With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Clause is to ascertain whether the law has retrospective effect. In the context of the present case, the question is whether the amended statute applies to prisoners convicted for offenses committed before the provision’s effective date. See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 31, 101 S.Ct. at 965, 67 L.Ed.2d at 24. Clearly, it does. The DOC has implemented a policy making any inmate required to participate in the SOTP who refuses treatment, is removed from treatment, or fails to meet program completion criteria ineligible for earned time. Therefore, the amended statute applies to prisoners such as Propp who were convicted for an offense committed before the amendment’s effective date. The amendment is, therefore, retrospective. See Stansbury v. Hannigan, 265 Kan. 404, 960 P.2d 227, 235-36 (1998) (<HOLDING>). The State argues this conclusion is

A: holding that aedpa amendments to  2254 apply only to such cases as were filed after the statutes enactment
B: holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins
C: holding similar statutory amendment was retrospective when applied to inmate who committed his crime before amendments enactment
D: holding that a change of an element of an offense could not be applied retroactively to a crime committed prior to the statutes enactment
C.