Gay Men Convicted Of Now-Abolished Sex Offences To Be Pardoned

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37711518

And not before time, in my humble opinion !

[jackthehat]

Danny - The Government......there were many administrations who presided over this pernicious legislation so an apology from the present one is entirely appropriate.

[EDDIE51]

dannyK13 Those who were executed for desertion in WW1 and WW2 when they were actually suffering from 'shell shock' ( or post traumatic stress disorder as it's called now) have all been given full posthumous pardons, as that law is no longer on the books.

[jim360]

I actually basically agree with Naomi -- and danny at 8.35 am.

[andy-hughes]

I am not happy with anyone having a conviction expunged simply because the law has changed - even such an emotive law as this one.

Whereas I think the concept of the law was and is deplorable, it was the law, and people who break the law were, and are punished for it.

The idea that society can turn around and say the law was wrong is one thing, but that is not the same as saying that those convicted under it were convicted unreasonably - clearly they were not.

I don't think you can air-brush laws because modern thinking differs from the thinking that brought the laws in.

Are we going to posthumously pardon mill owners who let small children fall into machinery? Clearly that was wrong as well.

Where do we stop re-writing and air-brushing?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //Are we going to posthumously pardon mill owners who let small children fall into machinery?//

Was there a law governing that?

[Old_Geezer]

As life experience tells us, and this subject illustrates, the law is not synonymous with right. Bad laws can try to get people to do wrong. They are passed by flawed humans who may have their own reasons for believing the laws they pass should exist. One should strive to live a good life in preference to one dictated by law; but there are consequences. Authority has power and can bully folk. A pardon is pointless to those convicted, but might make living relatives feel better. Whether it is worth doing is questionable.

[-Talbot-]

Are we going to posthumously pardon mill owners who let small children fall into machinery? Clearly that was wrong as well.



Did the mill owners face charges?

[andy-hughes]

Talbot and Naomi - ok, let me use another scenario -

If they change the speed limit on the road where I was convicted for speeding, are they going to remove my three points, repay my fine, and apologise?

[Peter Pedant]

// We can only 'pardon' wrong-doing. We can't 'pardon' people for doing nothing wrong.//

erm not quite

in being pardoned
or accepting a pardon ( excuse me ? ) the lucky recipient agrees that what he did was against the law - as in 'yes I did it and thanks for the parding'

when it looked as tho it was pretty obvious that the Bham and Guildford bombers hadnt done it ( obviously there had been bombs but not set by them) they refused a pardon on these grounds

[ the alternative of 'just being let out' they refused as well]

I have no doubt the rules were changed for alan turing
( a dead fella cant say he did it but thx anyway)

[-Talbot-]

andy-hughes
Talbot and Naomi - ok, let me use another scenario -


ok?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, // If they change the speed limit on the road where I was convicted for speeding, are they going to remove my three points, repay my fine, and apologise?//

No, because at whatever limit is set, fundamentally speeding is wrong. The same cannot be said for homosexuality. In that case the law was quite simply wrong.

[jackthehat]

Andy - If it were later discovered that that particular stretch of road should not have been subject to a speed-limit, or that the equipment which caught you had been incorrectly calibrated and you were offered the opportunity to have the points removed and the fine repaid, would you take it?

[andy-hughes]

Peter Pedant - //I have no doubt the rules were changed for alan turing //

The Turing pardon was debated on here at the time, and I said than, and repeat now, I was uncomfortable with the notion of Turing being pardoned.

He was not pardoned because the law against homosexuality was draconian and unfair, he was pardoned because he contributed significantly to the ending of the war.

So in effect, society said that because he did a lot of good in the world, we should turn a blind eye to his orientation, and let him off the law he broke.

If you extrapolate that logic, can we expect a posthumous pardon for Harold Shipman?

[andy-hughes]

jack - //Andy - If it were later discovered that that particular stretch of road should not have been subject to a speed-limit, or that the equipment which caught you had been incorrectly calibrated and you were offered the opportunity to have the points removed and the fine repaid, would you take it? //

I would take it, of course, but I would think that the logic and thinking was flawed.

A speed limit was imposed, and I broke it, and was punished.

The fact that the limit was wrong (and the equipment mis-calibration is outside the comparison we are examining I think you will agree) is not the issue.

It was the law at the time, and I broke it, and was punished accordingly.

Changing the terms of reference does not negate the offence.

[ummmm]

Regarding Turing, that was exactly what my son said.

They aren't sorry they just realised how ungrateful they were.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //So in effect, society said that because he [Alan Turing] did a lot of good in the world, we should turn a blind eye to his orientation, and let him off the law he broke.

If you extrapolate that logic, can we expect a posthumous pardon for Harold Shipman? //

I'm gobsmacked! Are you serious?

[Old_Geezer]

Speeding isn't (that) wrong in itself. It isn't a basic wrong (for want of a better way of putting it) as it depends on someone's arbitrary opinion that others may well disagree with. For example all the undesirable 20 mph limit roads being inflicted on decent folk by the car hating %^£%^s, that then makes everyone supposed to have done wrong if they fail to keep under. Does that mean if they next set the limit at 1 mph people are doing wrong to go faster than that ? Clearly not. It's a different category to real wrong actions such as murder or embezzlement or criminal damage or assault, for example.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //No, because at whatever limit is set, fundamentally speeding is wrong. The same cannot be said for homosexuality. In that case the law was quite simply wrong. //

But we only see that now because society has moved on. From our twenty-first century perspective, of course discrimination against homosexuality was wrong - but it was the law at the time, based on the thinking of homosexuality at the time.

I cannot get away from the fact that society's attitudes change, as they must, and laws are amended, or even deleted, as is appropriate.

But you can't start undoing history simply because it disagrees with the way society thinks now - and as I have said before, where do you stop?

Are we going to pardon Guy Fawkes, because these days we wouldn't rack a confession out of a terrorist and then hang draw and quarter him?

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, //So in effect, society said that because he [Alan Turing] did a lot of good in the world, we should turn a blind eye to his orientation, and let him off the law he broke.

If you extrapolate that logic, can we expect a posthumous pardon for Harold Shipman? //

I'm gobsmacked! Are you serious? //

I am absolutely not serious - but it obviously perfectly illustrates the gaping hole in the logic that you are offering.

Just because someone does something good does not mean they get let off breaking a law, and if you are going to apply that scenario to one - Turing, then you must apply it fairly to all, and horrifically, that will bring Shipman into the equation.

Is that utterly unthinkable? Of course it is, so don't start the process in the first place.

[jackthehat]

Andy - You keep making reference to those long dead.....pardoning them may well be futile. But apologising to men like George Montague is surely the mark of a civilised forward-thinking society?