# Interesting Penology Conundrum in England **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2013, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108 "2013-05-23T09:56:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/81 "2013-05-24T20:10:13Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The press may not make any identification of them or any details of where they live work socialise etc. What if a private citizen IDs the ex-con and outs him/her online? ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/82 "2013-05-24T20:25:48Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > What if a private citizen IDs the ex-con and outs him/her online? That’s quite a thing in English law at the moment. A couple of folk got done for breaking the law wrt the Bulger case: > **['Bulger killers' images': Two receive suspended sentences](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22310412)** > > Two men who used Twitter and Facebook to post pictures said to show the killers of James Bulger receive suspended jail sentences. The law lags modern life probably. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/83 "2013-05-24T20:45:10Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > A couple of folk got done for breaking the law wrt the Bulger case: > > ['Bulger killers' images': Two receive suspended sentences - BBC News](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22310412) > > The law lags modern life probably. Huh. > [@](#): > > There is a global ban on publishing anything revealing their identities. Any idea on what “global” means here? I’m in the US; a citizen here. A concerned Brit emails me a picture and I post it on Facebook. Do I need to watch for a guy in a white powdered wig to come knocking on my door?? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/84 "2013-05-24T21:10:19Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > 1641 wasn’t _that_ long ago, I suppose Hey, rule of law is rule of law. No need for the public to know anything. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/85 "2013-05-24T21:29:26Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > As an aside, wasn’t there a case fairly recently of the Home Secretary intervening to get a tariff changed after the fact? I’m blanking on the name though. You might be thinking of the[Anderson](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd021125/ander-1.htm)matter, which made a lot of press at the time. Anderson’s tariff was extended by the Home Secretary rather than a judge. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights [1953] confers the right to have a sentence imposed by an independent and impartial tribunal. By way of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, and later Section 29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the Home Secretary can set the sentence for murderers regardless of what the judge wants. In Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) Ex Parte Anderson (Fc) (Appellant) [2002] UKHL 46, the Law Lords recognize that when an English statute and the European convention are in conflict, the statute trumps, but they are not too thrilled about it. Tough on crime legislation (Criminal Justice Act 2003) for mandatory minimum sentences indicates Parliament’s frustration with the judiciary. The judiciary pushes back through Parliament’s Coroners and Justice Act 2009 with it’s judiciary dominated Sentencing Council. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/86 "2013-05-24T21:30:33Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > I agree. As an aside, wasn’t there a case fairly recently of the Home Secretary intervening to get a tariff changed after the fact? I’m blanking on the name though. > > Do you off-hand know what the legal basis is for, say, informers to be given a new identity? It’s not Mary Bell, clearly. There are other reasons than identity protection- witness protection, terrorist informants etc. The ECHR has removed all political control from individual sentencing- it must be part of a fair hearing. Same now with parole decisions. They may present to the hearing, but can make no decision themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/87 "2013-05-24T21:34:40Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Britain doesn’t have freedom of the press; it has [rule of law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber). It has a different set of restrictions on the media and free speech to the USA. Different may or may not mean better or worse. The US does not have unrestricted free speech. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/88 "2013-05-24T21:35:31Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > It has a different set of restrictions on the media and free speech to the USA. Different may or may not mean better or worse. The US does not have unrestricted free speech. Different doesn’t mean better or worse. Good point, that. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/89 "2013-05-24T21:36:45Z")
So you’re saying we have no right to criticize British law? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/90 "2013-05-24T21:36:51Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’m more alarmed by the casual acceptance of the notion that the press may be ordered not to report on the functions of the state’s criminal-justice system. That was why this attempt at protection of his ID failed. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/91 "2013-05-24T21:38:49Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > More humane? The whole point of this thread is your concern that fellow Britons will carry out a vigilante revenge killing of this man. The mob is under control of the rule of law. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/92 "2013-05-24T21:44:25Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The mob is under control of the rule of law. Not so sure about that. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/93 "2013-05-24T21:45:54Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > 1641 wasn’t _that_ long ago, I suppose Longer ago than: nited States history is littered with repressive laws. Constitutional protections and civil liberties have been targeted. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts restricted First Amendment freedoms. So did the 1917 Espionage Act, 1919 anti-communist Palmer raids, 1934 Special Committee on Un-American Activities 1942 Alien Acts, 1950 House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) 1980s FBI COINTELPRO crackdowns, 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 2001 USA Patriot Act Arrange the following into a well known phrase or saying Glass people in live houses stones not who should stones throw. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/94 "2013-05-24T21:49:22Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Huh. > Any idea on what “global” means here? I’m in the US; a citizen here. A concerned Brit emails me a picture and I post it on Facebook. Do I need to watch for a guy in a white powdered wig to come knocking on my door?? No. But you might need to give up the idea of visiting Europe if the transgression is bad enough! ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/95 "2013-05-24T21:49:56Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Glass people in live houses stones not who should stones throw. I’m not American? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/96 "2013-05-24T21:51:14Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > So you’re saying we have no right to criticize British law? Who said that? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/97 "2013-05-24T21:51:45Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Glass people in live houses stones not who should stones throw. There’s no shortage of stone-throwing at the SDMB against the U.S. government - and other governments as well, like mine. Why should yours be exempt? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/98 "2013-05-24T21:54:46Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > There’s no shortage of stone-throwing at the SDMB against the U.S. government - and other governments as well, like mine. Why should yours be exempt? I have no problem with rational debate. Quoting the Star Chamber as a facet of English Law invites a firm and more modern response. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/99 "2013-05-24T22:03:33Z")
I brought up the Star Chamber for two reasons: 1. First of all, to counter your “rule of law” mantra - the Star Chamber, after all, was completely legal, and challenging it would be challenging the rule of law. Saying rule of law" isn’t always enough. Sometimes, you have to think of the spirit of the law. 2. Second of all, to show how withholding information from the public is rarely a good idea, no matter what century you’re living in. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108/100 "2013-05-24T22:41:42Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I brought up the Star Chamber for two reasons: > > 1. First of all, to counter your “rule of law” mantra - the Star Chamber, after all, was completely legal, and challenging it would be challenging the rule of law. Saying rule of law" isn’t always enough. Sometimes, you have to think of the spirit of the law. > > 2. Second of all, to show how withholding information from the public is rarely a good idea, no matter what century you’re living in. That’s more like rational debate. What information should the state withhold from the public; how is this decided? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-penology-conundrum-in-england/659108.md?page=6)