0
What does the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws mean?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
An ex post facto law is one that prohibits that which was formerly legal, and reaches back in time to punish that which was already done back when it was legal. It also includes retroactively increasing the punishment for past crimes. The US Constitution, Art 1, sec 9, prohibits such laws.
However, there is a great deal of legal controversy over whether a legal provision "punishes" the past act, and whether it is doing so retroactively. For example, suppose a state prohibits drunk driving as a misdemeanor, and you are convicted of it twice. Then the state passes a law making a third drunk driving offense a felony. Then you get caught drunk driving again. The state can punish you as a third drunk driver because the only thing that is being punished is your third act of drunk driving while having two priors, and your third act occurred after the law was passed.
In Kansas v Hendrick, 521 US 346 (1997), Hendricks was convicted of a sex offense in 1984 and sentenced. While in prison in 1994, Kansas passed a law for civil commitment of "sexually violent predators." After Hendricks served his criminal sentence, he was locked up anyway (though this time in a state hospital), with his acts leading to conviction and other past acts being the basis for a finding that he continued to be dangerous to the public, allowing his continued incarceration. The US Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled that this "civil commitment" was not "punishment" and therefore allowed it to happen.
This ruling, in the eyes of many commentators, has gutted the ex post facto protection enshrined in the constitution.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
The constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws means that laws cannot be applied retroactively to criminalize an action that was legal at the time it was committed. This prevents individuals from being punished for actions that were not considered crimes when they were performed.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why is ex post facto law prohibited in the Philippines?
Ex post facto laws are prohibited in the Philippines to protect individuals from being punished for actions that were not considered criminally wrong when they were committed. This prohibition ensures that individuals are not penalized for acts that were lawful at the time they were committed. It also upholds the principles of fairness, justice, and the rule of law in the legal system.
Where were there no state prohibition laws in 1930?
As of 1930, there were no state prohibition laws in Mississippi and Louisiana. These states did not enact their own prohibition laws in the 1920s, unlike the majority of other states in the US.
All the reasons why was it difficult to enforce the laws governing Prohibition were what?
Some reasons why it was difficult to enforce Prohibition laws were widespread public sentiment against the restrictions, the rise of organized crime exploiting the illegal alcohol trade, corrupt law enforcement and political officials, and the vast geographical size of the United States making enforcement challenging.
Was it wrong to break the laws of prohibition?
Breaking the laws of prohibition was considered illegal at the time, as these laws were enacted and enforced by the government. However, it's important to consider the context and reasons behind why individuals chose to break these laws, such as the desire for personal freedom or opposition to unjust legislation.
What powers pass ex post facto laws?
The U.S. Constitution prohibits both the federal and state governments from passing ex post facto laws. This means that laws cannot be applied retroactively to criminalize an action that was legal when it was committed. Such laws are considered unfair and a violation of due process.
Law shall have no retroactive effect?
Law has prospective (forward-looking) effect only. The reason for this is that people are entitled to have advance knowledge of the legality or illegality of their behavior before they engage in it. It is similar in theory to the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
Why did racists support the prohibition amendment?
Prohibition can be seen as part of a cultural war against immigrants. That's one reason the KKK was such a strong supporter and (illegal) enforcer of prohibition laws.
That allowing the highest court in the US to declare a law unconstitutional is a benefit?
Yes, it is a benefit. The constitution prohibits congress from passing certain types of laws. Congress and state legislatures have passed them anyway. One is the prohibition against ex post facto legislation. The court has needed to strike it down.
What law to punish a man for something that was not against the law when he did it is called?
An ex post facto law. Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.
How does the US Supreme Court interpret ex post facto laws?
Ex post facto laws are specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
What effort of the Women's Christian Temperance Union eventually led to?
The many prohibition laws against drugs and alcohol and the criminal organisations that live off the criminal activity surrounding prohibition.
What efforts of the Women and Christian Temperance Union eventually led to?
The many prohibition laws against drugs and alcohol and the criminal organisations that live off the criminal activity surrounding prohibition.
What was the prohibition laws?
18th
What are 4 different types of ex post facto laws?
Retroactive criminal laws that criminalize an action that was not illegal when committed. Laws that increase the punishment for a crime after it has been committed. Laws that change the rules of evidence required for conviction after the crime has been committed. Laws that alter the legal consequences of an action that was lawful when performed.
Congress cannot pass laws that make actions illegal after they have been committed people cannot be punished for things that become illegal after they have done them such laws are called?
In the United States, Congress is forbidden of passing what is known as "Ex Post Facto Laws." The United States Supreme Court uses the case of Calder v. Bull in which they ruled that prohibition applied only to criminal, not civil cases to decide ex post facto challenges.
What did Texas rebel against Mexico?
Texas did rebel against Mexico, because Mexico passed 7 laws which did away with the many constitutional reforms.
Can Congress pass ex post facto laws?
No. Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto laws.
