[Passed]: Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws

[Quelesh]

The Quelesian delegation is quite satisfied with the wording of the final submission, and will ardently support it at vote.

I was initially concerned that the original draft would also prohibit retroactive legalization or reduction of penalties, but as clause (II) now clearly specifies that only retroactive criminalization or increases of penalties are verboten, my concern has been fully addressed.

Additionally, it's about damn time for this resolution, and I cannot imagine that the motivations of many of its opponents will be consistent with justice.

[Burninati0n]

I'm going to have to vote no on this one. I like the idea, and even support it. The thing is, I can't figure out why you've left an ex post facto provision in the proposal.

Ironic, isn't it? It has to be there in order to ensure the release of persons already convicted under ex post facto laws. The alternative would be to allow wrongfully convicted persons to remain in gaol. I'm sorry if that makes you unable to support it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

It's not so much that it's ironic as that it would strike itself null an void...

[Krioval]

It's not so much that it's ironic as that it would strike itself null an void...

Except that, Excellency, that provision specifically falls in the exemption that deals with canceling punishments, so it remains internally consistent.

Ambassador Darvek-kan Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[New Leicestershire]

It's not so much that it's ironic as that it would strike itself null an void...

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.

It doesn't forbid decriminalizing or decreasing sentencing or punishment.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[New Leicestershire]

At Vote bump.

[Mousebumples]

At Vote bump.

It's ... not up for a vote, though. The vote on Justice for All runs through tonight.

[Tzorsland]

I admit to being puzzled by the notion that the amnesty clause is in fact some form of ex post facto law within the ban on ex post facto laws. In one sense the applies to the present (those who are currently convicted of crimes that have been made void by this resolution) and does not apply to their past offense but their current state of incarceration and status which was caused by the past offense. In any matter

A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, particularly in European continental systems.

Narro Latin panton videor sapiens

[A mean old man]

Placed my vote FOR!

[Sanctaria]

Placed my vote FOR!

[Poree]

The Empire of Poree has cast their vote For as well.

[Krioval]

The Imperial Chiefdom is pleased to cast its vote in favor of this legislation. We hope that it passes by a commanding margin.

Ambassador Darvek-kan Tyvok
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Free Fredonians]

We can find nothing objectionable about this legislation. The Federation of Free Fredonians will support it.

[Quelesh]

Another much-needed and long overdue resolution that we are proud to cast an aye vote for.

[Nullarni]

Unfortunately, as a representative for the Commonwealth of Nullarni, and as delegate for the region NEW WARSAW PACT, I must withdraw my support for this resolution untill further notice.

We feel that this resolution touts its self as anti ex post facto law, but makes the unjust and morally ambiguous distinction between "good" ex post facto laws and "bad" ex post facto laws. And it comes uncomfortably close to banning its own ex post facto provisions! I know that it has been argued that it does not, because it is one of the "good" ex post facto laws protected by itself. But if read carefully, you will see that those provisions technically fall under the "bad" ex post facto law definition.

Let me show you:

The resolution defines the "bad" ex post facto laws as, "...laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed..."

Now, this resolution then goes on to say, "No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any criminal or penal law with ex post facto provisions that criminalize an act or omission..."

Do you see how that falls under the "bad" ex pst facto law definition?

The only thing that keeps this resolution from making itself illegal is that it says "No nation or governmental subdivision" can do this. The WA conveniently falls outside these restrictions. This resolution truely is hipocracy at its very finest.

[Vast RWING Conspiracy]

Unfortunately, as a representative for the Commonwealth of Nullarni, and as delegate for the region NEW WARSAW PACT, I must withdraw my support for this resolution untill further notice.

We feel that this resolution touts its self as anti ex post facto law, but makes the unjust and morally ambiguous distinction between "good" ex post facto laws and "bad" ex post facto laws. And it comes uncomfortably close to banning its own ex post facto provisions! I know that it has been argued that it does not, because it is one of the "good" ex post facto laws protected by itself. But if read carefully, you will see that those provisions technically fall under the "bad" ex post facto law definition.

Let me show you:

The resolution defines the "bad" ex post facto laws as, "...laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed..."

Now, this resolution then goes on to say, "No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any criminal or penal law with ex post facto provisions that criminalize an act or omission..."

Do you see how that falls under the "bad" ex pst facto law definition?

The only thing that keeps this resolution from making itself illegal is that it says "No nation or governmental subdivision" can do this. The WA conveniently falls outside these restrictions. This resolution truely is hipocracy at its very finest.

The Vast RWING Conspiracy whole-heartedly concurs with the Representative for the Commonwealth of Nullarni in their assessment of this resolution.

The resolution falls sadly short of truly banning ALL ex post facto laws by remaining silent on any laws that grant amnesty for those already under punishment for previously existing law. (I'm not referring to section iii, yet.) If we are going to ban "bad" ex post facto laws then we need to ban "good" ex post facto laws as well. If a Nation, through further enlightenment and evolution of culture, decide that an act which was previously deemed illegal should no longer be illegal, and that those still under punishment for that act should no longer suffer for such crimes, then that Nation should work to repeal that law; not just add a new law to decriminalize old actions.

Furthermore, even though I've read the arguments for section iii to exist in this document, I do not support the position that the resolution does not cannibalize itself as a ban on ex post facto law by releasing all who are punished by laws that existed before this resolution passed even if they were ex post facto laws.

In my humble opinion, section iii makes this an ex post facto law at which is the very action this resolution takes aim. Therefore, the Vast RWING Conspiracy can not support this measure in its current form and will hope for its demise. We will hold out hope for a piece of legislation that will truly ban ALL ex post facto law at which time we will throw our full weight (minnow though it may be!) behind it.

Respectfully,

Founder and DA MAN from The Vast RWING Conspiracy

[Cobdenia]

One question occurs: surely the nullification of laws with retroactive provisions passed prior to the proposals implementation would also in itself be post de facto and thus banned by the proposal?

[Nullarni]

Right, but this resolution only applies to "...nation[s] or governmental subdivision[s] thereof..." the WA can make all the ex post facto laws it wants... including this one.

[Bears Armed]

"Upon my governments' instructions, and to my own personal satisfaction, I shall now cast the vote of Bears Armed Mission for this piece of legislation."


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

____________________________________________________________

This resolution truely is hipocracy at its very finest.

"Errum, what do horses have to do with it?"
*(scratches stomach in confusion)*

Urra o HighPeaks,
Apprentice Voice,
Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[The Palentine]

Not bad old boy. The Palentine gladly votes For!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[New Leicestershire]

Unfortunately, as a representative for the Commonwealth of Nullarni, and as delegate for the region NEW WARSAW PACT, I must withdraw my support for this resolution untill further notice.

We feel that this resolution touts its self as anti ex post facto law, but makes the unjust and morally ambiguous distinction between "good" ex post facto laws and "bad" ex post facto laws. And it comes uncomfortably close to banning its own ex post facto provisions! I know that it has been argued that it does not, because it is one of the "good" ex post facto laws protected by itself. But if read carefully, you will see that those provisions technically fall under the "bad" ex post facto law definition.

Let me show you:

The resolution defines the "bad" ex post facto laws as, "...laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed..."

Now, this resolution then goes on to say, "No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any criminal or penal law with ex post facto provisions that criminalize an act or omission..."

Do you see how that falls under the "bad" ex pst facto law definition?

The only thing that keeps this resolution from making itself illegal is that it says "No nation or governmental subdivision" can do this. The WA conveniently falls outside these restrictions. This resolution truely is hipocracy at its very finest.

The Vast RWING Conspiracy whole-heartedly concurs with the Representative for the Commonwealth of Nullarni in their assessment of this resolution.

The resolution falls sadly short of truly banning ALL ex post facto laws by remaining silent on any laws that grant amnesty for those already under punishment for previously existing law. (I'm not referring to section iii, yet.) If we are going to ban "bad" ex post facto laws then we need to ban "good" ex post facto laws as well. If a Nation, through further enlightenment and evolution of culture, decide that an act which was previously deemed illegal should no longer be illegal, and that those still under punishment for that act should no longer suffer for such crimes, then that Nation should work to repeal that law; not just add a new law to decriminalize old actions.

Furthermore, even though I've read the arguments for section iii to exist in this document, I do not support the position that the resolution does not cannibalize itself as a ban on ex post facto law by releasing all who are punished by laws that existed before this resolution passed even if they were ex post facto laws.

In my humble opinion, section iii makes this an ex post facto law at which is the very action this resolution takes aim. Therefore, the Vast RWING Conspiracy can not support this measure in its current form and will hope for its demise. We will hold out hope for a piece of legislation that will truly ban ALL ex post facto law at which time we will throw our full weight (minnow though it may be!) behind it.

Respectfully,

Founder and DA MAN from The Vast RWING Conspiracy

Yes, the Resolution itself contains an ex post facto provision which frees those imprisoned under previous ex post facto laws. I've already explained why it was necessary to include that provision. I make no apologies for including it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[Unibot]

Pascal grabbed his red ink fountain pen, ready to sign his name in the against registrar, just as Eduard Heir popped out of an extradimensional wormhole.

Eduard questioned Pascal, 'What are you doing?"

Pascal hid the pen, "Um.. nothing..I just.. um... lost my green fountain pen. Yeah, thats right."

Eduard smiled, "I lost my in 2043, I've been meaning to get it back from you."

Pascal frowned, "But I don't have your pen?"

Eduard nodded, "Not yet... Anyway, I hope you vote FOR this legislation, Pascal. I've been caught, well sorry I will be caught naked outside of a tropical fish store, which was not a criminal offense when I committed it, but it was five years later when I arrived back at the same place, ten minutes later. Clearly, I started a decadent trend which the government felt they needed to put a stop to it. Luckily they haven't been able to imprison me for more than a few moments -- in fact, the trial hasn't even been completed yet because of my constant absences."

[Compasivo Personas]

I, King Vicente Saldana Guerrero completely support this resolution and the rights that it will provide my people and those of my colleagues. The nation of Compasivo Personas ratifies this bill and lodges a reounding YES.

Un cordial salude,


King Vicente Saldana Guerrero de Compasivo Personas,
Comandante y Jefe de las fuerzas armadas de arma de la Ciudad de Sueños,
Gobernador de las Islas Occidentales

[Tzorsland]

The resolution falls sadly short of truly banning ALL ex post facto laws by remaining silent on any laws that grant amnesty for those already under punishment for previously existing law. (I'm not referring to section iii, yet.) If we are going to ban "bad" ex post facto laws then we need to ban "good" ex post facto laws as well.

I don’t get this. No seriously, I don’t get this. WTF does amnesty have to do with ex post facto laws. Bring in jail is a condition that applies to the present moment in time. You can give amnesty to anyone for pretty much any reason you want to, subject to the overriding laws of your own nation, of course.

Consider this; I could pass a law outlawing all right handed people. That law applies at this very moment. Now one could argue that right handedness is a condition that started at birth, but it is not in and of itself ex post facto since it concerns a present condition, not a past event. (In other words it was not a crime to have been born right handed but it is a crime to currently be right handed.)

The only way an amnesty could be ex post facto is that if the amnesty applied to a period of time before the present and in so doing holds the captors and indeed the entire judicial system liable for their wrongful imprisonment. Otherwise, amnesty is never an ex post facto law.

[Vast RWING Conspiracy]

The resolution falls sadly short of truly banning ALL ex post facto laws by remaining silent on any laws that grant amnesty for those already under punishment for previously existing law. (I'm not referring to section iii, yet.) If we are going to ban "bad" ex post facto laws then we need to ban "good" ex post facto laws as well.

I don’t get this. No seriously, I don’t get this. WTF does amnesty have to do with ex post facto laws. Bring in jail is a condition that applies to the present moment in time. You can give amnesty to anyone for pretty much any reason you want to, subject to the overriding laws of your own nation, of course.

Consider this; I could pass a law outlawing all right handed people. That law applies at this very moment. Now one could argue that right handedness is a condition that started at birth, but it is not in and of itself ex post facto since it concerns a present condition, not a past event. (In other words it was not a crime to have been born right handed but it is a crime to currently be right handed.)

The only way an amnesty could be ex post facto is that if the amnesty applied to a period of time before the present and in so doing holds the captors and indeed the entire judicial system liable for their wrongful imprisonment. Otherwise, amnesty is never an ex post facto law.

If you wouldn't jail someone who committed an act which later had a law passed against that act, would you conversely free all people that were appropriately jailed under existing law if that law were to be repealed in, say, 20 years time? Those people jailed after the law was passed were still guilty of an existing law at the time of their incarceration just as others were innocent prior to the enactment of the law and were not jailed after its passing.

What I'm saying is, if we're going to decide that those who have committed acts that later are determined to be illegal are innocent of violating the law, then we must also determine that those who are punished according to the law valid at the time of punishment must carry out the remainder of their sentence even if the law that placed them in that situation is no longer valid.

This is where I feel this resolution has fallen short and stand by my vote against this resolution.

[New Leicestershire]

... then we must also determine that those who are punished according to the law valid at the time of punishment must carry out the remainder of their sentence even if the law that placed them in that situation is no longer valid.

What you're saying is, if someone commits an illegal act, and the law making it illegal is later repealed, they could still be required to serve the remainder of their sentence since the act actually was illegal when they committed it? Why wouldn't that still be the case? Now granted, most nation's legal systems would opt to release such persons in those circumstances, but that doesn't have anything to do with ex post facto laws.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire