Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Lindsey v. Washington — Opinion of the Court

Removal of the possibility of a sentence of less than fifteen years, at the end of which petitioners would be freed from further confinement and the tutelage of a parole revocable at will, operates to their detriment in the sense that the standard of punishment adopted by the new statute is more onerous than that of the old. It could hardly be thought that, if a punishment for murder of life imprisonment or death were changed to death alone, the latter penalty could be applied to homicide committed before the change.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Lindsey v. Washington — Opinion of the Court

It does not appear from the record whether the board of prison, terms and paroles has fixed the 'duration' of petitioners' 'confinement.' Numerous grounds are urged by petitioners in support of their contention that the sentence authorized by the later statute is ex post facto as applied to their offense, committed before its enactment. We find it necessary to consider only one.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature