3 ms·

> I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at the time" The idea that a government can make something illegal and retroactively punish previou

> I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at the time" The idea that a government can make something illegal and retroactively punish previous offenders is so colossally bad that in the United States the Founding Fathers wrote a prohibition against it into the Constitution. It's not an amendment, such as the right to free speech. They wrote it into Article 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law.

mattmanser 6y ago
It's nowhere near as clear cut as you make it out. There are even plenty of examples in the page you link of justifiable ex post facto laws. For example war crimes. To be honest, because of the devastating long term effects of environmental pollution, and the deaths it has caused, I would quite happily argue that laws applying to it could be ex post facto. Crimes against future generations. I remember covering this in my philosophy degree and you can argue about it for hours. The example I remember was Nazi collaborators who reported on Jews or resistance fighters or even falsely accused neighbours. They got people killed, often maliciously, but what they did was perfectly legal at the time. Should they have gotten away with their complicity or should they have ex post facto laws brought against them? In the time of the US founders, the scale of damage a single human or company could conceivably do for profit was a lot less.
gpm 6y ago
It seems unlikely that this would be retroactive. It would probably fall under some pre existing statute like vandalism.
- leptons 6y ago
  "Causing environmental catastrophe" seems like it should be covered by some kind of law in the last 70 or 80 years since DDT started production. They knew how toxic the substance was and how long-lived it was, there is no guessing game as to whether it was a bad idea, even at the time. It has more to do with tolerance of callousness and stupidity in previous decades than it has to do with there not being a specific law against dumping specifically DDT into the ocean.
  - leptons 6y ago
    Something is seriously wrong with hacker news if I'm getting downvoted for this comment. This place is worse than reddit, and that is hard to achieve.
chmaynard 6y ago
On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable that the remaining assets of the Montrose Chemical Company should be used to help pay for the salvage and proper disposal of their DDT wastes.
- TimPC 6y ago
  Normally I'd agree. But if you read the article the government already chose to settle this with Montrose Chemical Company. I think it's a very dangerous precedent to be able to go after corporations for things they've already reached a settlement on. I think it was dumb for the government to settle this and they should have waited for more information.
  - xeromal 6y ago
    Agreed, but we should go after our government for a shitty settlement, not Montrose who legally paid their dues.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > Normally I'd agree. But if you read the article the government already chose to settle this with Montrose Chemical Company. I think it's a very dangerous precedent to be able to go after corporations for things they've already reached a settlement on. I think it was dumb for the government to settle this and they should have waited for more information. If the settlement was reached based on incomplete or false information or representations from the company, the government may still have recourse. So even if the settlement per-se remains in force, a substantial fine or even a new criminal case may still be possible.
sumtechguy 6y ago
To add https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec9 https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder The constitution commands the congress to do this "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The people who wrote the constitution knew how the crown was abusing people. They wrote it specifically to stop that. It is also attached in many cases to state constitutions. Specifically in this case https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%209.&article=I https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... Also I am not a lawyer so .... Perhaps a middle ground can be reached. Where there is some sort of incentive for the inheritors of who did it, to fix it?
wing-_-nuts 6y ago
Corporations are not people. They should be liable for the ongoing harm they are doing because of their previous actions.
microtherion 6y ago
A similar principle is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regarding penal offenses. However, there was always a principle of civil liability of damages caused, so this should still be applicable.

mattmanser 6y ago

It's nowhere near as clear cut as you make it out. There are even plenty of examples in the page you link of justifiable ex post facto laws. For example war crimes. To be honest, because of the devastating long term effects of environmental pollution, and the deaths it has caused, I would quite happily argue that laws applying to it could be ex post facto. Crimes against future generations. I remember covering this in my philosophy degree and you can argue about it for hours. The example I remember was Nazi collaborators who reported on Jews or resistance fighters or even falsely accused neighbours. They got people killed, often maliciously, but what they did was perfectly legal at the time. Should they have gotten away with their complicity or should they have ex post facto laws brought against them? In the time of the US founders, the scale of damage a single human or company could conceivably do for profit was a lot less.

gpm 6y ago

It seems unlikely that this would be retroactive. It would probably fall under some pre existing statute like vandalism.

leptons 6y ago
"Causing environmental catastrophe" seems like it should be covered by some kind of law in the last 70 or 80 years since DDT started production. They knew how toxic the substance was and how long-lived it was, there is no guessing game as to whether it was a bad idea, even at the time. It has more to do with tolerance of callousness and stupidity in previous decades than it has to do with there not being a specific law against dumping specifically DDT into the ocean.
- leptons 6y ago
  Something is seriously wrong with hacker news if I'm getting downvoted for this comment. This place is worse than reddit, and that is hard to achieve.

chmaynard 6y ago

On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable that the remaining assets of the Montrose Chemical Company should be used to help pay for the salvage and proper disposal of their DDT wastes.

TimPC 6y ago
Normally I'd agree. But if you read the article the government already chose to settle this with Montrose Chemical Company. I think it's a very dangerous precedent to be able to go after corporations for things they've already reached a settlement on. I think it was dumb for the government to settle this and they should have waited for more information.
- xeromal 6y ago
  Agreed, but we should go after our government for a shitty settlement, not Montrose who legally paid their dues.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Normally I'd agree. But if you read the article the government already chose to settle this with Montrose Chemical Company. I think it's a very dangerous precedent to be able to go after corporations for things they've already reached a settlement on. I think it was dumb for the government to settle this and they should have waited for more information. If the settlement was reached based on incomplete or false information or representations from the company, the government may still have recourse. So even if the settlement per-se remains in force, a substantial fine or even a new criminal case may still be possible.

sumtechguy 6y ago

To add https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec9 https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder The constitution commands the congress to do this "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The people who wrote the constitution knew how the crown was abusing people. They wrote it specifically to stop that. It is also attached in many cases to state constitutions. Specifically in this case https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%209.&article=I https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... Also I am not a lawyer so .... Perhaps a middle ground can be reached. Where there is some sort of incentive for the inheritors of who did it, to fix it?

wing-_-nuts 6y ago

Corporations are not people. They should be liable for the ongoing harm they are doing because of their previous actions.

microtherion 6y ago

A similar principle is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regarding penal offenses. However, there was always a principle of civil liability of damages caused, so this should still be applicable.