Crosswords1 min 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.
jack - //I entirely understand the points you are making, Andy, but believe there is enough (good)will to allow these apologies to happen without creating precedents for any other 'offences' to receive the same treatment. //
I would hope you are right, but the entire thrust of my objection is that fact that we could be opening floodgates to claims that every sentence ever given is wrong because people argue that the law is wrong.
It doesn't mean that their argument is valid, r will hold up, but it does mean that a lot of time effort and money could be wasted in finding out.
That is why I am disinclined to go down the pardoning route.
In case it is not clear, I do hope that you are right, but given the choice, I would prefer that society did not take the risk.
I would hope you are right, but the entire thrust of my objection is that fact that we could be opening floodgates to claims that every sentence ever given is wrong because people argue that the law is wrong.
It doesn't mean that their argument is valid, r will hold up, but it does mean that a lot of time effort and money could be wasted in finding out.
That is why I am disinclined to go down the pardoning route.
In case it is not clear, I do hope that you are right, but given the choice, I would prefer that society did not take the risk.
Talbot - //ok
What were you going on about in your post @ 10:19 Thu 20th Oct 2016? //
I am saying that the concept of pardoning homosexuals for something they are, does not compare with the investigations (hounding) of soldiers and celebrities, who are being investigated for something they may or may not have done.
You can't morally prosecute someone for being gay, anymore than you could prosecute someone for being a man.
But you can morally prosecute a soldier or a celebrity for murder or child abuse - because those are conscious actions.
I hope that makes my point clear.
What were you going on about in your post @ 10:19 Thu 20th Oct 2016? //
I am saying that the concept of pardoning homosexuals for something they are, does not compare with the investigations (hounding) of soldiers and celebrities, who are being investigated for something they may or may not have done.
You can't morally prosecute someone for being gay, anymore than you could prosecute someone for being a man.
But you can morally prosecute a soldier or a celebrity for murder or child abuse - because those are conscious actions.
I hope that makes my point clear.
You missed my point AH. It isn't the issue whether there is a measure upon which one can say that the law was kept to or broken, it is about the difference between laws that enforce that which is clearly morally wrong (thus few if any in society having argument against them) and those that are set up because someone thinks they should be there in the form they decide (and which many in society might disagree with). I suggest these are clearly different issues/laws, different categories; and whilst all morality is from debate and agreement, it is not reasonable to take that to the extreme and say that because everything is ultimately someone's decision that all the laws hold the same status.
In the case of speeding one may be able to measure compliance or otherwise, but that does not mean speeding is always wrong. Laws can be wrong if they are either inherently bad laws, or if insufficiently defined to allow for different actions in different circumstances. Take the obvious example of someone rushing to drive someone to hospital before it is too late. But in many cases, including the example I first gave, the law passed is simply wrong to start with. But for exceptional circumstances, 20mph limits are just to boost control freaks egos, those who want to be responsible for making life difficult for others. I've heard no other valid argument for them. (Plus I suspect it gives the police an excuse to not get on with important crime fighting and bump up their record of prosecutions by grabbing fruit deliberately hung low for the purpose.)
In the case of speeding one may be able to measure compliance or otherwise, but that does not mean speeding is always wrong. Laws can be wrong if they are either inherently bad laws, or if insufficiently defined to allow for different actions in different circumstances. Take the obvious example of someone rushing to drive someone to hospital before it is too late. But in many cases, including the example I first gave, the law passed is simply wrong to start with. But for exceptional circumstances, 20mph limits are just to boost control freaks egos, those who want to be responsible for making life difficult for others. I've heard no other valid argument for them. (Plus I suspect it gives the police an excuse to not get on with important crime fighting and bump up their record of prosecutions by grabbing fruit deliberately hung low for the purpose.)
Naomi - //andy-hughes, //My point is not the rights or wrongs of the law - but that fact that it is the law - right or wrong. //
And everyone agrees with you on that. We all know it was the law. I don't know where you're going with this - apart from around in circles.. //
I am not sure to which post I was replying with that point - but I simply reiterating my point - that the law cannot in my review be retrospectively made not to have been the law because thinking has changed.
And everyone agrees with you on that. We all know it was the law. I don't know where you're going with this - apart from around in circles.. //
I am not sure to which post I was replying with that point - but I simply reiterating my point - that the law cannot in my review be retrospectively made not to have been the law because thinking has changed.
AOG - //Should we now charge people with certain things that they once got away with since they were not deemed illegal, but now are? //
An interesting point - which rather underlines my main issue about tampering with retrospective law.
We have already had a massive furore about the notion of offering apologies to the descendants of slaves because slavery has been abolished - this is the kind of reaction I would be keen to avoid, and it can be avoided very simply.
When the law was the law, actions and penalties resulting from it stand.
An interesting point - which rather underlines my main issue about tampering with retrospective law.
We have already had a massive furore about the notion of offering apologies to the descendants of slaves because slavery has been abolished - this is the kind of reaction I would be keen to avoid, and it can be avoided very simply.
When the law was the law, actions and penalties resulting from it stand.
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.