4 ms·

I believe it is morally wrong to keep people imprisoned for actions that are now legal, especially given the viciousness of our penal system. This is a great in

I believe it is morally wrong to keep people imprisoned for actions that are now legal, especially given the viciousness of our penal system. This is a great injustice of our time.

sturadnidge 8y ago
If you commit a legal act today that becomes illegal in the future, is it reasonable to be retrospectively convicted? 2 sides of the same coin.
- k3d 8y ago
  It's absolutely fatuous to assume that this has to be a symmetrical relationship. No inherent contradiction exists between the two statements.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  Not the "same coin" at all. See "lex mitior": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
- jonreem 8y ago
  If you simply follow the basic compassionate principle that you should lock up as few people as necessary for as short a time as necessary to maintain the law then the answers are obvious for both cases: If someone committed an act which was illegal at the time and is now legal, they should be freed. If someone committed an act which was legal at the time and it is now illegal, they should not be prosecuted. They're not two sides of the same coin at all. EDIT: This compassionate principle is known as "lex mitior", which simply means that you should apply the mildest version of the law (from the perspective of the accused) in these cases. This is also in line with the widely accepted innocent-until-proven-guilty principle.
- pizza 8y ago
  Not the same. > Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...
  - sturadnidge 8y ago
    That is not the case in UK however, which is where I'm drawing my (outlier, going by Wikipedia) experience.
    - pizza 8y ago
      Fair enough, that's pretty interesting actually
- stordoff 8y ago
  I don't see them as the same at all. If something is made legal, it indicates that the act is OK and that the person should not _continue_ to be punished. On the other hand, people should only be prosecuted for acts that were illegal at the time they were committed - it isn't equitable to prosecute people under laws they were not subject to at the time of the action, and even on a practical level it is necessary for maintaining trust in the law.

I believe it is morally wrong to keep people imprisoned for actions that are now legal, especially given the viciousness of our penal system. This is a great injustice of our time.

sturadnidge 8y ago

If you commit a legal act today that becomes illegal in the future, is it reasonable to be retrospectively convicted? 2 sides of the same coin.

k3d 8y ago
It's absolutely fatuous to assume that this has to be a symmetrical relationship. No inherent contradiction exists between the two statements.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
Not the "same coin" at all. See "lex mitior": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
jonreem 8y ago
If you simply follow the basic compassionate principle that you should lock up as few people as necessary for as short a time as necessary to maintain the law then the answers are obvious for both cases: If someone committed an act which was illegal at the time and is now legal, they should be freed. If someone committed an act which was legal at the time and it is now illegal, they should not be prosecuted. They're not two sides of the same coin at all. EDIT: This compassionate principle is known as "lex mitior", which simply means that you should apply the mildest version of the law (from the perspective of the accused) in these cases. This is also in line with the widely accepted innocent-until-proven-guilty principle.
pizza 8y ago
Not the same. > Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...
- sturadnidge 8y ago
  That is not the case in UK however, which is where I'm drawing my (outlier, going by Wikipedia) experience.
  - pizza 8y ago
    Fair enough, that's pretty interesting actually
stordoff 8y ago
I don't see them as the same at all. If something is made legal, it indicates that the act is OK and that the person should not _continue_ to be punished. On the other hand, people should only be prosecuted for acts that were illegal at the time they were committed - it isn't equitable to prosecute people under laws they were not subject to at the time of the action, and even on a practical level it is necessary for maintaining trust in the law.