Problems with the British legal system

Scroll to see replies

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

Reply 21

william walker

Original post by Wade-

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.

Reply 22

number23

Original post by Graceful_Lawyer

And I completely understand you. :biggrin:

But its very interesting. Criminal law is just ♡, although Criminal Justice System can be tedious at times.

What's the difference?

Reply 23

Wade-

Original post by william walker

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

Reply 24

william walker

Original post by Wade-

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.

Reply 25

Wade-

Original post by william walker

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

Reply 26

Graceful_Lawyer

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 :/ :smile:

Reply 27

RianJCleary

There is no fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine which allows overreach by Police Officers and Crown Prosecutors.

"It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence."
- R v Leathem (1861) 8 Cox CC 498