[sturadnidge]

Ex post facto applies both ways - you can do something legal today and be punished in the future if it becomes illegal (UK tax law has some good examples of this).

It would be inconsistent to say past crimes should be revoked if the law changes, but present legal acts cannot be retrospectively classed as illegal if the law changes in the future. That's a contradiction I'm sure many people operate under however (myself included).

I am also not a lawyer :)

[rubidium]

Ex post facto is not required to operate the same way for new laws vs laws being removed. In fact, there are good reasons for when criminal laws are changed to automatically review people prosecuted under them. The law was made for people, people weren't made for the law.

[sturadnidge]

Sure, but in terms of consistency they are 2 sides of the same coin.

[doesnt_know]

There doesn't appear to be any law of physics or higher power that enforces us to make these two things consistent, why would you assume they have to be?

[DonHopkins]

In terms of consistency, time should be able to flow in either direction. But it doesn't, apparently.

[throwaway2048]

Yeah just like rich people are forbidden to sleep under bridges and eat from the garbage, absolutely consistent.

[poizan42]

So what you are saying is that symmetric ex post facto is more important than people's freedom?