> we're punishing them because they decided they didn't have to abide by the law at the time it existed.
Should we punish lawmakers for implementing oppressive laws which prevented good people from pursuing viable businesses? Why can't there be accountability in the reverse direction?
We can't criminalise making mistakes, even if it is lawmakers who are making them.
I see wisdom in a general amnesty for light drug crimes if it is decriminalised; but it isn't like there is a double standard being applied here. This is how a fair legal system works - the consequences of your actions are clearly known when you act, and you face the consequences of your actions once the legal system catches up to you.
you are at once arguing "we can't criminalise making mistakes" and "you face the consequences of your actions when the legal system catches up to you"
The first you apply to the elites, and the second to everyone else.
Only in the case of the elites are we talking about serious, intentional, and known in advance to be illegitimate, irreparable harm to millions of people's lives.
But its just a "mistake", but you demand those who perpetuated victimless crimes continue to suffer.
There's a difference between a mistake and violating the law. If the lawmakers have knowingly voted for an unconstitutional law, they should be persecuted, because they violated the law. If, on the other hand, they had merely voted for an unwise law, it's a mistake that shouldn't be persecuted.
Also, I find it curious that you single out lawmakers and forget the public that voted them in on anti-drug platform. Should we persecute all Nixon voters as well, for example?
Should we punish lawmakers for implementing oppressive laws which prevented good people from pursuing viable businesses? Why can't there be accountability in the reverse direction?