Retroactive criminalization is also prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[1] and Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights. [2] While U.S. jurisdictions generally prohibit retroactive laws, European countries apply the principle of lex mitior (“the most lenient law”). It provides that if the law has changed after a crime has been committed, the one that is most advantageous to the defendant is the one that is most advantageous. This means that in European legal systems, laws apply retroactively, as far as the most lenient law is concerned. [3] Several Supreme Court decisions have held that ex post facto clauses apply only to federal and state laws, not to court decisions.10FootnoteE.p. e.g. Frank v. Magnum, 237 U.S.

309, 344–45 (1914); cf. Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 USA 451, 456–60 (2000) (stating that restrictions on ex post judicial decision-making are inherent in due process, but that the limitation to due process for courts is not identical to the ex post prohibition applicable to legislation); see also ArtI.S9.C3.3.11 The a posteriori prohibition does not apply to judicial decisions. The ex post facto clause of the State also applies to constitutional amendments of the State. In Cummings v. Missouri, the Court considered a challenge to a post-Civil War amendment to the Missouri Constitution that required persons in certain professions to take an oath that they had never been disloyal to the United States.11Footnote71 U.S. 277, 280–81 (1866). In concluding that the amendment violated the a posteriori clause of the State, the Court drew on the wording of the clause according to which “no State” – not the legislature of a State, but “no State” – should subsequently enact a law and concluded that it could therefore not make a difference whether such legislation was contained in a constitution or in a law of a State; if it is subject to the prohibition, it is null and void.12FootnoteId.

at 307–08. Further explanation of Cummings can be found in article I.S9. C3.3.9 Professional qualifications and ex post facto laws. For more information on ex post facto, see this article from the University of Chicago Law Review, this article from Berkley Law Review, and this article from the University of North Carolina Law Review. Congress passes a law that makes it illegal to live on Mars. Is this a retroactive law? It is the administrative equivalent of a posteriori law (= retroactive). It would be like Congress passing an anti-bike law and then trying to prosecute people who rode bikes as children (before it was illegal). Not. #AbuseOfGovernmentPower t.co/Vj9MzOs23a Australia does not strongly prohibit ex post facto laws, although narrowly retroactive laws may violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Australian courts generally interpret laws with the strong presumption that they do not apply retroactively. In general, the Finnish legal system does not allow for retroactive laws, especially those that would extend criminal liability. They are not expressly prohibited; Instead, the prohibition stems from more general legal principles and fundamental rights. In civil matters, such as taxation, retroactive laws can be passed in certain circumstances. A law that makes chewing gum illegal and requires the arrest of anyone who has ever chewed gum before the law even exists would be an example of an afterthought. Another example would be a law that commutes the sentence for reckless driving to the death penalty and requires that all reckless drivers currently imprisoned be executed. The prohibition of state laws a posteriori, like the related restriction imposed on the federal government by section 9, applies only to criminal and criminal laws, not to civil laws that infringe on private rights.2033 The distinction between civil and criminal law was at the heart of the Court`s decision in Smith v. Doe2034 maintains the application of Alaska`s “Megan`s Law” to sex offenders convicted before the law went into effect. Alaskan law requires released sex offenders to register with local police and also provides for public notification via the Internet. The Court of Justice pays “considerable attention” to the intention of the legislator; If Parliament`s purpose were to adopt a system of civil law regulation, the law can only apply ex post facto if there is “the clearest evidence” of the punitive effect.2035 In this case, according to the court, Parliament`s intent was civil, not punitive, – to promote public safety by “protecting the public from sex offenders.” The Court then identified several “useful benchmarks” to analyze whether a law that is not intended to be punitive nevertheless has a punitive effect. The registration and public notification of sex offenders is of recent origin and is not considered a “traditional means of punishment”. 2036 The law does not subject registrants to “obstruction or positive restriction”; There is no physical restraint or occupational exclusion, and there is no restriction or monitoring of living conditions, as may be the case in probation conditions.