2 ms·

To be a bit playful, there is a sort of "Magic: the Gathering" version of this dissent, if it helps people. So a Conviction is basically a type of enchantment

To be a bit playful, there is a sort of "Magic: the Gathering" version of this dissent, if it helps people. So a Conviction is basically a type of enchantment which says you have 3 fewer life points and trouble getting a job. Now someone managed to cast Reverse Conviction, which exiles one conviction -- it's not even in the graveyard, as much as legally possible it's like it never happened, with the only exception being double-jeopardy laws etc. And the question is whether you get those life points back. According to the majority opinion, having your life points converted into tokens on the State Government card was part of the ongoing enchantment, and so this ended when the enchantment ended: they should be converted back. According to Clarence Thomas, it was an instant effect that happened when the enchantment was cast, and the ongoing effects were the other parts of the enchantment. So when it was cast, that was the time when you were "deprived" of your life points; it's not an "ongoing deprivation" but a single event which happened in time. You don't get them back unless another card in play says you do. (A more full analogy would also include the fact that there is this Exoneration Act card which says "(3) Take a conviction token from the State Government and gain a life point. You may not do this if there is an enchantment which creates these tokens either on you or in the graveyard," and a house rule called Due Process which says that you cannot be deprived of life points without some card in the field of play saying so. )

will_brown 9y ago
Analogies are always good in law, I kind of got lost in yours but if you looked at my law text books you wouldn't find notes but pictures in my margins, likewise they may not help you but the process no doubt helped me flush out the ideas/concepts and remember the same. Even running it thru my mind I do see the practical examples of distinguishing between the restoration of property and liberty when they have been deprived based on conviction and later overturned. In fact I am sure I could provide examples where even people on here might agree the property should not be returned to the defendant after the overturned conviction. A lot of those examples would be where the defendant is actually guilty of the crime, but the conviction is over turned and the victim is forced to return restitution on top of seeing the defendant set free. Nevertheless, in theory victims have another remedy in civil court at a lower standard than the beyond reasonable doubt of criminal court, but I could see that being traumatic to the victim in a lot of instance and likely so let down by the system they would never pursue it or if they did and won they may never be able to collect again. It is very tricky no matter what the law is I'll find a set of facts that when applied results in an unjust outcome.

will_brown 9y ago

Analogies are always good in law, I kind of got lost in yours but if you looked at my law text books you wouldn't find notes but pictures in my margins, likewise they may not help you but the process no doubt helped me flush out the ideas/concepts and remember the same. Even running it thru my mind I do see the practical examples of distinguishing between the restoration of property and liberty when they have been deprived based on conviction and later overturned. In fact I am sure I could provide examples where even people on here might agree the property should not be returned to the defendant after the overturned conviction. A lot of those examples would be where the defendant is actually guilty of the crime, but the conviction is over turned and the victim is forced to return restitution on top of seeing the defendant set free. Nevertheless, in theory victims have another remedy in civil court at a lower standard than the beyond reasonable doubt of criminal court, but I could see that being traumatic to the victim in a lot of instance and likely so let down by the system they would never pursue it or if they did and won they may never be able to collect again. It is very tricky no matter what the law is I'll find a set of facts that when applied results in an unjust outcome.