So for exemple if someone got on with a minor at the past, or if someone was openly racist in the 50s, would they be jailed now if they were alive, or do laws apply to the time you commited the crime?
In: Other
No crime was committed then because there was no law prohibiting it at the time. Laws can’t be applied retroactively.
That depends on how democratic the nation is. Democracies and republics have more power in the hands of citizens, who don’t want their government to abuse it. They tend to have constitutions which forbids this specifically, because it’s too easy a tool to abuse. No one complains at first when you come after the child molesters, then once people are used to the idea of retroactive laws you start abusing it on everyone else.
In nations where the democratic process or the constitution is weaker, or even inexistent, the law is whatever the leaders say it is, and that’s the end of that. those unhappy become undesirables, when they don’t just disappear.
A law that puts penalties on prior behaviors is known as an ‘ex post facto law’ and many jurisdictions have constitutions, charters, or other foundational documents which outright ban such laws – In the United States at least, such laws are banned both federally and on the state level by the constitution so a law cannot criminally penalize behaviors prior to the passage of said law.
It depends on how the laws are written. Generally speaking laws are not applied retroactively, but that is just a principle that most governments follow in applying their laws. It is entirely possible for a government to make retroactive laws if they wanted to.
Somewhat off topic is that it is not illegal to be openly racist in the US even now. There are laws against discrimination in things like business, and crimes committed due to racism might be punished more harshly, but a private person just being racist for everyone to see is perfectly legal.
The common law rule is that you cannot be convicted of retroactive law. This means that what you did in the past is not punishable by new law. This law is also enforces explicitly in various constitutions. This is in Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution and s.11(g) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. Not all countries and courts necessarily follow this principle. Famously, there is some argument that the Nuremberg Trials basically enforced retroactive law on the Nazis.
Nope. Imagine if they worked like that: a fully authoritarian government could set up a law that criminalized something their opponents are known to have done, and apply it retroactively. Now the opposing party is all of a sudden full of criminals that need to be arrested and brought to justice.
No, it wasn’t illegal when u did it. However if you committed a crime and then later said action was decriminalised, you’re still liable because it was illegal when u did it. That said, it’s unlikely law enforcement would bother enforcing it or if they did, your sentance would be minimal and probably suspended
No.
Most legal system around the world today are set up so there can’t be no laws that punish people for things they did from before the law took effect.
In the US for example it is part of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 ):
>No Bill of attainder or Ex post facto law shall be passed.
Ex post facto is the technical name for that. The framers of the US constitution saw it necessary to put it all the way up there, because the English law at the time had no such prohibitions and they considered it an injustice they needed to move away from.
Many other countries have similar rules in their constitution or elsewhere in their legal framework.
It is almost universally recognized that making something retroactively illegal is unjust.
However sometimes it is still necessary. For example the Nuremberg trials that punished the surviving Nazi leadership came very close to creating such laws, as much of what the Nazis had done had been legal by the laws the Nazis had made at the time, but that was seen as necessary at the time.
It is unlikely we will see anything like this again unless something else comes up that is monstrous enough to have everyone agree that it should be punished, but not illegal at the time.
Just a random point, racism isn’t a crime (in the US). Racism is an opinion and as such can not be legislated. It can make people not associate with you for sure. But, racism in the absent of another crime can not be charged. People who are openly racist today can not be arrested for it. Discrimination is a crime, which is denying a public service on the basis of race.
I wonder how much $ in retroactive taxes the USA would have to pay to the UK if a new tax law was brought in to the UK tomorrow?
Latest Answers