3 ms·
There is a third option, and that is to extend the same privilege to all on record who ever violated the unjust law.
by yock 14y ago
There is a third option, and that is to extend the same privilege to all on record who ever violated the unjust law.
- laumars 14y agoThat was already covered in my post: > "Not least of all because -as great a man as Turing was- every other victim of this law would them equally deserve a pardon too (and you know what's going to happen next; some of the less reputable descendants of the aforementioned will no doubt sue the government for an absurd amount of damages)."
- jlgreco 14y agoIf their claim to damages is not legitimate, surely the courts will decide that. Should they not be permitted to try?
- justincormack 14y agoI don't think you need to allow damages to descendants just because you pardon past "crimes". There may be some living people who were prosecuted and they deserve compensation.
- mindcrime 14y agoSo, the government can always just pass a law saying "no damages for retroactively pardoned victims of $FOO". Suing the State is basically always a dodgy proposition, since the trial is run by agents of said State, operating under the whims of the law of said State. IMO, pardoning everyone who was victimized by a bad law sounds like exactly the right thing to do.