If someone is committed for a crime that was illegal when sentenced to jail and becomes legal during their jail sentence, are they set free?

AFAIK, repealing or abrogating a law does nothing to existing judgements and sentences. In a legal opinion on Hartford Fire Insurance v. Superior Court of San Francisco County, the First Appellate Court of the state of California cites common interpretation at the beginning of its opinion: "...statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it clearly appears that such was the legislative intent..." So, if the abrogating law or repeal of an existing law is written to affect change retroactively, an incarcerated person may have a sentence changed.

Or may not. The opinion is very interesting, even though the reason for reaching the appellate court was a case about insurance company kickbacks. With recent repeals of the death penalty in many states, many death sentence were semi-automatically commuted to life without parole.

While this isn't the same situation (because murder is _still_ murder), it shows that the individual inmates do not necessarily have to start proceeding on their own behalf.

No, unless the law is passed with retroactivity.

That is a very difficult question. I would say the person should be set free because their offense is not longer a crime.

In fairness they should be, but it will only happen if someone pardons them. It makes a little more sense if you think of the opposite. The Constitution clearly forbids retroactive punishment, where you pass a law after someone does something, then punish them based on that law.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.