The debate on ex post facto interpretation continues. Critics of contemporary ex post facto interpretation argue that lawmakers circumvent the ex post facto prohibition by enacting civil laws that provide additional penalties for convicted offenders. For example, they have passed laws requiring certain convicted SEX OFFENDERs to register with local authorities, making public their continued presence in a community. Under the VIOLENT CRIMES CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994 (42 U.S.C.A. § 14071 (a) (1) (A)), such laws are required by states wishing to obtain certain drug drugs. Not all retroactive laws have been declared unconstitutional. A current U.S. law that applies retroactively is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This Act imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders and also applies to offenders whose crimes were committed prior to the enactment of the Act.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v.
Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to record their whereabouts at regular intervals and posting their personal information on the Internet did not violate the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws, as these laws do not provide for any type of punishment.   The Philippine Constitution of 1987 categorically prohibits the enactment of ex-post facto laws. Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 22, explicitly states: « No law or letter of subsequent infringement may be promulgated. In Calder, the Court`s emphasis on criminal law seemed to exclude civil law from an a posteriori definition, that is, it implied that if a law did not impose a criminal sanction, it did not violate the ex post facto clause. Twelve years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a civil law revoking land grants to buyers violated the ex post facto clause (FLETCHER V. PECK, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87, 3 L. Ed. 162 ). In 1854, however, faced with another opportunity to define a posteriori, the court withdrew from Fletcher and limited the prohibition to retroactive criminal laws (Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 58 U.S.
(17 How.) 456, 15 L. Ed. 127 ). Ex post facto is a Latin expression that literally means « of something that was done after » and roughly translated as « after it is done » or « after the act ». Thus, an ex-post-facto law is a law that, in a way, relates to an act that was committed before that specific law existed (usually by condemnation or punishment). 2041 Frank vs. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 344 (1915); Ross vs. Oregon, 227 U.S.
150, 161 (1913). However, an unforeseeable judicial extension of a criminal law to cover conduct that is not covered by the law prima facie functions as an ex post facto law if applied retroactively and, in this case, violates due process. Bouie vs. the City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964). See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (application of Bouie under § 9 no. 3). But see Splawn v. California, 431 United States 595 (1977) (Bouie`s application denied).
The Court itself has not always met this standard. See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966). Controversy has also arisen over sexually violent predatory laws (SVP), which allow for the indefinite obligation of a person with a mental abnormality that predisposes them to bully children. This question arose in Kansas v. Hendricks.  In Hendricks, a man with a long history of child sexual harassment was to be released from prison shortly after the passage of Kansas` SVP law. Instead of being released, he was committed on the grounds that he had a mental abnormality. Hendricks challenged the law on retrospective and double jeopardy grounds.
The Kansas Supreme Court declared the law invalid, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision, ruling that the law was constitutional because it did not provide for criminal sanctions.  The Digesta Iustiniani (22.214.171.124.3, 20.1.22.pr2) (« Justinian`s Collection ») contains the expression of two words ex postfacto: « of a postfactum » (an act of night) or natural, « of a law subsequently adopted ». However, the same book also uses the expression of three words ex post facto (126.96.36.199.2, 188.8.131.52.1, passim), suggesting that the post could be better understood as an adverb. Other adverbial uses of the article include classical Roman author and senator Marcus Tullius Cicero, who uses expressions such as multis post annis (De Re Publica 2.5.8 and elsewhere). Thus, ex post facto or ex postfacto native is an adverbial expression, a use demonstrated by the phrase « He was convicted ex post facto (by a law adopted after his crime) ». The law itself would rightly be a lex postfacta in Latin, although English generally uses the expression « an ex post facto law ». Ex post facto laws are widely seen as unjust and their enforcement is associated with repressive governments. Although ex post facto laws are often banned, some countries, such as the United Kingdom, do not have rules against them. Lithuania has no constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws.
Retroactive criminal sanctions are prohibited under Article 2, Part 1 (Chapter 1), of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Retroactive administrative sanctions are prohibited under Article 8 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The rules on ex post facto impact on the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines can be found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 (2012). Procedural changes.—An accused does not have the right to be tried in all respects in accordance with the law in force at the time the accused is committed.2063 Laws that move the place of trial from one district to another,2064 Increase the number of appellate judges and divide the Court of Appeal into divisions, 2065 granting a right of appeal to the state, 2066 modification of the method of selection and convening of jurors, 2067 separate procedures for persons charged jointly, a question of discretion for the court of first instance and not a question of law, 2068 and allowing a settlement of handwriting experts, 2069 were confirmed on the objection that they were ex post facto. In a number of these cases, proposals were made and two decisions were made precisely on the basis that the procedure could only be changed as long as the defendant`s « essential » rights were not restricted.2070 The court has now rejected this position.2071 The wording of most of these cases simply meant that a legislator could not circumvent the ex post facto clause by calling the changes a change in the « procedure ». If a change called « procedural » results in a substantial change in the definition of a crime or increases the penalty or denies a defence, the clause is used; However, if a law changes the procedures by which a criminal case is decided, the clause is not affected, regardless of the increase in the burden on a defendant.2072 Forecast: The Supreme Court will conclude that a wealth tax is essentially a retroactive income tax and therefore constitutes an ex post facto inadmissible law.
At least one Liberal judge will support this decision. In accordance with article 5, section XXXVI of the Brazilian Constitution, laws concerning acquired rights, legal acts performed and legal force may not have retroactive effects. The first of these categories of sanctions is illustrated by « a law passed after the expiry of a previously applicable limitation period to revive a previously prescribed prosecution ». Such a law was held by the Court in Stogner v. California, 2051 is banned as ex post facto. Courts that had upheld the extension of unexpired limitation periods had carefully distinguished between situations in which limitation periods had expired. The court considered that the restoration of criminal responsibility after the law granted a person an « effective amnesty » was « unfair » within the meaning of the ex post facto clause. Another example of ex post facto criminal law in the UK is the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This law allows persons acquitted of murder and certain other serious crimes to be retried if there is « new, convincing, reliable and substantial evidence » that the acquitted person was genuinely guilty. This law applies retroactively and can be used to re-prosecute persons who were acquitted before its entry into force in 2005 or even before its adoption in 2003.
As a result, two of the defendants acquitted in the murder of Stephen Lawrence were allowed to be retried, even though that murder took place in 1993 and the defendants were acquitted in 1996. Many people have criticized the Criminal Justice Act for its substantial abolition of the prohibition of ex post facto and dual criminality laws.  Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no one may be convicted of a criminal law that did not exist at the time of the offence or suffer a heavier penalty than that which existed at the time of the offence. However, it allows the application of national or international law. .