[Passed]: Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

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.

edit: The version submitted:

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.

[Ilharessa]

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;

"You could title this 'Ex Post Facto Ban' and leave it at that. That would be an interesting pun," Velnayanis said.

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.

"We'll support it. Looks good from our end," Velnayanis said.

[Iraqialand]

"You could title this, Ex Post Facto Ban," said President Fredius, leader of Iraqialand and the Iraqialand Alliance, while sipping his cup of tea.

[A mean old man]

I'm cool with this.

Let me know when you submit it; I'll be sure to holler over to Aven and ask if he will approve it.

[Linux and the X]

I recommend including language to specify that, if a law which a person was convicted of is repealed or modified to have a reduced sentence, the convict may be subject to the new law.

[Philimbesi]

I like Less Ex Post Facto Laws Than Before Law(s)

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I recommend including language to specify that, if a law which a person was convicted of is repealed or modified to have a reduced sentence, the convict may be subject to the new law.

Well no, that really goes beyond the purpose of this Resolution, which is to ban ex post facto laws. What you're talking about is making the effects of a repeal or modification of an existing law retroactive for those who were convicted under that law.

In most cases, with most legal systems, that would happen anyway. For instance if a nation had laws criminalizing the possession of marijuana, and then those laws were overturned, the nation would likely free those who were previously convicted under those laws. But they shouldn't necessarily have to. At the time that those persons were convicted, what they were doing actually was illegal.

[The Palentine]

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.

For this statement alone, even though its a human rights proposal, I'll support it. You have made my day, old bean.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Charlotte Ryberg]

A simple title could be the "Ban on Retroactive Law".

I'm in support of this draft.

[Quelesh]

I recommend including language to specify that, if a law which a person was convicted of is repealed or modified to have a reduced sentence, the convict may be subject to the new law.

Well no, that really goes beyond the purpose of this Resolution, which is to ban ex post facto laws. What you're talking about is making the effects of a repeal or modification of an existing law retroactive for those who were convicted under that law.

In most cases, with most legal systems, that would happen anyway. For instance if a nation had laws criminalizing the possession of marijuana, and then those laws were overturned, the nation would likely free those who were previously convicted under those laws. But they shouldn't necessarily have to. At the time that those persons were convicted, what they were doing actually was illegal.

I strongly support a prohibition on ex post facto laws. However, what I think the ambassador from Linux and the X is getting at is that this proposal, as written, might actually prohibit a nation from retroactively making the possession of marijuana legal, to use your example. If a nation's law-making body were to pass a law retroactively legalizing possession of marijuana, and requiring any sentences for that offense to be stricken, such a law would "retroactively change the legal consequences of an act." This proposal would define it as an ex post facto law and prohibit its passage.

The definition clause contains ("This includes...") a couple of good examples of punitive ex post facto laws, but it does not exclude laws of retroactive legalization (or retroactive reduction of sentences) from the definition. I think it should.

However, despite this potential flaw, I commend the nation of Mad Sheep Railgun for resurrecting this resolution.

[The Altani Federation]

The definition clause contains ("This includes...") a couple of good examples of punitive ex post facto laws, but it does not exclude laws of retroactive legalization (or retroactive reduction of sentences) from the definition. I think it should.

We have to disagree. Retroactive legalization or sentence reduction sounds good on paper (and would've done me a huge favor in getting out of some of the scrapes I got into in the past).

In reality, you're setting yourself up for a dilemma. If such a clause is included, inevitably someone is going to seize on that as a reason to argue against the measure. In other words, why are some ex post facto laws bad and not others? Better to not give anyone that argument to hang their opposition on; either ban ex post facto laws entirely, or don't.

With that said, the Federation would support this as it stands now.

-Nikolai Nagashybyuly, Ambassador

[The Eternal Kawaii]

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;

We recommend removing the phrase, "...and no punishment meted out..." from the sentence above. Clearly, punishments CAN be meted out for ex post facto "crimes". Whether they should be is the issue here.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

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;

We recommend removing the phrase, "...and no punishment meted out..." from the sentence above. Clearly, punishments CAN be meted out for ex post facto "crimes". Whether they should be is the issue here.

It needs to be reworded. That's supposed to mean that punishments must not be meted out. I'll look at the original drafting thread and try to find why that was put in there and who suggested it. I may just take it out as you've suggested though.

It may be a while before this is submitted. I don't really have time for it right now and I'm also not sure that the WA in its current state is likely to pass it.

[A mean old man]

It may be a while before this is submitted. I don't really have time for it right now and I'm also not sure that the WA in its current state is likely to pass it.

If it's got "Human Rights" as the category, they'll all jump to cast their vote FOR.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

It may be a while before this is submitted. I don't really have time for it right now and I'm also not sure that the WA in its current state is likely to pass it.

If it's got "Human Rights" as the category, they'll all jump to cast their vote FOR.

Yeah but it's well-written, would actually be beneficial to the citizens of WA nations, and it will say "Proposed by: Mad Sheep Railgun". Fail.

[A mean old man]

It may be a while before this is submitted. I don't really have time for it right now and I'm also not sure that the WA in its current state is likely to pass it.

If it's got "Human Rights" as the category, they'll all jump to cast their vote FOR.

Yeah but it's well-written, would actually be beneficial to the citizens of WA nations, and it will say "Proposed by: Mad Sheep Railgun". Fail.

Uh oh; better not try it, then.

Also, if Alsted, FASTERCAT, or Hockeynutville have something to say against it, it's doomed as well.

[A mean old man]

It may be a while before this is submitted. I don't really have time for it right now and I'm also not sure that the WA in its current state is likely to pass it.

If it's got "Human Rights" as the category, they'll all jump to cast their vote FOR.

Yeah but it's well-written, would actually be beneficial to the citizens of WA nations, and it will say "Proposed by: Mad Sheep Railgun". Fail.

Uh oh; better not try it, then.

Also, if Alsted, FASTERCAT, or Hockeynutville have something to say against it, it's doomed as well.

Oh, oops! Excuse me, they won't actually have something to say about it, they'll just cast their vote against it before it can even take off.

*cough cough.*

[Quelesh]

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;

We recommend removing the phrase, "...and no punishment meted out..." from the sentence above. Clearly, punishments CAN be meted out for ex post facto "crimes". Whether they should be is the issue here.

It needs to be reworded. That's supposed to mean that punishments must not be meted out. I'll look at the original drafting thread and try to find why that was put in there and who suggested it. I may just take it out as you've suggested though.

It may be a while before this is submitted. I don't really have time for it right now and I'm also not sure that the WA in its current state is likely to pass it.

Changing it to "and must be no punishment meted out" would probably be clear enough.

Also, I think it will pass by a relatively wide margin, despite the flaws of being well-written and beneficial.

[Misoko]

Misoko supports this resolution in the interests of justice. We hope to see it at vote soon.

[Spykeny]

We oppose this proposal and will vote against it if it ever goes up for vote. Far too often people get away with crimes because the actual act was committed before a law was passed. We should be allowed to punish people who committed act before it was illegal.

[Flibbleites]

We oppose this proposal and will vote against it if it ever goes up for vote. Far too often people get away with crimes because the actual act was committed before a law was passed. We should be allowed to punish people who committed act before it was illegal.

Why on Earth would you punish someone for doing something that's legal?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Misoko]

We oppose this proposal and will vote against it if it ever goes up for vote. Far too often people get away with crimes because the actual act was committed before a law was passed. We should be allowed to punish people who committed act before it was illegal.

Why on Earth would you punish someone for doing something that's legal?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

It appears that there are nations who prefer order over personal freedoms, and the ability to gain a free pass after an oversight in previous legislation.

[Pulcifer]

The newly Pulciferian delegate, Georgish Colling, decides to way in on the matter.

"I'd vote in favour of the proposal, although section (III) does give me pause. However, it has been one of the primary efforts of war crimes to never indite under a aegis of a post-facto law (see the Nuremburg Trials). While a flawed document, it is a necessary one, leading the way to a stonger document somewhere down the road.

Yours &c,

Georg Colling,
Seat 1145b
WA Assembly Hall

[Tybra]

The Holy Empire of Tybra declares that this is a reasonably sound proposition. We do however have certain remarks which we feel ought to be stated and clarified.

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;

The coloured part of importance in correlation with the following part of the proposal:

(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 offences.

In this world, technology changes at a rapid rate, as such laws need to be changed. As such laws need to be redefined and their status changes, they're either removed to make place for new laws or changed. Would this third act not mean that all people should be set free would any changes of the law take place?

[Misoko]

The Holy Empire of Tybra declares that this is a reasonably sound proposition. We do however have certain remarks which we feel ought to be stated and clarified.

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;

The coloured part of importance in correlation with the following part of the proposal:

(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 offences.

In this world, technology changes at a rapid rate, as such laws need to be changed. As such laws need to be redefined and their status changes, they're either removed to make place for new laws or changed. Would this third act not mean that all people should be set free would any changes of the law take place?

i don't believe so. This resolution would only affect those who were put in prison after their acts were deemed illegal by the government. I would do nothing against those in prison for committing acts that were illegal in the first place.