In terms of the rules against that stuff, though, I think we're operating more under this summary (from one of your links) "A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed."
I definitely don't like "This wasn't a crime but now it retroactively is"; but I might be able to live with "this was a crime but it shouldn't have been." Some outcomes of that thinking lead to bad, but it could also lead to the correction of punishments for shitty laws, like California's Three Strikes. Might be worth the trade off.
I definitely don't like "This wasn't a crime but now it retroactively is"; but I might be able to live with "this was a crime but it shouldn't have been."
That was my first thought too, but as this case shows, there is really no difference between the two. In the first case, I sell flour on the street, the government makes it illegal retroactively, and I have to pay a fine. In the second case I don't sell crack on the street, the government makes it legal retroactively, and I essentially pay what I didn't earn selling crack.
Comments 3
Reply
In terms of the rules against that stuff, though, I think we're operating more under this summary (from one of your links)
"A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed."
I definitely don't like "This wasn't a crime but now it retroactively is"; but I might be able to live with "this was a crime but it shouldn't have been." Some outcomes of that thinking lead to bad, but it could also lead to the correction of punishments for shitty laws, like California's Three Strikes. Might be worth the trade off.
Reply
That was my first thought too, but as this case shows, there is really no difference between the two. In the first case, I sell flour on the street, the government makes it illegal retroactively, and I have to pay a fine. In the second case I don't sell crack on the street, the government makes it legal retroactively, and I essentially pay what I didn't earn selling crack.
Reply
Leave a comment