The House of Commons has just refused to allow pardons to men convicted decades ago of sex offences that are no longer illegal. The issue has stirred up the inevitable hornets' nest of Twitter and Press comments, and we are left with the illogical situation that those men (yes, all men) who have died will be pardoned but the living remain with a stain on their character.
I suspect that the furore is largely a matter of semantics; a 'pardon' has a defined legal meaning, but in common parlance it has different implications. If I offend someone, or tread on their toe in error, they my well pardon me for the wrong that I have done them, and that is that. However, a pardon for a crime looks to the layman as if the offence was indeed committed , but the Queen will overlook it. That is not at all what the convicted men are looking for, but rather an apologetic wiping clean of the slate. Only the archaic concept of a royal pardon looks to be possible in law, unless legislation can be changed.
Common compassion suggests that the huge shift in public attitudes to same-sex relationships should be reflected in the law. It is a small matter in the great scheme of things, but means a great deal to the men affected. Parliament is rammed to the doors with lawyers: surely a couple of them could draft a swift form of words to clear up this relatively minor injustice?
'Relatively minor injustice'??? Your sense of understatement knows no bounds!
ReplyDeleteA reminder of your judicial oath: "I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” Please try a little harder to uphold these principles in you musings. John - current JP
Seems unfair to jump on the last line when it's clear that such men have the author's sympathy. The point is clear - this is not a hard thing to draft, MPs should just get on with it.
DeleteThere are many other areas to consider. What was (il)legal and when are shifting sands. In my parish, a woman in the workhouse in the 1820s was put on bread and water for 3 weeks, and fined 6d from her meagre weaving earnings, for giving her recently deceased husband's clothes to her son. Moreover, the House of Commons is not exactly as pure as the driven snow, and they have shown themselves inadequate to judge such issues once again.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should turn the clock back. If we do it for what was one crime long ago,but is no longer, however serious, should we not do so for all offences which no longer exist, or none?
ReplyDeleteYes to all, & why not? As to "however serious", this is irrelevant since any crime of yesteryear that is seen as serious today will still be a crime today.
DeleteIt's good to see that historical predujice is maintained on the current bench.
ReplyDeleteThe word pardon no longer means in common parlance what it does in the law. We need a new one. Any ideas?
ReplyDeleteAnd what follows pardon ? Compensation?
ReplyDeleteAs for the change in public values - have you checked with the Moslems?
The Bill was in any event too wide. It would have applied to Oscar Wilde - one of whose victims, and that is the right word, was 14 or 15 years old.
ReplyDelete