3 ms·

What justice requires is that unjust, unfair and inhumane laws and punishments be struck down and that the people who suffered them unjustly be exonerated and p

What justice requires is that unjust, unfair and inhumane laws and punishments be struck down and that the people who suffered them unjustly be exonerated and pardoned - even if it comes long after the fact. To announce today that Turing was unjustly convicted under a ridiculous law and that he will be posthumously pardoned is not to alter the historical context but to assert that the law is a living thing and that our conception of justice evolves over time. Edit - it sounds like the Protection of Freedoms bill does just this. http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-for.html http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-f...

bad_user 15y ago
That would be like admitting a clear mistake, whereas this reaction is pretty far from such admission, having as excuse the "historical context".
- teamonkey 15y ago
  Not so: Gordon Brown's letter admits and apologises for the mistake that was made.
mattmanser 15y ago
There is an important philosophy of law, the name of which annoyingly escapes me, that basically says if you enact a law it should not be allowed to apply to actions before it was passed. The reason why you avoid it is because you criminalize actions that when were taking place the person had no reasonable expectation that it was illegal, you are essentially changing the rules of the game after it has been played. As much as we want to change the past, we never can. So it's dangerous to consider changing an illegal act in the past into a legal one as you open the doors to the idea that you can change a legal act in the past into an illegal one. Today's 'justice' being used to convict yesterdays normality.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  I think the phrase you're looking for is ex post facto.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  IANAL but it seems to me that pardoning someone after the fact for being found guilty of breaking an unjust law is not the same, legally or ethically, as convicting someone after the fact for committing an act that is later determined to be a crime.
- adrianmsmith 15y ago
  Agreed. This is Part 2 of Article 11 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a11 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a11
  - tikhonj 15y ago
    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 15 paragraph 1 states: > If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby. So while punishing or increasing the punishment for an act in the past is illegal, making the punishment lighter does apply retroactively. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art15 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art15 Now, I have no idea of how pertinent this particular treaty is (I know little about law), but at the very least it shows some consensus that lightening a punishment retroactively is not only allowable but also necessary.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  That seems to be a bit of a slippery slope argument--just because we're willing to exonerate people convicted under laws that are now deemed unfair does not imply we are willing to convict people for old transgressions of a new law.
- wycats 15y ago
  You're looking for "ex post facto law": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law "In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of Article I, section 10. This is one of the very few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. " "In the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are frowned upon, but are permitted by virtue of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty."

bad_user 15y ago

That would be like admitting a clear mistake, whereas this reaction is pretty far from such admission, having as excuse the "historical context".

teamonkey 15y ago
Not so: Gordon Brown's letter admits and apologises for the mistake that was made.

mattmanser 15y ago

There is an important philosophy of law, the name of which annoyingly escapes me, that basically says if you enact a law it should not be allowed to apply to actions before it was passed. The reason why you avoid it is because you criminalize actions that when were taking place the person had no reasonable expectation that it was illegal, you are essentially changing the rules of the game after it has been played. As much as we want to change the past, we never can. So it's dangerous to consider changing an illegal act in the past into a legal one as you open the doors to the idea that you can change a legal act in the past into an illegal one. Today's 'justice' being used to convict yesterdays normality.

Symmetry 15y ago
I think the phrase you're looking for is ex post facto.
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
IANAL but it seems to me that pardoning someone after the fact for being found guilty of breaking an unjust law is not the same, legally or ethically, as convicting someone after the fact for committing an act that is later determined to be a crime.
adrianmsmith 15y ago
Agreed. This is Part 2 of Article 11 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a11 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a11
- tikhonj 15y ago
  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 15 paragraph 1 states: > If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby. So while punishing or increasing the punishment for an act in the past is illegal, making the punishment lighter does apply retroactively. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art15 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art15 Now, I have no idea of how pertinent this particular treaty is (I know little about law), but at the very least it shows some consensus that lightening a punishment retroactively is not only allowable but also necessary.
tikhonj 15y ago
That seems to be a bit of a slippery slope argument--just because we're willing to exonerate people convicted under laws that are now deemed unfair does not imply we are willing to convict people for old transgressions of a new law.
wycats 15y ago
You're looking for "ex post facto law": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law "In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of Article I, section 10. This is one of the very few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. " "In the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are frowned upon, but are permitted by virtue of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty."