criminal-law
are all ex post facto laws or retroactive laws unconstitutional?
<p>in India and America the respective constitutions have a prohibition against (in India its article 20).
would all kinds of retroactive laws be unconstitutional ?
for example amnesty laws that provide for early release and removal of mandatory minimum nature of sentance or laws making people serving a minimum sentance eligible for early release. would those laws be against the constitution of India and America ?</p>
<p>or would thoe be against the maximim of &quot;the state shall not deny to citizens equality before law&quot;</p>
<p>Edit;; would paying an organization to  lobby to get someone pardoned or to get the parliament to have amnesty laws count as corruption within the scope of this law ? <a href="https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1558?sam_handle=123456789/1362" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1558?sam_handle=123456789/1362</a></p>

<p>All <em>ex post facto</em> laws are unconstitutional in the United States. But, not all retroactive laws are unconstitutional in the United States.</p>
<p>An <em>ex post facto</em> law is basically a law that retroactively makes conduct illegal or punishes it more severely than it was punished at the time if it was already illegal.</p>
<p>By way of example, tax legislation is often constitutionally retroactive, and laws that retroactively make the punishments for acts that are crimes at the time more lenient (or retroactively grant amnesty for previously illegal conduct) are legal.</p>
<p>I strongly suspect, but do not know for certain, that India's constitutional law makes the same distinction that U.S. constitutional law does in this regard.</p>
