Tony Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Surely a good move for a modern society? new law allowing homosexuals who were convicted for having consensual sex with anyone over the age of 16 when it was illegal to have their criminal record wiped clean. Halfway down this link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 It doesn't say it isn't does it? Not sure what your angle is with this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 No angle except that I think it is a good thing and wondered what other's opinions are on rescinding criminal records in this particular instance and maybe under other circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellabobby Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No objection from me as long as it does,nt lead to a string of compensation claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No objection here, good point about compo claims hellabobby. Are there any precedents for this, criminal records being altered after something has been legalised? Also where do we draw the line though, it could cause legal problems in the future? What if somebody is convicted today of hunting with hounds, should that conviction be erased if fox hunting is ever legalised again, for example? Difficult call, it could be argued they should have respected the law at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 That raises an interesting dilemma. A. is the crime the crime, or B. is breaking the law the crime? If it the former then all sorts of criminal records could be expunged. If it the latter then none should be. It also makes a 'Nuremberg prosecution / defence" rather interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No objection from me as long as it does,nt lead to a string of compensation claims. Cant see that happening, as they were convicted under the law as it stood then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel's Mum Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I think this is ridiculous and overly politically correct. When new laws are passed, they are very rarely retrospective (ie if someone did something before the law was passed, they cannot be punished for it after the law has been passed - Article 7 HRA). Constitutionally, how can the opposite apply to a law which has been rescinded? Surely what parliament is doing here is making the rescinded law retrospective, is it not? Flip the coin to the other side and consider this: if parliament passed a law which raised the age of consent to 18, would it be fair and just to retrospectively charge everyone who had, in the past, had consensual sex between the ages of 16 and 18? No of course it wouldnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Does the cctv laws mean we wont see the infamous Sunderland clip on you tube, I wouldnt have though it would make any difference ,most criminal offences in that category,obscene behaviour and cffending public decency will be wiped under the 5 year rule,and as stated earlier it was an offence at the time so it should stand,whatever the views on the legality of homosexuality these days the law was broken at that time.Just think of the number of compensation claims looming on the horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 ...most criminal offences in that category,obscene behaviour and cffending public decency will be wiped under the 5 year rule,and as stated earlier it was an offence at the time so it should stand The law on homosexuality was repealed in 1967. Why should not those offences be wiped after what, now, is forty-three years and not merely five? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.