[pinkgothic]

Wow, that's harsh. Or, rather, good (the releasing). The poor kid.

Just one thing bugs me, though. "In yet another baffling twist, the law was written to not apply to cases retroactively" - Baffling? Am I missing something? Laws not applying to cases retroactively is a good thing - or so I thought. I can understand that it might frustrate some people in this case, but I would be appalled to see any sort of law apply to past cases.

It's most obvious when a law is passed that tightens regulations - you don't want to suddenly have to spend more years in prison than when you got your sentence - but the reverse is just as problematic... what if, to pick an extreme example, someone decided to pass a law that would make sexual offences (real ones - not this) not a crime? What about the families that thought themselves safe from the people they were told would be in jail for the rest of their lives? Suddenly knocking on their door...

Hum, anyway. I was taught laws never get applied retroactively - pretty much with the above reasons. I'm a bit taken aback... did I misunderstand something? I get the feeling I'm missing some crucial piece of information about legis- and judicature as a whole.

Help?