Pardoning Homosexuals convicted under repealed laws

[Skavau]

Once more.....I have not said that the pardon is a celebration. I have said that whether you celebrate the pardon is the shibboleth here.

And the mandatory celebration is in your treatment if you do not celebrate this announcement.

Do you really not get this?

Most people in the Uk won't even be aware of this, much less be pressured into celebrating it. People who bring it up to complain about it might receive some social shunning, depending on their peers.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Are more gay people in favour of or opposed to this?

Don't know and I doubt they bothered to find out.
If they really cared about this they could have created a mechanism to apply for a pardon or an opt-out. Regardless, this remains a needless waste of time and effort when a simple apology would have probably been cheaper and sufficient for most.

 

[Armoured]

Don't know and I doubt they bothered to find out.
If they really cared about this they could have created a mechanism to apply for a pardon or an opt-out. Regardless, this remains a needless waste of time and effort when a simple apology would have probably been cheaper and sufficient for most.

How would an apology be cheaper than a pardon? Especially an "opt out" pardon, as you suggest?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

How much does it actually cost to pardon vs to apologize posthumously to those convicted?

As for the 15,000 still living, it should be up each one as to what he or she prefers. I know in the US, having a conviction on your record can prevent getting jobs, housing and some government benefits, so the benefit is practical as well as moral.

How would an apology be cheaper than a pardon? Especially an "opt out" pardon, as you suggest?

I don't actually know, but as an apology does not require hundreds of files having to be altered or the formal legal documentation or process having to be completed, it is likely very much cheaper.

As to convictions, I doubt a conviction for homosexual acts would prevent you getting anything and besides, as the law was repealed, they wouldn't be considered felons anymore anyway.

 

[Nithavela]

I do not think anything of the sort should happen. They broke the law at the time and incurred the proper consequence.

If a law is really unjust from our modern standpoint, should we not pardon those punished under it, if not condemn the law and its makers?

What about people being executed in Stalin's Russia for criticising their leader?
What about the people of japanese Ancestry intered during WWII in the USA?
What about the african-american slaves executed for desiring freedom and escaping their master?
What about (sorry for Godwining the thread) the victims of the third reich, that were arrested, defamed and executed, all absolutely lawfully?

 

[Nithavela]

For all those people saying that the 3rd Reichs unjustly convicted victims have not been pardoned in germany: That is correct. What happened was that the unjust convictions were overturned, so that the victims were declared fully rehabilitated (pardoning would have deemed their actions a real crime in the first place).

And then there's this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...e-gay-men-convicted-in-post-war-era-1.2644237

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

For all those people saying that the 3rd Reichs unjustly convicted victims have not been pardoned in germany: That is correct. What happened was that the unjust convictions were overturned, so that the victims were declared fully rehabilitated (pardoning would have deemed their actions a real crime in the first place).

And then there's this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...e-gay-men-convicted-in-post-war-era-1.2644237

Your reductio ad Hitlerum aside in your penultimate post, Germany's method of going about correcting historical legal injustice seems far better, in my opinion.

 

[Belk]

I don't actually know, but as an apology does not require hundreds of files having to be altered or the formal legal documentation or process having to be completed, it is likely very much cheaper.

As to convictions, I doubt a conviction for homosexual acts would prevent you getting anything and besides, as the law was repealed, they wouldn't be considered felons anymore anyway.

The felony conviction remains even if the law was repealed. Simply repealing a law does not magically change conviction records.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The felony conviction remains even if the law was repealed. Simply repealing a law does not magically change conviction records.

The conviction remains but as the law was repealed, there is no legal restrictions placed on the person.

 

[Belk]

The conviction remains but as the law was repealed, there is no legal restrictions placed on the person.

That is incorrect. Since the felony is in place any and all consequences are still fully in effect.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That is incorrect. Since the felony is in place any and all consequences are still fully in effect.

Firstly, we are using incorrect terminology as Britain does not have felonies.

Secondly though, I am not a lawyer, but I read that no legal restrictions are currently in place on anyone convicted of the Sexual Offences Act of 1956.
I took this to mean that they were ended when it was repealed, but more likely now it seems they ended with their sentences or probation completed.

Regardless, a conviction for homosexuality under this Act no longer has a negative societal connotation nor legal restrictions.

 

[Dave-W]

The conviction remains but as the law was repealed, there is no legal restrictions placed on the person.

Does that include jurisdictions that still have "Three strikes" on their books?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Does that include jurisdictions that still have "Three strikes" on their books?

Not a lawyer. I was talking of Britain where I have never heard of Three Strike rules and it appears I had been labouring under a misunderstanding as Belk has helpfully pointed out.

 

[Belk]

Firstly, we are using incorrect terminology as Britain does not have felonies.

Secondly though, I am not a lawyer, but I read that no legal restrictions are currently in place on anyone convicted of the Sexual Offences Act of 1956.
I took this to mean that they were ended when it was repealed, but more likely now it seems they ended with their sentences or probation completed.

Regardless, a conviction for homosexuality under this Act no longer has a negative societal connotation nor legal restrictions.

Ah! Very good.

 

[Dave-W]

I was talking of Britain where I have never heard of Three Strike rules

OK - understood. To bring you up to speed:

Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the "Three Strikes" statute provides for mandatory life imprisonment if a convicted felon: (1) has been convicted in federal court of a "serious violent felony"; and (2) has two or more previous convictions in federal or state courts, at least one of which is a "serious violent felony" (the other offense may be a serious drug offense). The sentencing enhancements in this law can have a significant impact on a criminal defendant. Read on to learn more about the law and how it works.

What Is A Serious Violent Felony?

The statute defines a serious violent felony to include:

• Murder;
• Manslaughter;
• Sex offenses;
• Kidnapping;
• Robbery; and
• Any offense punishable by 10 years or more which includes an element of the use of force or involves a significant risk of force

The statue also specifically excludes certain felonies such as unarmed robbery offenses or arsons which posed no threat to human life. However, in those cases, the burden is on the defendant to show that the crimes did not involve threats to use a dangerous weapon and that no threat of death or bodily injury was involved. In other words, these can count as strikes unless a defendant proves otherwise.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/three-strikes-sentencing-laws.html

 

[Tallguy88]

Will England be pardoning all the Catholics killed by their unjust religious laws from the 1500s to the 1700s? Will they pardon suffragettes? If not, why does this one group get special treatment?

 

[Arcangl86]

Will England be pardoning all the Catholics killed by their unjust religious laws from the 1500s to the 1700s? Will they pardon suffragettes? If not, why does this one group get special treatment?

Because many of them are still alive and have to deal with the consequences of a criminal record?

 

[Tallguy88]

Because many of them are still alive and have to deal with the consequences of a criminal record?

I'm all for it if it's fair. But picking and choosing which ones seems like political pandering. Pardon all victims of unjust laws if it's really about righting wrongs.

 

[Skavau]

This really seems such a petty thing to be so opposed too, for goodness sake.

"They're pardoning homosexuals? What about the victims of witch burnings!"

Does this even matter? It's the state trying to right, officially, its recent social wrongs. I doubt we'd see the same bizarre zeal against this if a Muslim country granted some kind of pardon to Christians for breaking petty unjust laws.

 

[Tallguy88]

This really seems such a petty thing to be so opposed too, for goodness sake.

"They're pardoning homosexuals? What about the victims of witch burnings!"

Does this even matter? It's the state trying to right, officially, its recent social wrongs. I doubt we'd see the same bizarre zeal against this if a Muslim country granted some kind of pardon to Christians for breaking petty unjust laws.

Well I am a Catholic and my religious fellows suffered much worse under the unjust laws of England than the people this pardon is referring to (hanging, drawing, and quartering, burning at the stake, beheading). So if they get a pardon, then Catholics should too.

If one deserves a blanket pardon, then the other certainly does.