Law3 mins ago
Gay Men Convicted Of Now-Abolished Sex Offences To Be Pardoned
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// If you extrapolate that logic, can we expect a posthumous pardon for Harold Shipman? //
/I'm gobsmacked! Are you serious?/
well let her gob be smacked !
it has happened before
murderers being pardoned posthumously
https:/
if it turns out that Shipman wasnt a mass murderer ( and I wonder about the pontefract thirty or so) then it could happen. In evans case - he was credited with another murder- so he was correctly hanged anyway - o god thank god for that .
Evans case set the seal on hanging for murder .... as did the Bham and Guildford cases for hanging for terrorism.
/I'm gobsmacked! Are you serious?/
well let her gob be smacked !
it has happened before
murderers being pardoned posthumously
https:/
if it turns out that Shipman wasnt a mass murderer ( and I wonder about the pontefract thirty or so) then it could happen. In evans case - he was credited with another murder- so he was correctly hanged anyway - o god thank god for that .
Evans case set the seal on hanging for murder .... as did the Bham and Guildford cases for hanging for terrorism.
Old_Geezer - //Speeding isn't (that) wrong in itself. //
Speeding is an absolute, it's either right or it's wrong, you can't have bits of it to suit circumstances, or indeed individuals.
And the law has to work with absolutes.
You cannot say that someone committed a crime, but because he loves his mother we will not prosecute - it makes a nonsense.
And yes, speeding law is 'someone's arbitrary thinking' - but so is all law, that's how laws are made and implemented.
I know I am labouring my point, but if you start looking for ways around laws because you like the cut of someone's jib, you make an instant mockery out of the entire justice system.
It
Speeding is an absolute, it's either right or it's wrong, you can't have bits of it to suit circumstances, or indeed individuals.
And the law has to work with absolutes.
You cannot say that someone committed a crime, but because he loves his mother we will not prosecute - it makes a nonsense.
And yes, speeding law is 'someone's arbitrary thinking' - but so is all law, that's how laws are made and implemented.
I know I am labouring my point, but if you start looking for ways around laws because you like the cut of someone's jib, you make an instant mockery out of the entire justice system.
It
andy-hughes, there has been no suggestion of ‘undoing history’. Fault lies in every example/analogy you’ve given – speeding motorists, Harold Shipman, and now Guy Fawkes. All have committed crimes that were detrimental to society and hence, the law was not in error. That does not apply to homosexuality.
PP - //In evans case - he was credited with another murder- so he was correctly hanged anyway - o god thank god for that . //
Where do you get that from?
John Christie confessed to the murder of Evans' wife and a subsequent enquiry judged that Christie murdered their baby daughter as well.
Evans was posthumously pardoned because the murder for which he was executed was proven to be committed by Christie.
Where do you get that from?
John Christie confessed to the murder of Evans' wife and a subsequent enquiry judged that Christie murdered their baby daughter as well.
Evans was posthumously pardoned because the murder for which he was executed was proven to be committed by Christie.
Naomi - //All have committed crimes that were detrimental to society and hence, the law was not in error. That does not apply to homosexuality. //
I have no argument with the reasons why the law was bad law.
But my point is, it was law - and that is why you cannot start unpicking it to suit modern attitudes.
I have no argument with the reasons why the law was bad law.
But my point is, it was law - and that is why you cannot start unpicking it to suit modern attitudes.
Naomi - if you have no idea why we are talking about speed limits, then why are you proving that you do know why by answering the point about it - //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. //
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. //
Peter Pedant, //murderers being pardoned posthumously
https:/
Timothy Evans wasn't a murderer. Another one who shouldn't have been 'pardoned'. His family deserved nothing less than a grovelling apology - and even that wouldn't have sufficed. Too late when you're dead!
https:/
Timothy Evans wasn't a murderer. Another one who shouldn't have been 'pardoned'. His family deserved nothing less than a grovelling apology - and even that wouldn't have sufficed. Too late when you're dead!
I wonder, Andy, if you would be quite so understanding were there to be a law making it an offence to be a balding music-journalist?
And then in your dotage it was understood that such a law had been pointless, pernicious and ill-thought out and, accordingly, some sort of recognition of this were offered to you to make amends. Where would you stand then?
And then in your dotage it was understood that such a law had been pointless, pernicious and ill-thought out and, accordingly, some sort of recognition of this were offered to you to make amends. Where would you stand then?
andy-hughes, //But my point is, it was law - and that is why you cannot start unpicking it to suit modern attitudes. //
But we can - and we have.
//if you have no idea why we are talking about speed limits, then why are you proving that you do know why by answering the point about it //
I'm indulging you.
But we can - and we have.
//if you have no idea why we are talking about speed limits, then why are you proving that you do know why by answering the point about it //
I'm indulging you.
jack - //I wonder, Andy, if you would be quite so understanding were there to be a law making it an offence to be a balding music-journalist?
And then in your dotage it was understood that such a law had been pointless, pernicious and ill-thought out and, accordingly, some sort of recognition of this were offered to you to make amends. Where would you stand then? //
I am surprised at you - that analogy is ludicrous, and I think you know it.
Being a balding music journalist is never going to be seen as a crime against religion and morality in the way that homosexuality was.
But to return to the initial point -
I believe that if I had been a homosexual man convicted of the law at the time, I would think it morally and ethically wrong to my dying day, but I would not expect, or accept society deciding that it was wrong because we think it is wrong now.
I take responsibility for being a music journalist - my choice, the balding bit is not my choice, any more than being homosexual would have been - but I would still accept that the law viewed it as a criminal offence.
So I think your scenario is a serious stretch, but my position is consistent - I know that some laws are wrong, and that society changes them, but that does not mean they were not laws at the time.
And then in your dotage it was understood that such a law had been pointless, pernicious and ill-thought out and, accordingly, some sort of recognition of this were offered to you to make amends. Where would you stand then? //
I am surprised at you - that analogy is ludicrous, and I think you know it.
Being a balding music journalist is never going to be seen as a crime against religion and morality in the way that homosexuality was.
But to return to the initial point -
I believe that if I had been a homosexual man convicted of the law at the time, I would think it morally and ethically wrong to my dying day, but I would not expect, or accept society deciding that it was wrong because we think it is wrong now.
I take responsibility for being a music journalist - my choice, the balding bit is not my choice, any more than being homosexual would have been - but I would still accept that the law viewed it as a criminal offence.
So I think your scenario is a serious stretch, but my position is consistent - I know that some laws are wrong, and that society changes them, but that does not mean they were not laws at the time.
jack - //Andy - Sorry, that seems unnecessarily rude, I didn't mean that as a direct reference in the way it sounded.....I meant it as some sort of specific/absolute offence.
I apologise if I have offended you. //
Thank you, but absolutely no offence taken. I know that we are arguing our position based on who and what we are, which informs our thinking and our moral code.
I know that although you disagree with my view, you do not take offence at it because you are a gay woman.
I apologise if I have offended you. //
Thank you, but absolutely no offence taken. I know that we are arguing our position based on who and what we are, which informs our thinking and our moral code.
I know that although you disagree with my view, you do not take offence at it because you are a gay woman.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles44 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching52 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.