4 ms·

Ex post facto laws are not possible in the United States

vlovich123 3y ago
Nominally. But if you’re relying on a drug for medical care and it becomes illegal, the distinction seems superficial to me, no?
x86x87 3y ago
Lol. There are a lot of things that should not be possible in the majority of the civilized works. If this is your defense you're in trouble. Take for example the mythical "checks and balances" that are supposed to keep elected representatives under control. How is that working out? US == freedom and democracy! Until you see the fucking army mobilized to protect the capitol like we are some banana republic where the dictator in charge decided they would like to remain in power. This also is not possible in the US, right?
lazide 3y ago
By convention, but in practice rules get ‘reinterpreted’ to punish previously at least nominally legal behavior all the time - especially when it comes to finance, business, guns, sex/porn, etc.
newZWhoDis 3y ago
In theory, however California eliminated their statute of limitation's for rape (was previously 10 years) and now people are being charged (and convicted) for 20+ year old crimes with only verbal evidence. You might argue it’s not the same thing, but the effect is definitely the same: the law changed and people went from unchargeable to chargeable
- aspenmayer 3y ago
  This is bad reasoning. Ex post facto laws are intended to prohibit making otherwise legal prior actions retroactively against the law, as no law was broken at the time the events occurred, so it would make a mockery of the rule of law to find someone guilty of a crime when no law was broken at that time. What you’re arguing against is absurd. Regardless of the existence or lack thereof of a relevant statute of limitations, ex post facto laws have nothing to do with prosecution of acts that were already illegal at the time they were committed. It may not engender respect for the law or respect for lawmakers to remove the statute of limitations after the time has already passed, but I side with those who the law has already failed: victims of those who break the law to the detriment of victims. If justice delayed is justice denied, then the statute of limitations is a double-edged sword that makes a mockery of the law and of those victims of the law’s failure to be enforced; the original victim is victimized again by denying them their just reward: justice itself. Similarly, we collectively also suffer as a society when lawbreakers aren’t held responsible for their actions, which further foments contempt for the law, by allowing a state of affairs that is demonstrably unjust.

Nominally. But if you’re relying on a drug for medical care and it becomes illegal, the distinction seems superficial to me, no?

x86x87 3y ago

Lol. There are a lot of things that should not be possible in the majority of the civilized works. If this is your defense you're in trouble. Take for example the mythical "checks and balances" that are supposed to keep elected representatives under control. How is that working out? US == freedom and democracy! Until you see the fucking army mobilized to protect the capitol like we are some banana republic where the dictator in charge decided they would like to remain in power. This also is not possible in the US, right?

lazide 3y ago

By convention, but in practice rules get ‘reinterpreted’ to punish previously at least nominally legal behavior all the time - especially when it comes to finance, business, guns, sex/porn, etc.

newZWhoDis 3y ago

In theory, however California eliminated their statute of limitation's for rape (was previously 10 years) and now people are being charged (and convicted) for 20+ year old crimes with only verbal evidence. You might argue it’s not the same thing, but the effect is definitely the same: the law changed and people went from unchargeable to chargeable

aspenmayer 3y ago
This is bad reasoning. Ex post facto laws are intended to prohibit making otherwise legal prior actions retroactively against the law, as no law was broken at the time the events occurred, so it would make a mockery of the rule of law to find someone guilty of a crime when no law was broken at that time. What you’re arguing against is absurd. Regardless of the existence or lack thereof of a relevant statute of limitations, ex post facto laws have nothing to do with prosecution of acts that were already illegal at the time they were committed. It may not engender respect for the law or respect for lawmakers to remove the statute of limitations after the time has already passed, but I side with those who the law has already failed: victims of those who break the law to the detriment of victims. If justice delayed is justice denied, then the statute of limitations is a double-edged sword that makes a mockery of the law and of those victims of the law’s failure to be enforced; the original victim is victimized again by denying them their just reward: justice itself. Similarly, we collectively also suffer as a society when lawbreakers aren’t held responsible for their actions, which further foments contempt for the law, by allowing a state of affairs that is demonstrably unjust.