PDA

View Full Version : Retrospective


Gary
24-08-2005, 09:36:08
No not a music forum thread :)

Just wondered what views were on new legislation that is then applied retrospectively.

Basically not just asking folk to obey the law, but to anticipate what laws may be passed in the future and obey them too, just in case.

(I'd have made a poll but couldn't be arsed to think of different options.)

Nills Lagerbaak
24-08-2005, 09:41:31
Well, I don't think a long reply is neccessary. Does "Utter bullshit" sound about right?

King_Ghidra
24-08-2005, 10:09:18
:lol:

Greg W
24-08-2005, 10:23:16
Well, in the case of the Bali Bombers, I thought the retrospective laws (later appealed against) were a good idea.

Nills Lagerbaak
24-08-2005, 10:45:27
Don't know about them, but may I facitiously (sp?) repeat: Utter Bollocks!

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-08-2005, 17:03:25
No retroactive laws in penal law; beyond that, it depends on the reason and scope for making it retroactive.

Or, in short: Utter Bollocks!

Gary
24-08-2005, 19:03:20
I'd sort of hoped there might be more opinions on this.

As some may have guess, Charles Clarke's imminent laws on deporting undesirables, mainly Muslim clerics, are to be retrospective, so the moment they are passed, the police will be knocking on doors. Of course it'll be a while if and when they clear the appeals but still.

I just thought this was a dangerous thing to do, as if in this situation, where there may be some public sympathy, then where else can it be applied ? Where does one draw the line ?

I'd much rather the individuals concerned were told that they'd got away with it so far, but they can't any longer.

Still, maybe the courts will chose to interpret the law in a more reasonable fashion, when the crunch comes.

Lazarus and the Gimp
24-08-2005, 19:23:08
We're into jurisprudence here. Does it require people to predict legal developments, or is it addressing the failure of our legal minutiae to cover basic moral standards?

We can quibble over whether urging people to murder people by the score is illegal (viewing past events), but I think we'll all agree it's pretty shocking behaviour. Then it just boils down to which of your personality traits are dominant- your principles or your pragmatism.

Greg W
24-08-2005, 20:14:09
With the Bali bombers, when they caught the people that did it, there were accessories (I think the ehad of the group for instance, their religious leader) that could barely be pinned with anything under current indonesian laws. So they introduced retrospective laws specifically aimed at terrorism, and links to terrorist acts. Under the old laws (after appeal), the guy got barely a year in jail. Under the new laws, he was originally sentenced to 30+ years.

No doubt about his guilt, just the length of his sentence. In that case, I can't see it as a bad thing.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-08-2005, 08:51:14
Originally posted by Gary

As some may have guess, Charles Clarke's imminent laws on deporting undesirables, mainly Muslim clerics, are to be retrospective, so the moment they are passed, the police will be knocking on doors.

Well the deportation in such a law is not a punishment, so the standards are not so strict.
The law is retrospective in the sense that legal consequences are attached to earlier legal behaviour. As a public security measure, I do think it is disproportionate in the sense that it would suffice to answer any future inciting of hatred or a refusal to denounce hatred with deportation. But that may be in the bill annway, I have no text of it.

KrazyHorse@home
25-08-2005, 08:53:31
Retroactive.

Retrospective is technically correct, but it drives me nuts...

Gary
25-08-2005, 08:55:48
Drives them where ?

KrazyHorse@home
25-08-2005, 08:56:12
It drives me nuts into a twist.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-08-2005, 10:53:43
So it's utter bollocks again?

Both terms are common wrt law, although quite imprecise.

There are several nuances in the relation between law and time.

Gary
25-08-2005, 11:39:11
So you're suggesting that the slippery slope has a small toehold ? Have to say that it gives sparse comfort. One still has a situation whereby folk can fall foul of something that was perfectly legal at the time, which I think is a bad standard to set.

And I wonder if it may be a more acute concern in a legal system that assumes a starting position of everything is ok, until it's been barred, than it is in a system that assumes everything is not ok, until it's been allowed.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
25-08-2005, 13:38:53
"One still has a situation whereby folk can fall foul of something that was perfectly legal at the time"

Well you are protected from retroactive punishment, but not from any kind of retroactive disadvantage.

Gary
25-08-2005, 14:47:59
Now there's a subtle distinction :)

Lazarus and the Gimp
25-08-2005, 19:39:11
Originally posted by Gary
So you're suggesting that the slippery slope has a small toehold ? Have to say that it gives sparse comfort. One still has a situation whereby folk can fall foul of something that was perfectly legal at the time, which I think is a bad standard to set.

And I wonder if it may be a more acute concern in a legal system that assumes a starting position of everything is ok, until it's been barred, than it is in a system that assumes everything is not ok, until it's been allowed.

You have to bear in mind that the traditional British judicial approach to these issues is to do much the same thing by digging up some howlingly obscure judgement delivered by a drunk judge in the fourteenth century, apply some astonishingly tortuous logic and claim it's a Common Law precedent.

This does the same thing, and is more honest. I'll continue to judge each one on its own merits, and in this case I really can't object. Pragmatism V Principles.