BN66/S58 update

[d000hg]

Do look up the word legislation when you get the chance. Criminal convictions are not it.

Thinking before trying to make a spiteful dig might be best when your brains are so limited.

Retrospective legislation to make it illegal under UK law to travel overseas to have sex with children?

Why should you be under UK law for things you do outside the UK? You can't drink in the US at 18 on the basis "I'm English, it's legal there". Is this part of the Saville thing or a general point, I'm not really following that story?

[Old Greg]

If that is true then:

-He must find the justification for the Iraq war immoral too (retrospectively disallowing WMD)

-The trial and subsequent cricification of Jesus was perfectly valid for retrospectively examining this is obviously wrong.

-Any murder verdict must stand as any retrial would be retrospectively exaimining if any offence was commited.

You are wrong. We are discussing retrospective legislation, not retrospective analysis of alleged actions in the context of existing legislation.

[Old Greg]

Because other jurisdictions lack the capacity or will to prosecute such crimes. But the question is about the retrospective nature of the law. Would you consider it unjust to start prosecuting under UK law individuals who before the law was enacted and therefore legally under UK law were traveling to third world countries to rape children?

[d000hg]

Are you suggesting that it should be made illegal under UK law to have sex with children in other countries, or to rape children in other countries, or specifically to travel to other countries with the intention of one of those?

Surely rape is illegal in those countries?

On the retrospective angle... I would still be uncomfortable. The UK should instead work with those countries to get them to issue arrest warrants and then extradite the people in question.

I also think deliberately bringing up child abuse, the most emotive of topics, is not good form in a debate. It's very hard to objectively discuss any subject when people are waiting with pitchforks :

[Old Greg]

Are you suggesting that it should be made illegal under UK law to have sex with children in other countries, or to rape children in other countries, or specifically to travel to other countries with the intention of one of those?

Surely rape is illegal in those countries?

On the retrospective angle... I would still be uncomfortable. The UK should instead work with those countries to get them to issue arrest warrants and then extradite the people in question.

I also think deliberately bringing up child abuse, the most emotive of topics, is not good form in a debate. It's very hard to objectively discuss any subject when people are waiting with pitchforks :

Rape is illegal in these countries but the legal systems are not geared up to deal with it. So they either get prosecuted here or not at all. And the suggestion is that they could be prosecuted retrospectively although you would prefer they got away with it rather than suffer the injustice of retrospective legislation - or have I got you wrong?

As it happens, this is quite a neat example to test whether all retrospective legislation must always be unjust.

[ZARDOZ]

You are wrong. We are discussing retrospective legislation, not retrospective analysis of alleged actions in the context of existing legislation.

If it wasn't for you meddling kids

[d000hg]

I think it's a bad example because it combines two thorny subjects - retrospective legislation and facing trial for crimes committed in another country.

For instance what if they started prosecuting people in the UK who had bought cannabis in a dutch cafe (I think they stopped this being legal but for sake of argument).

What exactly is the legislation in your example? If the countries in question aren't able to bring charges, where are UK authorities getting their information from?

[d000hg]

If it wasn't for you meddling kids

Meddling & kids is a poor choice of wording...

[ZARDOZ]

Romans 13:2 reminds us, "He who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

[Old Greg]

I think it's a bad example because it combines two thorny subjects - retrospective legislation and facing trial for crimes committed in another country.

For instance what if they started prosecuting people in the UK who had bought cannabis in a dutch cafe (I think they stopped this being legal but for sake of argument).

What exactly is the legislation in your example? If the countries in question aren't able to bring charges, where are UK authorities getting their information from?

I am not talking about Dutch cafés. That might be an example of unjust retrospective legislation. My example is to examine whether it is possible to have just retrospective legislation. But I think your position is reasonably clear.

You ask a question about evidence and therefore enforcement. Interesting - perhaps such information could be gleaned by raiding dodgy UK travel providers or offenders' PCs for photos of crimes - but not particularly relevant to the question of the justice or otherwise of the retrospective nature of such legislation.