# Any ex post facto problem here? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 23, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215 "2011-12-23T21:39:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215/1 "2011-12-23T21:39:08Z")
Congress passes a law in, say, 1970 that makes it a crime to punch postal carriers, punishable by up to five years in prison if convicted. On Dec. 23, 2011, Dave Defendant punches his postal carrier, Vivian Victim, for delivering another thirty Christmas catalogs to him after he’d repeatedly asked her not to. Defendant is indicted on Jan. 1, 2012. On Feb. 1, 2012, Congress increases the penalty for the crime, making it punishable by up to fifty years in prison. On March 1, 2012, Defendant is convicted. The Assistant U.S. Attorney tells the court that the Government wants Defendant sentenced to the full fifty years in prison. Punching a postal carrier was a crime all along; is there any constitutional problem if the potential penalty is made more severe between indictment and sentencing? How about if it happens between commission of the crime and indictment? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215/2 "2011-12-23T22:07:42Z")
There certainly would be if the case arose in Canada. The [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#l_I:s_7) addresses this very point: > [@](#): > > \*\*Proceedings in criminal and penal matters > > 11.\*\* Any person charged with an offence has the right > … > (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215/3 "2011-12-23T22:12:17Z")
Exactly what I was thinking, **Northern Piper**. But you beat me to it. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215/4 "2011-12-23T22:48:06Z")
Wikipedia says yes: An ex post facto law … or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime… It has links to many specific countries therein depending on what jurisdiction you’re interested in. ---
**Author:** ![obfusciatrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4af34b/32.png) [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215/5 "2011-12-23T22:58:53Z")
There is some gray area here. For example, various sex offender registry laws have been retroactively applied. In _Smith v. Doe_ (2003) the Supreme Court ruled that since the registries were “nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.” The ruling was 6-3. And this is how states have been able to pass increasingly onerous restrictions on sex offenders, even ones convicted before the new rules are in place, and even ones who otherwise had completed their original punishment. I believe there has been some trend recently of state courts changing their minds on whether they’re punitive. ---
**Author:** ![picunurse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@picunurse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picunurse)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215/6 "2011-12-23T23:10:28Z")
This may be relevant. A friend had a DUI, went to trial, was found guilty. Paid his fines, spent his days picking up trash. Slept in a jail cell over night. Went to his “Be a better citizen classes.” When all that was done, he still had a note on his license of 0% alcohol if stopped in the 5 years following. Eight years later, he was stopped with a BA of 0.03, less than 1/2 the legal limit. He was taken to jail. He went to court. He even got a lawyer. The court said that the law had changed to 10 years, before his probation was up, so it was automaticly extended. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215/7 "2011-12-23T23:18:33Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > There certainly would be if the case arose in Canada. The [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#l_I:s_7) addresses this very point: The [South African Bill of Rights](http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#35) has a very similar provision - unsurprisingly, given that it is significantly inspired by the Canadian Charter: > [@](#): > > Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right […] to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing[.] ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2011, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215/8 "2011-12-24T00:31:38Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Wikipedia says yes: > > An ex post facto law … or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime… > > It has links to many specific countries therein depending on what jurisdiction you’re interested in. Thanks. The hypo made it clear, I hope, that this would be in the U.S. Anyone have a U.S. cite? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-ex-post-facto-problem-here/607215/9 "2011-12-24T01:40:29Z")
Cite when I get home, but yes, it’s an ex post facto violation in the US.