Talk:Nulla poena sine lege

message: I have deleted the following line: "This concept is in Article 169 in the Constitution of Iran", since in almost every constitution or criminal law the rule of nulla poena sine lege is known or codified. Averroes 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article 169

message: I am removing this phrase:
:A similar principle has appeared in the recent decades with regard to crimes of genocide, allowing the Nuremberg trials to take place.
Those tried for taking part in the Holocust were tried for crimes against humanity not genocide. The term "crimes against humanity" was first used in relation to international relations in 1915. One can argue that the London Charter introduced retrospective law, but it was not the crime of gencide. Further the decleration at the Moscow Conference (1943) had made it clear to those involved in Nazi atricities that:  "evidence of atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded mass executions which are being perpetrated by Hitlerite forces in many of the countries they have overrun and from which they are now being steadily expelled", that Germans would be sent back to the countries where they had committed their crimes and "judged on the spot by the peoples whom they have outraged"; and as for those Germans, whose criminal offenses had no particular geographical localization, they would be punished by joint decision of the government of the Allies. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide

message: This topic, along with the ex post facto law topic come into focus in the context of a code of conduct/code of honor.
For example, in the US military the West Point Academy 'Cadet Code of Honor' is very succinct: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do."
From these simple but broad prohibitions, one could argue that a cadet ~should~ reason that covertly sleeping with another man's wife violates, in some sense, all four of the prohibitions. But a literalist would say that since the code doesn't mention sleeping with another man's wife as a violation, that no punishment can be imposed on someone who acts in such manner.  That any attempt to do so would be imposing an ex post facto law on said behavior.
How does this topic relate to a very fluid, even vague statement of "law" (such as a code of honor, or a code of conduct) which is intentionally not specific, not iterated or cataloged or itemized, which consciously makes no attempt to be exhaustive?
Is there an 'escape hatch' that puts "codes of conduct" or "honor codes" outside of "ordinary law" and which exempts this form of governing statement or rule from the literalism of the ex post facto stricture?
--Hmvalois 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code of Conduct 

message: Anyone know how this is pronounced in english? Would be very useful.
88.109.178.2 (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only pronunciation I've heard is antiquated:  "noolla poyna seenay ledjay".  Like "stahray deeceyesis" and "rayshio dessidendeye".  Sorry, but you asked. --Wikiain (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  nulla poena sine lege 

message: "divine command theorists would further add that nulla poena sine lege is not violated if the punished act is against natural law or the law of God, respectively, even if it violates no positive law."
It's easy to see that this would simply pervert the meaning of the principle, as then any imaginary law of God could be claimed to apply. Isn't that on fringe territory? --84.153.79.70 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divine command theorists 

message: Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali seems to focus on the origin, while Nulla poena sine lege seems to focus on current legal principles. I feel both articles generally talks about the same thing and should be merged. →AzaToth 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What about ex post facto law - Nullum...poenali is a term that does nothing than forbid ex post facto laws. Also, these two terms proposed to be merged aren't the same. One states that there must be a law violated - the other states that there must be a law violated at the time it was committed. The first is a statement of rule of law while the second is a statement against ex post facto laws. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nulla poena sine lege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223154915/http://domino.un.org:80/UNISPAl.NSF/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/e529762befa456f8852571610045ebef!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/e529762befa456f8852571610045ebef!OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Digesta, 50.16.131, Ulpianus libro tertio ad legem Iuliam et Papiam, De verborum significatione: "poena non irrogatur, nisi quae quaque lege vel quo alio iure specialiter huic delicto imposita est."
212.171.197.106 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulpian