I had been wondering about this.
pretend theres a law that a person cant buy more than 5 packs of eggs,and a person bought 4.So they change the law to people cant buy more than 3 packs of eggs of they'll go to prison.Would the person who bought the 4 eggs before they changed the law go to prison?
okay its a stupid and totally weird example lol.
2007-11-04 04:08:07 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
No you cannot. As the prior person said its in our Constitution.
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retrospective law, is a law that retrospectively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retrospectively.
Ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws.
2007-11-04 04:23:08 · answer #1 · answered by Kent N 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
good example is the law on drugs. caught around a school ground and given 40 years automatically.on this xx xx xxxx date you were charged with the crime and on this date you were sentenced xx xx xxxx.
the law on drugs changes and it is now 20 years. the date the law changes is the date of the new law. the law that is new will state effective this date. and that is the date of the change.
same if you were arrested on this date 4 Oct 2007 and the law changed on 1 Jan 2008. you will be charged as the last or one of the last under the old bill.
look at it this way your birthday comes onxx xx xxxx the day you were born sun--sat. that same day you were born will only occur once or twice in your life time.
2007-11-04 05:02:21 · answer #2 · answered by ahsoasho2u2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a silly question at all. In other areas of law, other than criminal that is, they call it a grandfather clause. It means it applies only from that moment on, and in some cases those who began such activity can continue if they started way before the change was made.
2007-11-04 04:58:38 · answer #3 · answered by Lisbeth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The situation that you are describing is called an Ex Post Facto Law. It was used, for example, to punish people who spoke out against royalty; the government would make it illegal to say such and such, then try the person under the new law.
The US Constitution specifically forbids Ex Post Facto.
2007-11-04 05:14:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This isn't a stupid question! I'm sure lots of people wonder the same thing and you were brave enough to ask!
No, a law can only be applied after it is passed and not retroactive. But, if a law is deamed unconstitutional and removed from the books, those who were convicted of that crime can be released from jail.
2007-11-04 04:14:43 · answer #5 · answered by JR 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I continuously attempt to respond to the guy's question, in spite of the actuality that if i do not accept as true with what they're doing. from time to time I do upload in a number of my opinion on the count number, yet I continuously have genuine assistance in my answer as well. I commonly merely bypass really stupid questions because i do not pick to be advise in my answer. I also do not imagine I placed myself on a pedestal. I nonetheless ask questions contained in the dogs area because i do not understand each and every thing. upload: operating example, a at the same time as in the past there turned right into a question about after look after a dogs's surgical operation. My dogs had also had that surgical operation, so I gave an informative answer. when I printed my answer, I study the different solutions and one human being merely did not accept as true with spending that a lot money on dogs care, yet did not really answer the question. to that end, i have self assurance like that human being changed into merely being impolite and wasn't really helping the asker. in spite of the indisputable fact that, if the answer to a question is fairly glaring (like 'get your dogs to a vet') then i have self assurance like it is alright to be slightly harsh.
2016-10-23 09:27:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most laws passed take effect on the date of passage and are not retroactive.
2007-11-04 04:10:56 · answer #7 · answered by shojo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can bet that if the new law involves a fine or money for the cop shop....They would stay up nights until they found a way to fine you for the new law....
2007-11-04 04:54:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I believe there's something in the Constitution about that. If it was lawful at the time you did it, you can't be punished.
2007-11-04 04:12:34 · answer #9 · answered by xx. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Laws like that are not retroactive.
2007-11-04 04:12:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋