🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • Ex Post Facto
CONLAW#074
Legal Definition
An ex post facto law is a law that: (1) criminally punishes conduct that was lawful when it was done, (2) increases punishment for a crime after it was committed, or (3) reduces the evidence required to convict a person of a crime from what was required when the act was committed. Such laws are generally prohibited, however, the prohibition does not apply in civil cases since retroactive civil liability need only meet the rational basis test.
Plain English Explanation
The rule against ex post facto laws exists to protect people's rights and ensure fair notice. Without it, the government could punish you for something you did legally at the time. Or they could increase your punishment after you already committed a crime, which would be unfair since you had no warning. The rule requires the government to give people fair notice of what is illegal before punishing them. It prevents the government from arbitrarily changing the rules after the fact to target people. The purpose is to restrain the government's power and protect individual liberties.
In practice, it means the government has to define crimes and set punishments beforehand. They can't punish you for something that was legal when you did it, even if they later make it illegal. And if they increase punishments for a crime, that only applies to future acts, not past ones. The rule ensures people are on notice of what is illegal so they can conform their conduct. Overall, it prevents abuse of power and upholds justice.
In practice, it means the government has to define crimes and set punishments beforehand. They can't punish you for something that was legal when you did it, even if they later make it illegal. And if they increase punishments for a crime, that only applies to future acts, not past ones. The rule ensures people are on notice of what is illegal so they can conform their conduct. Overall, it prevents abuse of power and upholds justice.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: In 2021, Bob is convicted of a crime and sentenced to 5 years in prison. A year later, New Hypoland passes a law increasing the punishment for Bob's crime to 10 years. Result: Applying the new punishment to Bob would violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws because it increases his sentence after he was already convicted.
Hypo 2: Bob is on trial for a crime. Before the trial begins, a new law is passed that says less evidence is needed to convict someone of Bob's crime. Result: Using the new law to convict Bob would be an ex post facto law because it changes the amount of evidence needed to convict him after he was charged.
Hypo 3: Bob was convicted of a sex offense in Hypofornia before 2003. After his release, in 2024, New Hypoland passes a law requiring all sex offenders, including those convicted before the law's enactment, to register their names, addresses, places of employment, and vehicle information with law enforcement. The law also allows for some of this information to be made public. Bob argues that this law is an ex post facto law because it applies retroactively to his past conviction. Result: This law is not considered an ex post facto law despite its retroactive application and potential criminal penalties for noncompliance. The Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe ruled that the primary purpose of such a law is not to punish sex offenders but to protect the public by alerting them of potential risks. Therefore, the retroactive application of this law to Bob does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws because its aim is public safety, not punishment.
Hypo 2: Bob is on trial for a crime. Before the trial begins, a new law is passed that says less evidence is needed to convict someone of Bob's crime. Result: Using the new law to convict Bob would be an ex post facto law because it changes the amount of evidence needed to convict him after he was charged.
Hypo 3: Bob was convicted of a sex offense in Hypofornia before 2003. After his release, in 2024, New Hypoland passes a law requiring all sex offenders, including those convicted before the law's enactment, to register their names, addresses, places of employment, and vehicle information with law enforcement. The law also allows for some of this information to be made public. Bob argues that this law is an ex post facto law because it applies retroactively to his past conviction. Result: This law is not considered an ex post facto law despite its retroactive application and potential criminal penalties for noncompliance. The Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe ruled that the primary purpose of such a law is not to punish sex offenders but to protect the public by alerting them of potential risks. Therefore, the retroactive application of this law to Bob does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws because its aim is public safety, not punishment.
