Quizzes & Puzzles49 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.
I think Jayne - and I - have attempted to illustrate the difficulties in retrospectively adjusting laws, and their applications.
I do completely understand the reasons for people supporting the notion of expunging criminal records in these circumstances.
This was a draconian law implemented against individuals who are simply being themselves, made at a time when an unreasonably and unfounded sense of moral superiority informed cultural attitudes, and laws based on them.
But I continually find myself unable to support retrospective changes in law, however morally correct the argument may be - because laws should be immune from humanity and emotion, and applied with fairness which is the cornerstone of the concept of justice.
Of course this law was formed from social attitudes at that time, but so is every law - and to set a precedent in overturning one law starts a dangerous ball rolling, and that is the reason why I am opposed to it.
I do completely understand the reasons for people supporting the notion of expunging criminal records in these circumstances.
This was a draconian law implemented against individuals who are simply being themselves, made at a time when an unreasonably and unfounded sense of moral superiority informed cultural attitudes, and laws based on them.
But I continually find myself unable to support retrospective changes in law, however morally correct the argument may be - because laws should be immune from humanity and emotion, and applied with fairness which is the cornerstone of the concept of justice.
Of course this law was formed from social attitudes at that time, but so is every law - and to set a precedent in overturning one law starts a dangerous ball rolling, and that is the reason why I am opposed to it.
// I think Jayne - and I - have attempted to illustrate the difficulties in retrospectively adjusting laws, and their applications. // law giver andie
any law adjustment legislatively is done in retrospect - looking back on the status quo and adjusting it - but anyway
French parliament retrospectively criminalised the defeat of France in 1940 at Petains insistence even tho it is a principle of French law not to
https:/
[ sorry put that in to allow everyone to whine "prosay de where ? wot dat den ? " ]
but the english parliament can ......
did Andie mention the retrospective effect of The Burmah Oil Act of 1964?
some bright spark realised that the Burma fields had NOT been burnt in 1942 as an act of war by the Japanese ( not claimable) but by action of the Blitish to prevent their fall into Japanese hands ( claimable )
result - Act passed to make it unclaimable ( by the Labour WIlson govt no less)
what about the promise to idemnify the Clay Cross councillors in 1970 ?
http://
The CCC was nardy nardy and defied the Tory govt. So the socialists in opposition said 'no go on and do that and we will indemnify you when we get into power'. Sidney Silverman was so disgusted that he resigned as attorney general and never held power again ( wilson did by the way).
and finally
war crimes bill
(passed by the commons only and then by action of the Parliament act 1949)
Lords were full of law lords saying retrospective legislation was a bad . In this case its effect was to make War Crimes ( international) also a domestic crime to cover the atrocities carried out by the Germans in eastern nations during the war.
The one action brought under it failed - and the war crimes unit has consumed £10m with no effect at all.
well those are three or four examples of retrospective legislation
and how they didnt work very well - -
any law adjustment legislatively is done in retrospect - looking back on the status quo and adjusting it - but anyway
French parliament retrospectively criminalised the defeat of France in 1940 at Petains insistence even tho it is a principle of French law not to
https:/
[ sorry put that in to allow everyone to whine "prosay de where ? wot dat den ? " ]
but the english parliament can ......
did Andie mention the retrospective effect of The Burmah Oil Act of 1964?
some bright spark realised that the Burma fields had NOT been burnt in 1942 as an act of war by the Japanese ( not claimable) but by action of the Blitish to prevent their fall into Japanese hands ( claimable )
result - Act passed to make it unclaimable ( by the Labour WIlson govt no less)
what about the promise to idemnify the Clay Cross councillors in 1970 ?
http://
The CCC was nardy nardy and defied the Tory govt. So the socialists in opposition said 'no go on and do that and we will indemnify you when we get into power'. Sidney Silverman was so disgusted that he resigned as attorney general and never held power again ( wilson did by the way).
and finally
war crimes bill
(passed by the commons only and then by action of the Parliament act 1949)
Lords were full of law lords saying retrospective legislation was a bad . In this case its effect was to make War Crimes ( international) also a domestic crime to cover the atrocities carried out by the Germans in eastern nations during the war.
The one action brought under it failed - and the war crimes unit has consumed £10m with no effect at all.
well those are three or four examples of retrospective legislation
and how they didnt work very well - -
//One final thought. Why did Turing get a Royal Pardon but all the other convicted gays are going to get a Statutory Pardon ?//
big discussion at the time about the pardoned fella having to say "yes I did it" which is kinda difficult when you are dead....
I think some tidy soul in whitehall has adjusted this
( but not retrospectively ) [ pun intended]
big discussion at the time about the pardoned fella having to say "yes I did it" which is kinda difficult when you are dead....
I think some tidy soul in whitehall has adjusted this
( but not retrospectively ) [ pun intended]
Naomi - //Are you saying the law shouldn't have been abolished? //
Since every single post I have made on this thread has discussed the reversal of the convictions, you are completely aware that I have never even hinted that I thought the law itself should not have been repealed.
I am mystified as to why you would even think that - much less post it.
Since every single post I have made on this thread has discussed the reversal of the convictions, you are completely aware that I have never even hinted that I thought the law itself should not have been repealed.
I am mystified as to why you would even think that - much less post it.
Naomi - //Ummmm, I've read his posts including the latest one where he said "to set a precedent in overturning one law starts a dangerous ball rolling, and that is the reason why I am opposed to it."
How do you read that? //
Surely we can take as read the concept that we are discussing - the pardoning and expunging of criminal records, and you and I know that this is what I find unacceptable.
If I need precisely to define every single aspect of the discussion, my posts are going to get even more convoluted, and I have enough people complaining about that thank you!
How do you read that? //
Surely we can take as read the concept that we are discussing - the pardoning and expunging of criminal records, and you and I know that this is what I find unacceptable.
If I need precisely to define every single aspect of the discussion, my posts are going to get even more convoluted, and I have enough people complaining about that thank you!
andy-hughes, thank you for coming back on this. I understand that you say people shouldn’t be ‘pardoned’ for crimes committed under now abandoned laws, but saying that ‘overturning one law starts a dangerous ball rolling, and that is the reason why I am opposed to it”, implies that you're opposed to laws being changed – hence the confusion. Hopefully that's two of us (or even three of us) 'unmystified'.
I've never understood "Posthumous" pardons. What exactly is their purpose and just who benefits from them? Obviously not the person who has passed away so is this just a show for the public or their friends and families if they have campaigned against the conviction to shut them up?
Is a pardon a way for the government to not have to pay compensation whereas an apology would mean they would have to?
Is this the real difference between a pardon and an apology?
Sorry but slightly sidestepping from the op but if this is the case does this mean we can expect to see thousands of pardons from the government in the future for drug convictions as weed, cocaine and all other drugs become legal? ( Which I believe is inevitable as the war against drugs has failed miserably )
Is a pardon a way for the government to not have to pay compensation whereas an apology would mean they would have to?
Is this the real difference between a pardon and an apology?
Sorry but slightly sidestepping from the op but if this is the case does this mean we can expect to see thousands of pardons from the government in the future for drug convictions as weed, cocaine and all other drugs become legal? ( Which I believe is inevitable as the war against drugs has failed miserably )
Lunol - // I've never understood "Posthumous" pardons. What exactly is their purpose and just who benefits from them? Obviously not the person who has passed away so is this just a show for the public or their friends and families if they have campaigned against the conviction to shut them up? //
I think the Pardon is for the benefit of remaining relatives who feel that the name of the deceased relative has been maligned, and this is a way of repairing perceived damage.
// Is a pardon a way for the government to not have to pay compensation whereas an apology would mean they would have to? //
I am not sure to be honest - if anyone knows the legal aspects of a Pardon versus an Apology, it would be interesting to read.
// Is this the real difference between a pardon and an apology? //
As I see it - a formal Pardon means that the conviction is quashed, and in law it does not, and never did exist. An Apology means that the current government allows the conviction to stand, but it acknowledges that it was unjust, and offers official apologies for the fact that the conviction remains, but the government acknowledges that the law at the time was inappropriate.
Sorry but slightly sidestepping from the op but if this is the case does this mean we can expect to see thousands of pardons from the government in the future for drug convictions as weed, cocaine and all other drugs become legal? ( Which I believe is inevitable as the war against drugs has failed miserably )
I don't think it is sidestepping - that point is the entire thrust of my argument against pardoning in the first place.
I think the Pardon is for the benefit of remaining relatives who feel that the name of the deceased relative has been maligned, and this is a way of repairing perceived damage.
// Is a pardon a way for the government to not have to pay compensation whereas an apology would mean they would have to? //
I am not sure to be honest - if anyone knows the legal aspects of a Pardon versus an Apology, it would be interesting to read.
// Is this the real difference between a pardon and an apology? //
As I see it - a formal Pardon means that the conviction is quashed, and in law it does not, and never did exist. An Apology means that the current government allows the conviction to stand, but it acknowledges that it was unjust, and offers official apologies for the fact that the conviction remains, but the government acknowledges that the law at the time was inappropriate.
Sorry but slightly sidestepping from the op but if this is the case does this mean we can expect to see thousands of pardons from the government in the future for drug convictions as weed, cocaine and all other drugs become legal? ( Which I believe is inevitable as the war against drugs has failed miserably )
I don't think it is sidestepping - that point is the entire thrust of my argument against pardoning in the first place.
Latest Posts
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank101 mins ago
Why Are Oxbridge Students Now Terrorist...
News168 mins ago
Crosswords170 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles173 mins ago
Home & Garden193 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.