Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkgothic
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?
|
I, too, have been always told that law is applied retroactively only in special circumstances. Wikipedia
agrees: "Generally speaking,
ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive legislation (...)".
Maybe it's not viewed that way in the US (law) culture, though? After all, the American jurisdiction is traditionally quite different from most European ones, judging (ha!) from all the TV & Film legal dramas I've seen, at least. Eg. heavy reliance on past precedents during the trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiwak
It's unfair for someone to sit in prison for an extended period of time for a law that no longer exists. Think about it this way, why should George, who committed some hypothetical crime five years ago, have to sit in prison for another five years when Bill, who committed the same crime a month ago, receive no punishment whatsoever for the very same crime George is still in prison for (and will be in prison for five more years).
|
To my mind it's as simple as "because he
was sentenced for ten years". In a symmetrical situation, would you be in favor of retroactively penalizing Geroge if what he comitted wasn't considered a crime back when he had done it?
