Offenders convicted of historic crimes should serve the modern tariff for the crime & not the historic tariff.

[Splonker]

I am angry that perpetrators of historic crimes who are found guilty, get the luxury of a much diminished prison sentence, rather than the modern harsher sentences for crimes committed today. It is the law that they serve the prison sentences that were applicable at the time the crimes were committed. If this is something that happened in the 70s for instance, it can mean the difference between a (modern) whole-life sentence or as little as 3-6yrs. I don't think this is fair. Aibu?

What principle are you applying here? None it seems.

Under your system, two people who commit the same crime on the same day would get entirely different punishments solely because the authorities took longer to bring one of them to justice.

I feel the same about trying by the law at the time. Nowadays, if an adult man has sex with a 13 year old, it is automatically assumed she could not consent. However in the past, lack of consent had to be proved. So if a historical case is brought to court, they have to prove that 13 year old did not consent. A jury could agree that the sexual activity took place, that the girl was 13 and the man was 45, but not feel the prosecution proved she didn't consent, and therefore find not guilty. Whereas now, evidence that the sexual activity took place would be enough for a guilty verdict.

Exactly.