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:
The law lags modern life probably.
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??
Hey, rule of law is rule of law. No need for the public to know anything.
You might be thinking of theAndersonmatter, 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.
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.
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. 
So you’re saying we have no right to criticize British law?
That was why this attempt at protection of his ID failed.
The mob is under control of the rule of law.
Not so sure about that.
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.
No. But you might need to give up the idea of visiting Europe if the transgression is bad enough!
I’m not American?
Who said that?
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.
I brought up the Star Chamber for two reasons:
-
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.
-
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?