[Passed]: Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws

[Burninati0n]

Well, I agree with this proposal on concept but...

"(III) Any persons under sentence as a result of ex post facto laws shall have their sentence for any ex post facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these ex post facto offenses."

That would make this ex post facto. XD

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Well, I agree with this proposal on concept but...

"(III) Any persons under sentence as a result of ex post facto laws shall have their sentence for any ex post facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these ex post facto offenses."

That would make this ex post facto. XD

Yeah I mentioned that in the first post. It's an ex post facto provision but it needs to be there. Don't worry too much over it though because I doubt this will ever be submitted.

edit: It won't be submitted. I've resigned Mad Sheep from the WA and have no intention of rejoining with it or any other nation.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

edit: It won't be submitted. I've resigned Mad Sheep from the WA and have no intention of rejoining with it or any other nation.

Well scratch that. I've decided that this needs to be done after all. It will be submitted by Hiriaurtung Arororugul, but most likely debated IC by New Leicestershire.

[New Leicestershire]

It has been a considerable amount of time since this was last discussed. Are there any comments or suggestions from my colleagues? Barring any major changes to the draft, I can envision submitting it sometime in the next two to three days.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Nullarni]

The ambassador from Nullarni would like to inform you of his nation's support for this proposal and it's intention to to endorse it as soon as it is submitted.

[Urgench]

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Believing that ex post facto laws are violations of both the rule of law and the right of persons to fair treatment by the criminal justice system;

Asserting that one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;

Further, asserting that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of the law as it existed at the time;

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an ex post facto law as one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed;

Declares that:

(I) No person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offense because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offense under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

(II) No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions. Any ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.

(III) Any persons under sentence as a result of ex post facto laws shall have their sentence for any ex post facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these ex post facto offenses.

I'm planning to submit this for real as soon as I have time to TG for it.

1. Yes, I know, it's a WA version of the old NSUN "No Ex Post Facto Laws".

2. Yes, I am the original author and have every right to submit it as a WA Resolution.

3. Yes, I know it will need a new title. Any suggestions are more than welcome.

4. Yes, I know that (III) is itself an ex post facto provision of sorts. Kinda ironic that such a thing would appear in a Resolution banning ex post facto laws, innit? It needs to be there.



This passed as a NSUN Resolution by a margin of 10325 for, 2238 against (82.2% support). I'm happy with it as written and don't envision making any major changes. I'm not going to change it substantially just for shits and giggles, or just to make one ambassador happy, or just because your nation has some weird-ass legal system and you simply must keep your ex post facto laws. I don't care. I do welcome sensible, reasonable suggestions though.

In this form the statute is too broad in effect to ever have the CSKU's support. As written it would seem to prohibit retroactive legislation of any kind. While we understand that some states hold ex post facto laws in a criminal law setting in extreme odium and might well be able to support a law which prohibited ex post facto law in a clearly defined criminal law context, we cannot however support a prohibition of all retroactive legislation of all kinds.

The law cultures an constitutional arrangements of many member states see great efficacy in the ability to be able to restructure the legal consequences of certain non-criminal law relationships, activities and statuses, while remaining fully sensitive to the rights and liberties of their citizens.

Yours,

[New Leicestershire]

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Believing that ex post facto laws are violations of both the rule of law and the right of persons to fair treatment by the criminal justice system;

Asserting that one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;

Further, asserting that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of the law as it existed at the time;

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an ex post facto law as one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed;

Declares that:

(I) No person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offense because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offense under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

(II) No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions. Any ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.

(III) Any persons under sentence as a result of ex post facto laws shall have their sentence for any ex post facto offenses nullified and their criminal record expunged of these ex post facto offenses.

I'm planning to submit this for real as soon as I have time to TG for it.

1. Yes, I know, it's a WA version of the old NSUN "No Ex Post Facto Laws".

2. Yes, I am the original author and have every right to submit it as a WA Resolution.

3. Yes, I know it will need a new title. Any suggestions are more than welcome.

4. Yes, I know that (III) is itself an ex post facto provision of sorts. Kinda ironic that such a thing would appear in a Resolution banning ex post facto laws, innit? It needs to be there.



This passed as a NSUN Resolution by a margin of 10325 for, 2238 against (82.2% support). I'm happy with it as written and don't envision making any major changes. I'm not going to change it substantially just for shits and giggles, or just to make one ambassador happy, or just because your nation has some weird-ass legal system and you simply must keep your ex post facto laws. I don't care. I do welcome sensible, reasonable suggestions though.

In this form the statute is too broad in effect to ever have the CSKU's support. As written it would seem to prohibit retroactive legislation of any kind. While we understand that some states hold ex post facto laws in a criminal law setting in extreme odium and might well be able to support a law which prohibited ex post facto law in a clearly defined criminal law context, we cannot however support a prohibition of all retroactive legislation of all kinds.

The law cultures an constitutional arrangements of many member states see great efficacy in the ability to be able to restructure the legal consequences of certain non-criminal law relationships, activities and statuses, while remaining fully sensitive to the rights and liberties of their citizens.

Yours,

Obviously the intent is to ban ex post facto criminal statutes. As written I suppose it would also ban other types of ex post facto laws as well. Could you give an example of a "good" or beneficial non-criminal ex post facto law? The wording could easily be changed to only cover criminal proceedings but I'm having a hard time imagining any circumstance where retroactively changing the consequences of acts would be a good thing.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Glen-Rhodes]

Obviously the intent is to ban ex post facto criminal statutes. As written I suppose it would also ban other types of ex post facto laws as well. Could you give an example of a "good" or beneficial non-criminal ex post facto law? The wording could easily be changed to only cover criminal proceedings but I'm having a hard time imagining any circumstance where retroactively changing the consequences of acts would be a good thing.

Well, I can think of one. It has to do with criminal law, but not in the way I believe the Ambassador is thinking. There are always amnesty laws. For example, some decades ago, Glen-Rhodes banned the death penalty and replaced it with life-long imprisonment. Consequently, the legislature passed an amnesty law (which is an ex post facto law) that replaced death sentences with life-long imprisonment, for those who had been previously condemned to the death penalty.

The definition of 'ex post facto' laws states that "... This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed". However, by my reading, this isn't exclusive. By my reading, laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed are merely one piece of the ex post facto gamut.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[New Leicestershire]

Obviously the intent is to ban ex post facto criminal statutes. As written I suppose it would also ban other types of ex post facto laws as well. Could you give an example of a "good" or beneficial non-criminal ex post facto law? The wording could easily be changed to only cover criminal proceedings but I'm having a hard time imagining any circumstance where retroactively changing the consequences of acts would be a good thing.

Well, I can think of one. It has to do with criminal law, but not in the way I believe the Ambassador is thinking. There are always amnesty laws. For example, some decades ago, Glen-Rhodes banned the death penalty and replaced it with life-long imprisonment. Consequently, the legislature passed an amnesty law (which is an ex post facto law) that replaced death sentences with life-long imprisonment, for those who had been previously condemned to the death penalty.

The definition of 'ex post facto' laws states that "... This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed". However, by my reading, this isn't exclusive. By my reading, laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed are merely one piece of the ex post facto gamut.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

Our intent is to ban laws which retroactively criminalize acts or retroactively increase punishments. We don't want to ban laws which would retroactively legalize something or retroactively decrease a sentence. I will adjust the wording a bit to make this more clear and also to make clear that this shall only apply to criminal statutes.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Leicestershire]

If any of you are bored, you might enjoy reading through the discussions of the first No Ex Post Facto Laws resolution.

http://forums.joltonline.com/showthread.php?t=510776

http://forums.joltonline.com/showthread.php?t=514380

[New Leicestershire]

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Believing that ex post facto laws are violations of both the rule of law and the right of persons to fair treatment by the criminal justice system;

Asserting that one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;

Further, asserting that there can be no crime committed, and punishment must not be meted out, without a violation of the law as it existed at the time;

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an ex post facto law as a criminal or penal law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed;

Declares that:

(I) No person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offence because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offence under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

(II) No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any criminal or penal law with ex post facto provisions that criminalize an act or omission, or that increase sentencing or punishment. Any such ex post facto provisions in existing criminal laws shall be rendered null and void.

(III) Any persons under sentence as a result of ex post facto laws shall have their sentence for any ex post facto offences nullified and their criminal record expunged of these ex post facto offenses.

[New Leicestershire]

I have made some changes to the text. It now specifies that this applies to criminal and penal law. It also specifies that it applies to "criminal or penal law with ex post facto provisions that criminalize an act or omission, or that increase sentencing or punishment". this would exempt theoretical "good" EPF laws and civil laws.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Honourable Ambassador,

Despite the good intentions of this proposal, we will not be supporting this resolution due to the definition given for an "ex post facto" law. It is too vague and can actually be interpreted to imply that no new laws can be created in WA member nations.

Sincerely,

Stephen Jims
Ambassador

[New Leicestershire]

Honourable Ambassador,

Despite the good intentions of this proposal, we will not be supporting this resolution due to the definition given for an "ex post facto" law. It is too vague and can actually be interpreted to imply that no new laws can be created in WA member nations.

Sincerely,

Stephen Jims
Ambassador

Ambassador Jims, If Buffett and Colbert chooses to interpret the definition that way there is little that I, the Dominion of New Leicestershire, or the World Assembly can do about it. It's your nation, your legislature and your courts. I'm afraid I can't help you.

On the other hand, New Leicestershire (and I'm sure most other nations) will interpret it as "a criminal or penal law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed".

Best of luck with your future endeavours,

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Glen-Rhodes]

I am wondering how this applies to World Assembly resolutions. The way I'm reading it, individuals would still not be able to be convicted of crimes not illegal when committed, even if it's a WAR that has criminalized the act. But I just want to be positive.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[New Buckner]

I propose a change to the wording that might bring the passage of the bill, and allow a meeting in the middle for the two sides. It appears that the largest objection to the bill in it's current form is over what rulings this will apply to.

Would it not be agreeable to BOTH sides if the following was used:

Allow the REDUCTION in severity or terms of sentences, but not allow the INCREASE or ADDITION in terms of severity (ie life to death) or term.

It still keeps the spirit of the bill as we see it, but keep it from punishing those for something that was legal before, but is now illegal, but also allows for those who were punished for something that was illegal, but is now legal to have their sentences commuted or be set free.

It is also our recommendation that a clause be added to the bill that makes clear action cannot be taken against a nation by someone set free under this policy, as they were punished based on the law of the land at the time and being found guilty were held accountable to the law.

[New Leicestershire]

The way I'm reading it, individuals would still not be able to be convicted of crimes not illegal when committed, even if it's a WAR that has criminalized the act.

Why would you want to convict someone of something that wasn't illegal when they did it?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Leicestershire]

Would it not be agreeable to BOTH sides if the following was used:

Allow the REDUCTION in severity or terms of sentences, but not allow the INCREASE or ADDITION in terms of severity (ie life to death) or term.

It already does that. I would suggest the honoured ambassador read it again.

It is also our recommendation that a clause be added to the bill that makes clear action cannot be taken against a nation by someone set free under this policy, as they were punished based on the law of the land at the time and being found guilty were held accountable to the law.

That is beyond the scope of this Resolution. If you want a Resolution protecting national governments against lawsuits, write one.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Unibot]

The way I'm reading it, individuals would still not be able to be convicted of crimes not illegal when committed, even if it's a WAR that has criminalized the act.

Why would you want to convict someone of something that wasn't illegal when they did it?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Pascal's eyebrow was lifted, "Well, indeed that is a strange circumstance. However if I remember correctly, back in the ol' ages of ages ago, in Unibotian history, our neighbor, Stash Kroh was being ruled by Arch-banana Franz Fackitler, who legalized genocide and committed a lot of atrocities before we as a proud nation stomped on their colony, and rescued the people. Stash Kroh later sentenced Fackitler to a death sentence for committing Genocide, even though the laws on Genocide had been removed by the Arch-Banana about four years prior to the genocidal acts being committed."

[Sionis Prioratus]

Quorum has been attained.

[Linux and the X]

-snip-

Goodness, what a convincing argument, Ambassador.

[New Leicestershire]

Pascal's eyebrow was lifted, "Well, indeed that is a strange circumstance. However if I remember correctly, back in the ol' ages of ages ago, in Unibotian history, our neighbor, Stash Kroh was being ruled by Arch-banana Franz Fackitler, who legalized genocide and committed a lot of atrocities before we as a proud nation stomped on their colony, and rescued the people. Stash Kroh later sentenced Fackitler to a death sentence for committing Genocide, even though the laws on Genocide had been removed by the Arch-Banana about four years prior to the genocidal acts being committed."

While he may have legalised genocide in Stash Kroh he certainly didn't have the power to legalise it in international law. Therefore he could have been convicted under international law without resorting to any ex post facto provisions in national law. Still, his act of genocide was 'technically' legal under Stash Kroh law when he committed it. I wonder though, was the law legalising genocide itself technically legal? Or might it have been unconstitutional to begin with? You have to look not only at the legality of the act when he committed it, but the legality (or constitutionality) of the law that enabled the act.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why would you want to convict someone of something that wasn't illegal when they did it?

No, no, no. I wanted to make sure the ex post facto ban also applied to World Assembly resolutions.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[New Leicestershire]

Quorum has been attained.

David Watts steps over the dead bodies left by the Efdghrtjyukjhgdrsastani delegation.

Yes! That was much quicker than I expected. I'd like to thank everyone who approved it. We'll be voting on it in about .....*looks at queue* ....two weeks.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Leicestershire]

Why would you want to convict someone of something that wasn't illegal when they did it?

No, no, no. I wanted to make sure the ex post facto ban also applied to World Assembly resolutions.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

OOC: Do WA resolutions apply to the WA itself? I know we've had this discussion but I can't remember the thread or what the consensus was. Certainly if the WA was mentioned by name they would apply but otherwise, I'm not sure...