Problems with the British legal system Watch

Wade-
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by william walker)
Just because the government doesn't seek to do it and other tyrants don't want it to be done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
It shouldn't be done, we've moved past such primitive behaviour now.

But like I said if you studied law or politics you'd understand that capital punishment cannot reasonably come back to the UK so it's essentially like me saying I hope we outlaw homosexuality again (I don't wish that, just demonstrating a point)


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
(Original post by Wade-)
It shouldn't be done, we've moved past such primitive behaviour now.

But like I said if you studied law or politics you'd understand that capital punishment cannot reasonably come back to the UK so it's essentially like me saying I hope we outlaw homosexuality again (I don't wish that, just demonstrating a point)


Posted from TSR Mobile
Oh I thought you were talking about everything I said, but you were just talking about death penalty?

Capital punishment could be brought back, but the Courts would have to be once again independent of the government. Homosexuality isn't a criminal act, it never has been. What was illegal was sodomy, not homosexuality.
0
reply
number23
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by Graceful_Lawyer)
And I completely understand you. But its very interesting. Criminal law is just ♡, although Criminal Justice System can be tedious at times.
What's the difference?
0
reply
Wade-
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by william walker)
Oh I thought you were talking about everything I said, but you were just talking about death penalty?

Capital punishment could be brought back, but the Courts would have to be once again independent of the government. Homosexuality isn't a criminal act, it never has been. What was illegal was sodomy, not homosexuality.
The courts don't have the authority to completely violate a statute. Add to that the fact that's illegal under EU law which is essentially supreme in this country and you begin to see it couldn't happen.

I'm aware of that but in modern terms outlawing sodomy, by way of indirect discrimination, outlawed homosexuality


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by Wade-)
The courts don't have the authority to completely violate a statute. Add to that the fact that's illegal under EU law which is essentially supreme in this country and you begin to see it couldn't happen.

I'm aware of that but in modern terms outlawing sodomy, by way of indirect discrimination, outlawed homosexuality


Posted from TSR Mobile
Indeed, but the Parliament shouldn't have the authority to decide punishments. Neither should the government. That should be independent of the law, so up to the Courts. Of course the government has stolen power from the Monarchy to allow it to take such actions. EU will be gone soon enough, so British law as in the English Bill of Rights will then be supreme once again over the British nation state. If the Queen dies no long after and Charles takes the throne and takes back some of his power than even better.

I agree later changes to the law make attraction in some cases illegal and other non-sodomy acts illegal. However the original law in the 1500's and after the Glorious Revolution was only against the act of sodomy. No against homosexuals, but a specific sexual act.
0
reply
Wade-
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by william walker)
Indeed, but the Parliament shouldn't have the authority to decide punishments. Neither should the government. That should be independent of the law, so up to the Courts. Of course the government has stolen power from the Monarchy to allow it to take such actions. EU will be gone soon enough, so British law as in the English Bill of Rights will then be supreme once again over the British nation state. If the Queen dies no long after and Charles takes the throne and takes back some of his power than even better.

I agree later changes to the law make attraction in some cases illegal and other non-sodomy acts illegal. However the original law in the 1500's and after the Glorious Revolution was only against the act of sodomy. No against homosexuals, but a specific sexual act.
The government don't decide sentences, they give a range for the judge to exercise discretion within. I highly doubt sentences would be an awful lot different if judges had free reign. I think you're quite delusional if you realistically think that we'll withdraw from the EU any time soon. Once again? We've never had a bill of rights. Your entire point is incredibly hypothetical, even if we pretend that some of that stuff will happen it's highly unlikely that the death penalty will be brought back when it's been gone for so long and most civilised countries have moved away from it.

Like I said it was indirect discrimination; it didn't focus on one group of people but one group of people at a significant disadvantage


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Graceful_Lawyer
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by number23)
What's the difference?
Lol criminal law is about the theories and principles about criminals and their activities. E.g. their mens rea, actus reus, how the law qualifies for a insane or intoxicated criminal.

Whereas CJS is more about the legal prosecution procedures. For example, rights of a criminal, and the way the procedure is held etc etc. If that makes sense :/
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (442)
37.81%
No - but I will (88)
7.53%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.84%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (559)
47.82%

Watched Threads

View All