melthebell Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So you would be happy for Peter Suttclife and Ian Huntley's criminal records to be wiped clean if their crimes suddenly became legal tomorrow?? A criminal record is a record of a persons deliberate criminal actions/behavior at a particular moment in time, you can't just pretend that a person didn't deliberately act illegally at that particular moment in time because, subsequently, that illegal act became legal. but if the crime doesnt exist why should the criminal record??? its about what was, not is homosexuality was an UNJUST criminal offence, now we're more civilised and tolerant, if weve got rid of the law why should we still treat them as criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 If what they did became legal, then yes. Not particularly likely to actually happen though, now is it. I was resonding to melthebel's ridiculous analogy Not necessarily, there are plenty of crimes where you can be convicted without deliberate criminal actions. Well fair enough, but I don't think we should pretend that the contravention of a particular law at a point in time just didn't happen because, subsequently, said law became legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So you would be happy for Peter Suttclife and Ian Huntley's criminal records to be wiped clean if their crimes suddenly became legal tomorrow??If society agreed that what they did should not be a crime, and I agreed, then yes, of course. A criminal record is a record of a persons deliberate criminal actions/behavior at a particular moment in time, you can't just pretend that a person didn't deliberately act illegally at that particular moment in time because, subsequently, that illegal act became legal.Who care that it was illegal at the time, it should not have been. The law was wrong, that is why it has been changed, so the convictions were also wrong, and should be changed. Gay people were absolutely in the right to break this law when it existed, the state had no right to dictate to them what they did with other consenting adults. If you were a gay man, would you have just stayed celibate, or would you have broken the law deliberately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Well fair enough, but I don't think we should pretend that the contravention of a particular law at a point in time just didn't happen because, subsequently, said law became legal. We aren't pretending it didn't happen, we're just acknowledging that it shouldn't have been punished by law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 but if the crime doesnt exist why should the criminal record??? its about what was, not is homosexuality was an UNJUST criminal offence, now we're more civilised and tolerant, if weve got rid of the law why should we still treat them as criminals? If this is a debate purely about homosexuality then no, It shouldn't be "held against" anyone now in a "criminal record"... their records should be wiped clean; but this is the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that warrants being wiped off the records now. As for everything else, the records should stand; retrospectively exonerating people is as silly as retrospectively punishing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 The Sexual Offences Act 1956 makes clear that it was an offence for a “person to commit buggery with another person or an animal” (section 12). That certainly includes anal sex between a man and a woman. (Explanatory notes for later amending legislation confirm that.) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 decriminalised heterosexual and homosexual buggery between consenting people over 18. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 reduced that age to 16. Technically many heterosexual men and women could have fallen foul of the legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Should people who used to hunt with hounds (when it was legal), but no longer do, now be retrospectively charged with committing a crime because it is no longer legal? If the answer is no, then I would suggest the same should apply in the case of crimes which were committed when the act was illegal, but no longer is. In both cases, the issue is not whether the act is right or wrong, it is whether or not the act was illegal at the time it was carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Should people who used to hunt with hounds (when it was legal), but no longer do, now be retrospectively charged with committing a crime because it is no longer legal? If the answer is no, then I would suggest the same should apply in the case of crimes which were committed when the act was illegal, but no longer is. In both cases, the issue is not whether the act is right or wrong, it is whether or not the act was illegal at the time it was carried out. it wasnt a crime and no you shouldnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutts Nutts Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 The Sexual Offences Act 1956 makes clear that it was an offence for a “person to commit buggery with another person or an animal” (section 12). That certainly includes anal sex between a man and a woman. (Explanatory notes for later amending legislation confirm that.) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 decriminalised heterosexual and homosexual buggery between consenting people over 18. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 reduced that age to 16. Technically many heterosexual men and women could have fallen foul of the legislation. That's pretty much how I understood things, although for the authorities to be able to prove something like this happened must have been really difficult whether heterosexual or homosexual. Surely for someone to make a complaint about this happening to them, that they'd need to report it, would suggest it was not consenting and therefore rape...all in all it would be a pain in the arse to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I think the argument must be that female homosexuality was never illegal(I believe) and therefore the issue should be related to present equality laws. Otherwise I think the conviction would stand as the offence was commited when it was an illegal act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.