4 ms·
> But you can't post-facto say "that seems like it was wrong" and prosecute We can and we have. There are a few justification loopholes that have been used in
by BearGoesChirp 9y ago
> But you can't post-facto say "that seems like it was wrong" and prosecute
We can and we have. There are a few justification loopholes that have been used in the past, but we can say something is so wrong that laws can be passed after the fact to punish people engaging in it. This power is dangerous, but so is many other government powers currently used.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago> We can and we have. Perhaps in another jurisdiction, but not in the US you can't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law It's a fundamental premise that you can't decide something formerly legal is illegal after the fact and go after someone retroactively. (Now, if they're still doing it, you can, which is also deeply abusable, but marginally less so.)
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago>Perhaps in another jurisdiction, but not in the US you can't. Yes you can. Even if there are rules banning it, like any system made by humans, exceptions are made when they are popular enough (or when the target is unpopular enough). In the US in particular, the way exceptions are made is to consider the punishments not being punishments. So while this does mean that extra prison time can't be used, things like indefinite involuntary commitment or extensions of no punishment actions are allowed. One example is extensions of time on the SOR, which has been ruled to not violate ex post facto even when the extension happens after the sentence has been given. As I said, we can and we do. We just play creatively at it so we can pretend we don't violate ex post facto.