Timeline for Can someone be prosecuted for something that was legal when they did it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2023 at 22:12 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | British law forbids retro-active legislation - although that means in the sense of punishment, not amnesty. Other jurisdictions may have different ideas. Examples dealing with Nazis seem more complicated because they might claim they were acting under legislation then current. I suspect the Courts would say - in fact, did say - that proclamations issued by an illegitimate invader had no effect on legislation, but merely provided false excuses for a bunch of war criminals. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 9:11 | comment | added | mcalex | Australia? Absolutely. | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 5:20 | comment | added | vsz | @MarkRogers Those were special circumstances. Foreign powers won a war, vanquished their opponents, and were in complete control over the country, being able to do whatever they wanted. It was a completely different government which prosecuted these cases, than the one under which the accused did the things they were under trial for. On the other hand, the assumption behind the question is that the jurisdiction stays the same, and the only difference is that a new law is passed which makes something no longer legal (instead of the suspects being tried by a completely different government). | |
| S Mar 20, 2023 at 1:53 | history | suggested | Vikki |
Adding tag.
|
|
| Mar 19, 2023 at 20:41 | comment | added | Luke Sawczak | @MarkRogers A good example is Aktion T4. Based on euthanasia science which was "respectable" (as Wikipedia puts it) before the war and a program that was expanded to mass murder levels by Hitler's direct authorization, prosecuted as a crime against humanity only after the war. | |
| Mar 19, 2023 at 15:26 | comment | added | user1937198 | Whilst not used in recent times, it is still likely constitutional in england to pass bills of attainder en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder, which declare that a specific act is illegal after the fact. | |
| Mar 19, 2023 at 0:33 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 19:47 | comment | added | Clockwork | @MarkRogers en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 19:20 | vote | accept | user1867437 | ||
| Mar 18, 2023 at 18:06 | comment | added | Richard | @MarkRogers - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 17:40 | comment | added | Mark Rogers | The nazi war crimes come to mind, I'm not sure they were strictly illegal at the time. | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 14:41 | answer | added | Clockwork | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 9:53 | answer | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | timeline score: 24 | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 9:34 | answer | added | Wrzlprmft | timeline score: 18 | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 3:18 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 20, 2023 at 1:53 | |||||
| Mar 18, 2023 at 0:42 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Mar 17, 2023 at 22:02 | answer | added | Jen | timeline score: 12 | |
| Mar 17, 2023 at 17:31 | answer | added | jwh20 | timeline score: 29 | |
| S Mar 17, 2023 at 16:41 | review | First questions | |||
| Mar 17, 2023 at 17:28 | |||||
| S Mar 17, 2023 at 16:41 | history | asked | user1867437 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |