Humanities desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 9

Effect of repealed law

The "Effect of unconstitutional law" thread above makes me curious — what if the same thing happens, except that the law is overturned by the legislature? For example, I violate a US state criminal statute, plead guilty to the offense in open court, and while I'm serving time in prison, the state legislature repeals entirely the law that I violated, meaning that someone who does the same thing is not violating any law. Would I be released when the law takes effect? Would the offense be removed from my criminal record? Or would I have to get around to hiring a lawyer to file a writ of habeus corpus, as if the law had simply been declared unconstitutional? Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that repealing a criminal law would mean anything immediately to someone already convicted. If you're up for parole, or the governor is considering a pardon, the repeal might come into play. But you still committed a crime and were convicted for it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, it's unconstitutional to ENACT a retroactive criminal law, but it might be OK to REPEAL one retroactively. That would mean it is considered to never have been in force, so anyone convicted under it should be freed immediately. I don't know if it's ever actually done that way, though. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statute will only do what it says it will do. Technically, it is not a statute that is keeping someone in prison, but the judgment of a court and the prison itself. The legislature would have to give specific legal effect to the judgment of that court either by naming the judgment specifically or naming all judgments under the repealed statute. Criminal statutes have what is known as a proscriptive effect, due in part because of the rule against ex post facto laws. Repealing a criminal statute would immediately make prosecution under that statute impossible. All pending trials not already at a judgment could be dismissed because courts could not legally find someone guilty of a statute that no longer exists. Existing judgments would require a separate action either in post conviction relief, habeas corpus, an action with the parole board etc. Just exactly what would have to happen is dependent on what the repealing statute actually said and how the court interpreted the act, so it will vary. It will really depend on the law. For public policy reasons, it may be of value to prosecute someone who knowingly violated a statute because all criminal intent should be punished whatever the law may be. The person who places sugar in another's drink believing it to be arsenic will still be prosecuted for attempted murder although murder was impossible. It is a matter of public policy to punish those who intend to do things that violate the law and bring those intentions to fruition. It may also be a matter of public policy to vindicate those prosecuted under a law. It may even be a matter of public policy to compensate those who were prosecuted under that law. That is up to the legislature.

To have a conviction erased from your criminal record would require either a pardon from the governor or an order of expungement from the court inter alia. Whether a motion to expunge a criminal record is successful is going to depend on the circumstances of the case. A court order to expunge a criminal record destroys court records, local law enforcement records, photographs, finger printing cards, FBI records (the FBI keeps a record of state prosecutions), and computer databases concerning the incident. The agencies that handle these won't do this on their own unless they are told to do it, either by an executive order from the governor implementing the law or from a court order. Gx872op (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A repealed law was presumably legal when someone was convicted under it, so I would think the conviction would stand unless the executive decide to pardon some or all of the convicts. An obvious example would be the Volstead Act. It was eventually repealed, along with the 18th Amendment that spawned it, but that didn't mean convicted bootleggers automatically got a get-out-of-jail-free card. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite some sources. I remember learning in school that modern western justice systems don't work that way. If you're serving time for breaking some law that got repealed then you're set free because it isn't a crime any more. If you're serving a twenty year sentence but the maximum penalty for breaking the particular law is reduced to ten, your sentence is automatically reduced to ten (minus the time you already served). In these cases the system works for the accused. Flamarande (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one item[1] indicates that there was no automatic release of convicts under the Volstead Act, but instead it was necessary to seek pardons. Think of it this way: Let's say you got a ticket for driving 45 in a 30 zone. Later they increase the limit in that zone to 45. You won't get your money back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how many pyjamas do people normally rotate?

if someone wears a pyjama top and bottom every night, then how many would a person like that normally own and how would they rotate it in the laundry? (one example would be "own two pairs, wash one every week with the laundry" another would be "own five pairs, wear a different one each week for five weeks, then do them all together in a wash" etc) i'm just a teenaged boy living alone for the first time, and living in a colder climate for the first time. any advice is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cringe at referring you to a Yahoo Answers thread, but here it is. I don't know of any scholarly studies on the frequency of pajama rotation. I think the baseline advice for "when to rotate at minimum" must be "when it smells if you're by yourself, and every day if you're not". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have one pair of pajamas, but usually sleep in my underwear, as I don't like wearing clothes when I'm asleep, so they never get worn and never get washed. My ex-wife used to have one pair of pajamas, too. She'd wear them for a week, then wash them. Pajamas tend to be of very light material, so if you wash them one day, they are more than likely going to be dry again by the time you go to bed that evening. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on how much you sweat at night. If the pajamas are damp (or worse) in the morning, you need clean the next night. I would always have at least three pair: one to wear, one in the laundry and one in the drawer. No matter what happens, from illness to unexpected guests, you are covered. I don't think the "smell test" is very useful as few of us are aware of our own smell. If you shower at night, you will need fewer changes than if you shower in the morning. I'd not wear a pair for more than 4 nights, and usually only two or three. Bielle (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on how frequently you do your laundry. And what colour they are. And where you live. And how you plan to dry them (specifically, can you wash in morning and have them dry by bedtime; warmer pajamas will dry more slowly). Most people will do laundry at least once a week, and will try to wash as many dirty clothes as possible (possibly keeping colours/whites separate, though with modern detergents this is arguably less necessary) rather than saving them up till you've got a full set. One person can easily produce a full load of washing in a week, or sooner (particularly if you count towels and bedding, though they may get washed separately). Most people don't plan "I'll get 5 pairs and then wash them every month", they wear the ones that they have which don't have too many holes, and if for some reason they've not done laundry lately, they'll wear the ones with holes (or the scratchy ones, or the ones that are too tight). I'd agree with Bielle about frequency; a week is probably too long, but in hot weather you may change almost daily. Note that in summer you may want lighter pajamas than in winter, but that will depend where you live. So, averaging out, 3 pairs, wash weekly? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Volunteer Force and Ulster Defence Association

Why is the UDA labelled as the rivals of the UVF in UDA's article? Is there any difference in their ideologies? If not, why not just fuse into one, stronger entity? Are they just rivals for the control of the loyalist paramilitary scene or is there another reason? --Belchman (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry was basically over turf and the control of activities in specific areas. Both groups espoused a loyalist ideology meaning that neither group wanted Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and unite with the Republic of Ireland. Both organisations sought to maintain a British identity and neither wanted power-sharing with Catholics nor interfernce from Dublin in the running of Northern Ireland. The UDA was formed in 1971 as the umbrella organisation of various Belfast vigilante groups which had sprung up in the wake of The Troubles in Protestant areas; they had feared attacks from nationalists. It was a large organisation divided into many brigades, each with its own brigadier, and which managed to remain legal until 1992. This was because it used the cover name Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) to claim its violent attacks. Aside from paramilitary activities the UDA was always involved in community work as Sarah Nelson described at length in her 1984 book Ulster's Uncertain Defenders. The UVF, on the other hand, had been formed in 1966 based on the earlier Ulster Volunteers that had come into being in 1912. The major difference between the running of the UDA and UVF was that the latter's leader Gusty Spence was in prison and the organisation was led by a Brigade Staff on Belfast's Shankill Road. It was a proscribed group (apart from April 1974- October 1975) and more centralised than the UDA; however, The UVF's Mid-Ulster Brigade had a great deal of autonomy and it was this unit that carried out some of the worst atrocities of the Troubles (Dublin and Monaghan bombings, Miami Showband killings, etc). The UDA were more active in Belfast and its immediate environs; whereas the UVF carried out many of it's operations in the Mid-Ulster area and beyond, including the Irish Republic. The UVF in the past had always shown itself more open to entering into dialogue with republicans than the UDA, who accused them of harbouring socialist sentiments. Although it must be pointed out that deceased UDA South Belfast brigadier John McMichael had written several documents exploring the possibility of an independent Ulster within a British framework, but where Catholics and Protestants could live and work together. The UDA and UVF did join forces during the Ulster Workers' Council strike in 1974 when the unionists and loyalists brought down the Northern Ireland power-sharing executive. You might be interested in reading this article: Ulster Resistance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]