Adding a protection against ex post facto laws.

Quote:Article 2: Bill of Rights.
1. Nations that reside in The South Pacific shall be afforded all rights contemplated in this article unless otherwise noted.
2. The freedom of speech, including the freedom of expression and the press.
3. The freedom of thought, including the freedom of belief, opinion and conscience.
4. The freedom of association, including the freedom of peaceful assembly.
5. The right to equality and the freedom from the denial of participation based on arbitrary or discriminative criteria. 
6. The right to contact the government on all matters of their interest and receive a prompt and adequate response from the relevant officials.
7. The right to defend themselves in the judicial system of the Coalition of The South Pacific with all the guarantees of a speedy hearing and due process of law and to be protected against the application of any law ex post facto.
8. The right to apply for citizenship and have such an application promptly accepted, subject to requirements of citizenship, or otherwise denied under reasonable causes, with the right to an appeal to the appropriate officials.
9. The freedom to reside in the region of The South Pacific, and the right to not be ejected or banned without reasonable cause and due process of law.
10. The freedom to determine to whom their endorsements are given, subject to the duties and restrictions established in the Charter and the Code of Laws.
11. Voting and being elected to an office under the Coalition of The South Pacific shall be rights afforded only to citizens.

I think this amendment falls more under the judicial branch and may actually be in contradiction with Articles 2.6.4 and 2.6.5 of the Rules and Procedures of The High Court, which states:

4. The Complainant must be a past or current resident of The South Pacific and their complaint must be related to The South Pacific.
5. The Defendant may or may not be a past or current resident of The South Pacific and the complaint against them must be related to The South Pacific.

As Unibot has demonstrated here, one may bring another to trial for past crimes.

I think ex post facto law should be applied because NS =/= RL; In NS, we're changing our laws so much that an ex post facto ban would inadvertently mean that we basically could never try anyone for almost anything because we need to make amendments to our criminal code time and time again.

I just don't think the Bill of Rights is the best place for this.

We should definitely not be able to try people ex post facto. That opens the floodgates to all kinds of shady behavior. If something is not illegal when you do it, it's not fair to try you for it later when it is. That's just ridiculous.

Than it should be an amendment to the criminal code, not the bill of rights.

I am not saying I am in favour of this (or against, I honestly haven't given this much thought), but a thing like this would definitely belong in the Bill of Rights, TAC. It would make absolutely no sense to place it in the Criminal Code.

Sorry, I've been distracted watching some old cartoons. Banning Ex Post Facto persecution should be specified in The Code of Laws.

I'm for this.

(03-25-2015, 09:38 PM)Unibot Wrote: I think ex post facto law should be applied because NS =/= RL; In NS, we're changing our laws so much that an ex post facto ban would inadvertently mean that we basically could never try anyone for almost anything because we need to make amendments to our criminal code time and time again.

Yet, I'm pretty sure had Osiris had this Biyah would have been up to many shenanigans of the shady kind, far worse then what had went on already. Nearly every region GCR or UCR I've been around doesn't do that. Some other GCRs might but I wasn't active enough to know the legal system.