In other words, say that during prohibition I was arrested for having a still in the woods. I was sentenced to two years in jail and during my first year, the Government made alcohol legal again, did they let me out or did I serve the remainder of my time?
I’ve read up quite a bit on Prohibition, and haven’t seen anything indicating a mass pardon or commutation of sentences after Prohibition ended, so I assume the answer is they served their sentences.
Legally speaking, the overturning of a law does not exonerate the people who were convicted of breaking the law when it was in effect. They could theoretically be pardoned or have their sentences commuted, but only in the same way that would occur of the law was still in force.
I can’t find anything that says they got off.
But why would they? Lots of laws get changed. Doesn’t mean it was right to break it while it was the law.
Did people get imprisoned on charges of producing/trafficking in alcohol, though? Wouldn’t there usualy have been some kind of tax/regulatory-based offense to put somebody away on?
True, but doesn’t the fact that the law was changed mean that something was horribly wrong with the law in the first place?
I’m pretty sure that, yes. I don’t think they needed the tax/regulatory-based offenses when it was out-right banned federally.
However I’ll hold off on an official answer because I have a couple questions of my own.
What was the federal crime for mere posession? Say a 60 year old buys a beer at a speakeasy and gets caught with it? Max/min penalties? Most common?
An article I found in the December 6, 1933 Los Angeles Times had a headline of “Old Federal Dry Law Violators to Stay in Jail”.
A Federal prosecutor stated that absent any instructions from the Attorney General, no sentences would be commuted, but the prosecutor said that there weren’t many people left in jail on bootlegging charges.
Not neccessarily. Societies change their minds about some issues as time goes on.
But even if it’s so, should every person punished for breaking a law have that punishment automatically reversed if the law is changed?
In 1978 I got a ticket for going 62 in a 55. In 1986 the speed limit was raised to 65 in the exact same spot. Should I have gotten my fine money back because the national 55mph speed limit was horribly insane?
Even that may not have mattered.
The US Supreme Court overturned all US laws against sodomy (except military law), saying it was unconstitutional. Thus this law was “wrong in the first place”. But people in jail throughout the country for sodomy-law violations were not released from prison. They had to each sue individually to be released. Not all were successful. Some who did get released were then charged again on various other related charges.
Yeah, it’s bullshit, but they did break “the letter of the law”.
Ergo, they were “outlaws”.
Sorry for the hijack, but did you just happen to have that issue sitting in your attic? Or has the LATimes digitized their archives that far back, and made them searchable on the web?
IOW, how the heck did you find that article?
advTHANKSance
Yes, and they should reimburse you at the rate of inflation 
All of those jailed under Prohibition remained in jail after its repeal, IIRC.
By contrast, President Jefferson pardoned all those previously convicted under the (now generally considered to have been unconstitutional) Alien and Sedition Acts when the legislation expired. A big part of the reason was partisanship - the Federalists under John Adams had passed the Acts and used them to punish their political enemies, including newspaper editors and a Congressman. Jefferson opposed the Federalists, and wanted to help his political allies and correct what he saw (correctly, IMHO) as an injustice: Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia
There’s a difference people are missing in the examples given above.
If a law is declared unconstitutional, that means that, despite the fact it was on the statute books, it was “not the law” in a more metaphysical sense – it was contrary to what the Law of the Land holds to be valid law. I.e., if the God-fearin’ City Council of Christian Falls, TX, makes it a criminal offense not to go to Church come Sunday mornin’, that’s not a valid law. It falls afoul of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment (technically of the Fourteenth Amendment, but I’ll let a lawyer explain that one). It is not a valid law under which American citizens can be prosecuted in the eyes of the courts. As noted, people arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced under an unconstitutional law may have to take positive action to free themselves, but the point is that it is not and never was a valid law in the USA, despite appearances.
On the other hand, a law which is repealed was in fact a valid law from its effective date until the effective date of its repeal. If it was illegal to sell moose meat in Minnesota effective Jan. 1, 1889 until the law was repealed on June 15, 1950 (law, dates, and everything pulled out of thin air as a hypothetical example), Lars Lutefisk, purveyor of contraband moose meat, who was duly tried and convicted of the crime in 1948, was in fact guilty of a crime, and the law’s repeal does not void his sentence – he broke a valid law while that law was in effect.
In the case of Prohibition, the Federal laws which depended on the 18th Amendment for their validity became null and void on the date of ratification of the 21st – but remained valid laws while the 18th was in effect. (State laws were left valid by Section 2 of the 21st.)
So Cletus the Moonshiner and Gino the Speakeasy Guy, convicted during Prohibition under the Volstead Act and related statutes, were guilty of a crime as of their dates of conviction, even though the Constitutional authority for those laws was later repealed.
When did the SCOTUS overturn those laws? My memory is that it was relatively recently. Were there really people in jail for violating sodomy laws at that time? Do you have a cite for this?
From Wiki:
I find it hard to believe that in 2003 there were more than one or two people in jail on sodomy charges if any.
Damn it, I was thinking about constitutional issues but was to lazy come back and mention it.
Could you imagine if everytime a law was changed those that were punished for breaking the law got their fines back or reimbursed cash for time spent in jail? The chaos would prevent any laws from being repealed. Going back to my example, it would cost billions alone reimbursing people that got nailed going over 55 where limits are now 65, 70, 75, or faster!
No pol would dare suggest changing any law as it would bankrupt the system.
Damn it, I was thinking about constitutional issues but was too lazy come back and mention it.
Could you imagine if everytime a law was changed those that were punished for breaking the law got their fines back or reimbursed cash for time spent in jail? The chaos would prevent any laws from being repealed. Going back to my example, it would cost billions alone reimbursing people that got nailed going over 55 where limits are now 65, 70, 75, or faster!
No pol would dare suggest changing any law as it would bankrupt the system.