tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post5079848028035332654..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Scottish Double Jeopardy Bill published...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-68458259651480756792010-10-10T15:26:07.696+01:002010-10-10T15:26:07.696+01:00Interestingly enough, I've heard rumours that ...Interestingly enough, I've heard rumours that elements of the Scottish Labour Shadow Cabinet may not be so firmly behind Kenny MacAskill's Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill as one might have supposed from the public pronouncements of Iain Gray and Richard Baker... <br /><br />The confusion you allude to is often aided by an interesting tendency - to create new offences but decide not to repeal the often older Common Law equivalents. That adds a certain bemusing spice to sentences that begin with often unmerited confidence <i>"The law is..."</i>Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-7981375617152321522010-10-10T12:01:03.710+01:002010-10-10T12:01:03.710+01:00Thank you for the link, LPW. Indeed the law on sex...Thank you for the link, LPW. Indeed the law on sexual offences is a terrible minefield. Mainly this is the fault of ignorant parliamentarians poking their noses into legal matters, which is a much wider matter - we wouldn't let 650 (or even 129)rank amateurs carry out a brain operation, or design a bridge, so God knows why we let them write laws. But not exclusively: assault is a common law offence but we have defined it in such a way that it's still a crime to hit a masochist who is begging you to do precisely that. Not that I have any personal experience of these matters. But in general the proposed double jeopardy law is a Bad Thing. If Governments have lacked evidence, they have never been blate about creating it. And if a Labour Government could invent the evidence which took us to war with a whole nation, Mr Sinclair ought to be very concerned about next May's results...Am Firinnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-7171168843076699742010-10-10T11:12:11.197+01:002010-10-10T11:12:11.197+01:00Now that's family history, Am Firinn!
James ...Now that's family history, Am Firinn! <br /><br />James Chalmers of the University of Edinburgh had a piece in the <i>Scotsman</i> recently which emphasises precisely that point <a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Sex-offences-reform-flawed-.6551146.jp?articlepage=1" rel="nofollow">in a discussion of the most recent</a> parliamentary reforms to sexual offences. It also raises an interesting spectre, rather surprising for those who tend to emphasise "tradition" to justify legal attempts to regulate juvenile sexuality. In fact, the history of such laws - although complex - is in the main much more modern than many folk suppose.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-39206945339696366352010-10-09T22:30:32.935+01:002010-10-09T22:30:32.935+01:00Indeed the Scots common law of consent was never t...Indeed the Scots common law of consent was never that it was thirteen: but until not really all that long ago it was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Which is just as well as it kept my 17-year-old great-great-grandfather from being prosecuted for begetting my great-grandfather on my 14-year-old great-great-grandmother. And in that it may well be that Scots common law took a much more grimly realistic view of the human condition than subsequent Parliamentary interference - not least that of the Subrosa's fellow citizens and citizenesses...Am Firinnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-62081579921765207812010-10-08T15:45:22.450+01:002010-10-08T15:45:22.450+01:00No need to hop on your mule of despairing reaction...No need to hop on your mule of despairing reaction just yet, Subrosa. The Scots criminal law is much less neat and ordered than most folk suppose. Offences have historically applied only to one gender, some offences come from an isolated section of statute - often overlapping with Common Law offences which criminalised the conduct anyway. The reason why the Bill contains an apparently eccentric range of charges is the proposed retrospectiveness of the legislation. Some of these charges don't apply any more - but theoretically, someone in the past could have been acquitted on one such charge. To pick one example, the Appeal Court basically interpreted the offence of "clandestine injury to women" into oblivion, when they redefined what constituted rape. <br /><br />Forgive me for the bluntness here, but historically clandestine injury involved having sex with a sleeping woman. Proposed retrospectiveness is why these offences are mentioned.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-48500201097056036992010-10-08T15:21:24.192+01:002010-10-08T15:21:24.192+01:00Has the age of consent dropped to 13 now?
Why do ...Has the age of consent dropped to 13 now?<br /><br />Why do we bother trying to protect our youngsters. I shake my head in despair.subrosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151702590329788260noreply@blogger.com