• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If and when laws are repealed

D

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
12,099
Reaction score
3,439
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Lets say a law is repealed because its declared unconstitutional or for whatever other reason the law is taken off the books. When that is done how about people who have broken the law when it was in effect, do they still serve their full sentences and do they still have records? I think its proper to not keep people in prison who have broken a law if that law is later found to be unconstitutional and people who have records for breaking such laws should have their records wiped clean if such laws are ever found to be unconstitutional.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Lets say a law is repealed because its declared unconstitutional or for whatever other reason the law is taken off the books. When that is done how about people who have broken the law when it was in effect, do they still serve their full sentences and do they still have records? I think its proper to not keep people in prison who have broken a law if that law is later found to be unconstitutional and people who have records for breaking such laws should have their records wiped clean if such laws are ever found to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
A law is in force the moment it is legislated & signed. Even if later struck down, those convicted under the law remain convicted under their current terms. I make no further comment or representation except to say, "that's just the way it is".
 
Few bad laws are repealed in this country. The Volstead Act was repealed after the country realized how bad it was, how much harm it did.

We have more bad laws on the books than good laws, but we don't repeal. Congress hates to admit it makes mistakes.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Few bad laws are repealed in this country. The Volstead Act was repealed after the country realized how bad it was, how much harm it did.

We have more bad laws on the books than good laws, but we don't repeal. Congress hates to admit it makes mistakes.
Click to expand...

I would fully support a constitutional amendment that all federal laws need to be reenacted every 20 years or so. I think that was an oversight in drafting our system.
 
tacomancer said:
I would fully support a constitutional amendment that all federal laws need to be reenacted every 20 years or so. I think that was an oversight in drafting our system.
Click to expand...
That would take tons of time and resources to do.
 
Chomsky said:
A law is in force the moment it is legislated & signed. Even if later struck down, those convicted under the law remain convicted under their current terms. I make no further comment or representation except to say, "that's just the way it is".
Click to expand...
I generally agree that the act was committed when it was illegal so they be culpable for that, however in the case of a law found to be unconstitutional, i have s different view.

It was an unlawful law and i do think people who are convicted of it should be released and recods expunged for that unlawful legislation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
The rule is based on why the law was repealed (in most cases) - if the law was found to be unjust to begin with, breakers can appeal and usually win (maybe even get paid), but if it was just changed because it isn't relevant (decriminalized weed for instance) then they still broke the law while it existed
 
trouble13 said:
I generally agree that the act was committed when it was illegal so they be culpable for that, however in the case of a law found to be unconstitutional, i have s different view.

It was an unlawful law and i do think people who are convicted of it should be released and recods expunged for that unlawful legislation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Just explaining how the rule of law works. It's not always pretty.
 
Chomsky said:
Just explaining how the rule of law works. It's not always pretty.
Click to expand...
In my mind i think of a scenerio like a slave being jailed for running away and while serving his sentence the law rules slavery is unconstitutional. Imo that person should have their sentence commuted because it was determined to be an unjust law to begin with.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
tacomancer said:
I would fully support a constitutional amendment that all federal laws need to be reenacted every 20 years or so. I think that was an oversight in drafting our system.
Click to expand...

That might work if each law had to first be read in its' entirety, aloud to ALL members of Congress.

They should know what they are voting on, and not claim they would need a team of lawyers for them to understand the law. No laws should EVER be passed before knowing what's in the law.
 
Last edited:
1. Here in California, the cops used to entrap gay men by the thousands. Recently, a law was passed to have those men's records cleared of such a conviction. (Of course, it did not help those who had been fired from their jobs or had even committed suicide!)

2. In England, after World War II, the cops arrested Alan Turing (the famous scientist who helped break the Nazis' codes during World War II) for homosexuality. He agreed to take chemicals to reduce his libido (in lieu of imprisonment). He may have committed suicide a few years later. Her Majesty the Queen pardoned him a few years ago. (Of course, that piece of paper did not undo his suicide.)
 
In Canada with the legalization of weed, people who have had prior criminal records for possession (and perhaps low level trafficking ) can apply for pardons. The only people in jail at the time of legalization for it would have been major dealers involved in trafficking huge amounts and likely committed other crimes leading to jail time. I doubt possession caused jail time at all for the last 10 years (personal amounts)
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
In Canada with the legalization of weed, people who have had prior criminal records for possession (and perhaps low level trafficking ) can apply for pardons. The only people in jail at the time of legalization for it would have been major dealers involved in trafficking huge amounts and likely committed other crimes leading to jail time. I doubt possession caused jail time at all for the last 10 years (personal amounts)
Click to expand...

I wonder if American nationals will be inadmissible for entry into Canada with a marijuana arrest.
 
SDET said:
I wonder if American nationals will be inadmissible for entry into Canada with a marijuana arrest.
Click to expand...

Unsure,

Usually a criminal conviction of any sort is enough to do it (including DUI's)

I know that plenty of Canadians are being refused entry based on working in the MJ business (legal)
 
SDET said:
I wonder if American nationals will be inadmissible for entry into Canada with a marijuana arrest.
Click to expand...

More than 10 years ago that happened to a friend of mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom