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.

Exactly. While I certainly agree with ex post facto principles in RL, in NS, it just doesn't work. It means any change we make to our criminal code potentially exonerates a number of people who don't deserve that. 

Reply

Exactly. While I certainly agree with ex post facto principles in RL, in NS, it just doesn't work. It means any change we make to our criminal code potentially exonerates a number of people who don't deserve that. 

Why does it not work?

Because we can't make something illegal after the fact and then charge someone for actions that were legal when they committed them?

What if, for example, we reinstated the defamation laws today? Would people then be able to reach back in time and find examples that violate the defamation law, before it passed, and use it to prosecute people they don't like?

What if we passed a law that says only the Delegate and Vice Delegate can have over 100 endorsements, and those who violate the law shall be banned? Would the Delegate then be able to reach back in history and find people who once had over 100 endorsements, while not serving as Delegate or Vice Delegate, and ban them? Legally, Unibot, you're saying "Yes, yes they would be able to".

All sorts of abuse potential right there. In fact, I guarantee you it will be abused at some point in the future. It is a fact of human psychology.

Reply

What about ex post facto applying if it was a crime both under current laws and the laws at time? We should have the archives to check these things if necessary.

So if we re-implemented defamation it could be applied ex post facto to any instance between the implementation and prior to the removal of the old defamation laws (assuming it was implemented with the same definition), but in that delegate example it would not apply since it did not exist at the time.

We could also possibly extend the limitations further by restricting it to apply only as far back as the creation of the Coalition following the Milograd coup. (Or whenever the coalition formed, even the coup was before I joined.)

Reply

We could also possibly extend the limitations further by restricting it to apply only as far back as the creation of the Coalition following the Milograd coup. (Or whenever the coalition formed, even the coup was before I joined.)

I am not sure what you mean by that. The Coalition was founded around May 2003, under the delegacies of Killer Monkeys and Goddessness.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Why count the Milograd coup, but exclude the Sedgistan coup and Frak attempted coup -- Seems to just be a way to protect The Empire and Evil Wolf.

Reply

What if we passed a law that says only the Delegate and Vice Delegate can have over 100 endorsements, and those who violate the law shall be banned? Would the Delegate then be able to reach back in history and find people who once had over 100 endorsements, while not serving as Delegate or Vice Delegate, and ban them? Legally, Unibot, you're saying "Yes, yes they would be able to".

I believe the bigger injustice there is that people are being banned for having 100 endorsements; not that the law is being applied ex post facto. In fact that might be the stupidest argument I've heard all week. Congratulations.

Reply

We could also possibly extend the limitations further by restricting it to apply only as far back as the creation of the Coalition following the Milograd coup. (Or whenever the coalition formed, even the coup was before I joined.)

I am not sure what you mean by that. The Coalition was founded around May 2003, under the delegacies of Killer Monkeys and Goddessness.

What I was trying to say was having it apply whenever the Charter was created in its current form. Not really sure how much it has changed historically between coups. Nothing political about it, it just seemed like a useful rough cut-off date.

(This post was last modified: 03-28-2015, 07:45 PM by The Union of Free Individuals.)

Reply

So, basically the last successful overhaul of The Charter?

---

I am a Super Villain

Animefan666 (me): One day I'd like to wipe out humanity...and maybe conquer the city. Ya know, the usual.
Then, once everyone is a zombie, we all starve and Serling dies. A perfect end to a doomed city.
Zombie61: /Rename Animefan666 to The-Brain.
Animefan666: So, now that we've established that I am Brain, who will be my not so brainy sidekick Pinky?

---

Kris: You suddenly remind me of Magneto's White House Speech in Days of Future Past.
TAC: So who's gonna be my right hand mutant?

---

Fortunado: And now i need something to restore my faith in humanity... been a struggle to stop losing it.
LeSageStupide: Have you ever just stared at TAC's avatar for a while? It helps a lot.

Reply

Why count the Milograd coup, but exclude the Sedgistan coup and Frak attempted coup -- Seems to just be a way to protect The Empire and Evil Wolf.

[Image: mJaj7Kn.gif]

Where do I even start?

I believe the bigger injustice there is that people are being banned for having 100 endorsements; not that the law is being applied ex post facto. In fact that might be the stupidest argument I've heard all week. Congratulations.

Wow, you're actually attacking the example rather than the logic behind it.

Way to entirely miss the point.

Reply

What if we passed a law that says only the Delegate and Vice Delegate can have over 100 endorsements, and those who violate the law shall be banned? Would the Delegate then be able to reach back in history and find people who once had over 100 endorsements, while not serving as Delegate or Vice Delegate, and ban them? Legally, Unibot, you're saying "Yes, yes they would be able to".

I believe the bigger injustice there is that people are being banned for having 100 endorsements; not that the law is being applied ex post facto. In fact that might be the stupidest argument I've heard all week. Congratulations.

Unibot, if we could tone down the rhetoric, that would be awesome. We can discuss this while being civil.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply