation that guides future decision-making. There is absolutely nothing ex post facto about it.

I can't tell if you are merely lying through your teeth to support an absurd resolution, or if you genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. Your definintion of precedent is spot on - congrats, you can use wikipedia.org - so I suspect that where you are getting confused is in the definition of ex post facto. An ex post facto law is one that alters the consequences of actions that occurred before the implementation of a law. Let me now make a HUGE - note the sarcasm - assumption: that trials occur after the event of a crime. Considering that precedent is established during the course of a trial (again, may I remind you that is is ocurring AFTER the event of a crime) is it not obvious to you that precedent establishes "principles" - are laws not principles of conduct - in the manner of ex post facto legislation?

Without ex post facto legislation, a court will be unable to establish legal principles as is required by the circumstances of a case. We are now all forced to look to the bureaucrats in parliament to get laws of whatever scope and magnitude altered or passed. Congratulations. Fortunately for the Free Land of Darwinianists, we have no parliament, and we are anti-institution, so as I have said time and again, I am on your side.

I can't tell if you are merely lying through your teeth to support an absurd resolution, or if you genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. Your definintion of precedent is spot on - congrats, you can use wikipedia.org - so I suspect that where you are getting confused is in the definition of ex post facto. An ex post facto law is one that alters the consequences of actions that occurred before the implementation of a law. Let me now make a HUGE - note the sarcasm - assumption: that trials occur after the event of a crime. Considering that precedent is established during the course of a trial (again, may I remind you that is is ocurring AFTER the event of a crime) is it not obvious to you that precedent establishes "principles" - are laws not principles of conduct - in the manner of ex post facto legislation?

Without ex post facto legislation, a court will be unable to establish legal principles as is required by the circumstances of a case. We are now all forced to look to the bureaucrats in parliament to get laws of whatever scope and magnitude altered or passed. Congratulations. Fortunately for the Free Land of Darwinianists, we have no parliament, and we are anti-institution, so as I have said time and again, I am on your side.

It's been a long time since I've fallen for being flamebaited by an ignoramus. I'm done with this absurdity.

I can't tell if you are merely lying through your teeth to support an absurd resolution, or if you genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. Your definintion of precedent is spot on - congrats, you can use wikipedia.org - so I suspect that where you are getting confused is in the definition of ex post facto. An ex post facto law is one that alters the consequences of actions that occurred before the implementation of a law. Let me now make a HUGE - note the sarcasm - assumption: that trials occur after the event of a crime. Considering that precedent is established during the course of a trial (again, may I remind you that is is ocurring AFTER the event of a crime) is it not obvious to you that precedent establishes "principles" - are laws not principles of conduct - in the manner of ex post facto legislation?

Without ex post facto legislation, a court will be unable to establish legal principles as is required by the circumstances of a case. We are now all forced to look to the bureaucrats in parliament to get laws of whatever scope and magnitude altered or passed. Congratulations. Fortunately for the Free Land of Darwinianists, we have no parliament, and we are anti-institution, so as I have said time and again, I am on your side.

You're an idiot.

The difference is that precedent affects legal rulings, and ex post facto affects judgments. When in the course of a trial the legality of a subject is in dispute, it becomes necessary to establish judicial precedence to put all future legislative questions to rest.

Ex post facto criminalizes something after the fact- not making precedence.

Are you done with your stupidity?

I have an idea. Let's stop feeding it and see if it goes away.

I have an idea. Let's stop feeding it and see if it goes away.

Sorry boss, i'll put away the food.

To the Representative of Darwinianists:

Legal precedent is exactly that -- decisions in court which inform and affect future COURT decisions.

Ex post facto LAWS, however, are not created by judges, but by -- wait for it -- lawmakers.

You are conflating precedent with legislation, and by the same mistake therefore conflating the judicial branch with the legislative. True, many nations do not adhere to the commonly known three-branches system of government, but to claim that anyone here -- especially Yelda -- doesn't know what he's talking about proves to me and anyone else reading that you're out of your depth.

Oh, you know how to spell big words, and you make every attempt to put them into your posts, but knowing their definition and context is far more important. And quite simply, you don't. Your nation's stated motto tells me that: "The misery of the poor is a causation of institution". Only someone trying to deliberately inflate his perceived intelligence would word something so simple in such a verbose and faux-professorial manner. Why not just say "The misery of the poor is caused by insitutions"? Ah, but no, that would eliminate the pseudo-intelligent use of "causation", wouldn't it.

I welcome you to the UN, sir, but I must warn you: those of us who've been here a while have a very limited supply of nooblesse oblige. That doesn't mean that you have no right to express your opinions, but it does mean that you need to think about expressing them without deliberately seeking unproductive and impotent conflict.

Benjamin "Benji" Royce
Intangible UN Minister