HMG launches "Your Freedom": Suggest a crappy law, they'll think about repealing it

Great Debates
1

Clicky.

Britons: good or bad idea? My opinion is this could either be a complete disaster, or an amazing success. I like the sentiment, though.

Anybody got any laws in mind they’d like scrapped?

2

I have my doubts it will work well; even the best laws have people who want to get rid of them. In fact, they pretty much have to have such people, or there’s no point to them.

3

So far, it seems to be working better than the US Republican “America Speaking Out” boondoggle (perhaps because of its tighter focus).

4

Heres a list

  1. The Dangerous Dogs Act

  2. The Bad Character proviosns of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

  3. Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

  4. The Human Rights Act 1998; sections 3 and 4

5

Care to give a summary of why those should be repealed, especially the more obscure ones? What’s contained in Section 3 and 4?

The site seems to be crushed by popularity at the moment. I’m getting 503 errors continuously.

6

  1. Dangerous Dogs Act, illthought out and passed after a media storm

  2. Allows the prosecution to lead evidence of previous convictions of the accused, essentially making the whole trial about the accused’s character as opposed to actual guilt or ommission.

  3. Forbids previous sexual history of the complainaints from being led without giving discretion to the judge, meaning that often times very relevent evidence is never brought in fron of a jury.

  4. Makes the courts interpret everything “as much as possible” in line with the Euro Convention of Human Rights, which leads to often covulsed and contorted interpretations, l.ike for instance for Section 41 YJCEQ (above).

7

I may be reading you wrong (if I am my apologies) but I get the sense you do not approve of these.

Yet to do so seems at odds with yourself.

In #2 you do not want previous history brought up and in #3 you are upset previous history is not brought up.

Personally I have never understood the prohibition on noting a defendant’s previous criminal record being shown in court. Well, I kind of understand it. I realize that you are on trial for a specific crime and that you committed a crime previously has no bearing…in theory.

Yet I think it does have bearing. I should be able to show that I have been a law abiding citizen my whole life and that the crime I am accused of is wholly out of character. Conversely, why is it wrong to show that the defendant has committed various crimes previously and that it is entirely within his/her character to have committed the crime they are accused of?

That may be a hijack which is not my intent…still befuddles me.

8

What or who is “HMG”?

9

The UK Government.

10

Her Majesty’s Government

11

Many many appo logies, completely forgot about this.

In case of no 2, a trial is not about whether the accused in a bad persons or of bad character it is to show that he actually committed the crime alleged on the indictment. If previous history is brought up then it ceases to be the prosecutions job to prove the charge rather the accused ends up having to show that he did not do it this time.

You can incidentally lead evidence that you have no previous convictions that rule is of many years standing.

As 3, I say let the judge have a discretion, in certain circumstances previous history of the complainant , with the accused is defiantly relevant to consent, especially as a rebuttal, should be allowed. Less true with respect to third partie but on occassion, relevant.

As for

12

Must’ve run afoul of the Post Limiting Act, wot?

13

Here’s a genuine update: the site has closed.