Law
You cannot take new law and use it to punish a criminal act that was not in breach of the old law. (It should be slightly formal. Normally I'd say 'illegal' instead of 'in breach of'.) What I am trying to say is that you, for instance, cannot convict a criminal who commited a crime during the war on the basis of laws that were issued 50 years after the criminal act had occured.
Is this text correct? I'm not sure that I expressed my thoughts in the proper way. Let's say that somebody did something that wasn't considered illegal and then 50 years later would be found guilty for it. I know that it sounds a bit far-fetched and that the statute of limitations would run out by then, but it's just an example.
Thank you for your help!
Top answer
You cannot judge people by revoked or superseded laws or where the court has no jurisdiction.
- You cannot judge people by revoked or superseded laws or where the court has no jurisdiction.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
You cannot judge people by revoked or superseded laws or where the court has no jurisdiction.
0Criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively. (eg. If someone does an act, and a new law criminalized that act, then he cannot be convicted for it. He cannot punished for something that was not illegal when he committed it.)
Ex post facto laws are not binding according to many countries' constitutions.
0
Related Questions