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]

It's not ludicrous, andy.
It is an example of an ill-conceived law which is quite rightly repealed at a later date but will have caught some up in it's pernicious web before that happens.

There has to be some sort of acknowledgement that the law was wrong (the mores of society notwithstanding) and that anyone who has suffered under it should receive an apology.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //Turing was a homosexual - and that is what the law prosecuted him for! //

We know.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, //Turing was a homosexual - and that is what the law prosecuted him for! //

We know. //

So why bother stating it then?

The reason why using Timothy Evans as a comparison is wrong is because he was convicted for something he didn't do.

Turing was convicted for something he did do - which is why the concept of saying that because we now thing what he did wasn't wrong, he is no longer guilty under the law of the time.

That remains a false premise as I see it, and I think that yourself and jack, and I, are going to have to agree to differ on this.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //So why bother stating it then? //

I didn't state it. You did. I simply agreed with you.

The whole point is that the law was utterly wrong. Can you not see that?

[andy-hughes]

jackthehat - //It is an example of an ill-conceived law which is quite rightly repealed at a later date but will have caught some up in it's pernicious web before that happens.

There has to be some sort of acknowledgement that the law was wrong (the mores of society notwithstanding) and that anyone who has suffered under it should receive an apology. //

As you know by now, we disagree on this.

My view is that the law is made by society based on what society believes to be right and fair at the time - and the evolution of society means that the law is no longer appropriate.

But that is not the same as saying you can airbrush the law and its convictions out of existence because it's uncomfortable to think how society behaved in less enlightened times.

And as I keep saying - where on earth are we going to stop.

Let's pick another law - transportation to Australia for stealing a sheep. Clearly grossly unfair and with life-changing consequences for those convicted of it, and something no modern society would consider just and right.

So do we trawl back through the records and 'pardon and apologise' for every single convict we sent to Australia?

Or do we do we do with that, and every other bad law, accept that it was wrong, and unfair, but it was of its time, and we don't do it now.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //The whole point is that the law was utterly wrong. Can you not see that? //

Of course I can see that - I refer to its wrongness in virtually every post I have made on this thread.

But knowing it is wrong and seeking to undo it are not the same thing.

[jackthehat]

I think we all acknowledge that Turing was prosecuted under a law that existed *at the time*.

The government decided to pardon him almost totally because of the debt the Nation felt it owed to him and because they are of the opinion that the law as it stood was wrong.

There are many elderly men who had their lives ruined because of the law as it existed at the time. A younger, more liberal, society has decided that it ought to apologise for criminalising these men and I agree with them.

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.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //But knowing it is wrong and seeking to undo it are not the same thing. //

I repeat, we have 'undone' it.

[-Talbot-]

andy-hughes
My view is that the law is made by society based on what society believes to be right and fair at the time -





It must also have been fair and right to inject him with an anti-gay drug then?

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, //But knowing it is wrong and seeking to undo it are not the same thing. //

I repeat, we have 'undone' it. //

We have undone it, as we should - which means that moving forward, no-one will be prosecuted under it.

But that is a very long way from trawling back and apologising to and pardoning people who were convicted under it.

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - //My view is that the law is made by society based on what society believes to be right and fair at the time -

It must also have been fair and right to inject him with an anti-gay drug then? //

I did not say it was right and fair, I said it was what society judged to be right and fair.

What society judges to be right and fair does not automatically mean that it is either, or both - but it is what society decides.

[Togo]

So there we have it. An amnesty for historic gay sex criminals, but hound the soldiers, "celebrities and press for.................. historic "crimes". What was once deemed to be morally wrong is now to be sanctioned(encouraged some would say) and what was once correct or socially preferable is to be outlawed. How neat.

[-Talbot-]

andy-hughes
I did not say it was right and fair, I said it was what society judged to be right and fair.



Your contribution seems to me to suggest that you stand by what society judges to be fair and right at the time.

[-Talbot-]

Togo
So there we have it. An amnesty for historic gay sex criminals, but hound the soldiers, "celebrities and press for.................. historic "crimes".




Well most of the celebrities are being hounded because of alledged historic child abuse ... I don't think that is legal yet.

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - //andy-hughes
I did not say it was right and fair, I said it was what society judged to be right and fair.

Your contribution seems to me to suggest that you stand by what society judges to be fair and right at the time. //

Not quite.

My contribution states that I think that what society judges to be right and fair at the time - and the laws it makes on that basis - should stand.

It does not mean that I agree with the views and laws every time.

Should the law that said it is right that a child could be hung for stealing a loaf be allowed to stand because it was the agreed law at the time - yes.

Do I agree it was a right, good, or just law? no.

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - //So there we have it. An amnesty for historic gay sex criminals, but hound the soldiers, "celebrities and press for.................. historic "crimes".

Well most of the celebrities are being hounded because of alledged historic child abuse ... I don't think that is legal yet. //

I am not sure what point you are making.

The rights and wrongs of 'hounding' celebrities are a separate debate, but in all cases, the point is that they are believed to have committed crimes that directly affect other people.

The homosexuality law prosecuted and convicted men simply for being homosexual - no harm was necessary to convict.

Your comparison therefore does not mean anything.

[-Talbot-]

?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //Should the law that said it is right that a child could be hung for stealing a loaf be allowed to stand because it was the agreed law at the time - yes.

Do I agree it was a right, good, or just law? no.//

Regardless of penalty, there is no comparison between that law and the one we're discussing. The child stole the loaf. That is theft and that is wrong and remains wrong. Homosexuality was never wrong - but the law that deemed it to be wrong, was.

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - // ? //

You'll need to be a teensy bit more specific.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //Regardless of penalty, there is no comparison between that law and the one we're discussing. The child stole the loaf. That is theft and that is wrong and remains wrong. Homosexuality was never wrong - but the law that deemed it to be wrong, was. //

I am not making a comparison between the two laws.

I did state that the loaf-stealing law was wrong, and I do absolutely believe that the homosexuality law was wrong.

But that is not my point.

My point is not the rights or wrongs of the law - but that fact that it is the law - right or wrong.