The conviction was illegally obtained. Therefore it should be vacated.
I understand why he's arguing it the way he is, but if a confession is coerced it is not admissible and should have been thrown out. At least that's how it works here, and I assume the U.K. is similar.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- 1959 conviction still haunts gay man seeking work
1959 conviction still haunts gay man seeking workFollow
#27Raolan,
Posted: Feb 17 2010 at 2:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Whether the confession resulting in the conviction was coerced or not, he doesn't disagree to committing the crime in the first place, so he should have been convicted. I'll give you the beating aspect but just because they couldn't prove the act doesn't mean it wasn't illegal.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Raolan wrote:
Quote:
The confession was coerced. The "offense" should not have been on the books in the first place.
Some laws are stupid and, in fact, unethical. When those laws are vacated, so should the record.
Some laws are stupid and, in fact, unethical. When those laws are vacated, so should the record.
Whether the confession resulting in the conviction was coerced or not, he doesn't disagree to committing the crime in the first place, so he should have been convicted. I'll give you the beating aspect but just because they couldn't prove the act doesn't mean it wasn't illegal.
Whether the law is unethical or not, it wasn't considered so at the time. Since he willing decided to break the law he should have to deal with the consequences.
If the law is unethical, then it should have no consequence.
Just as Planned.
#30Raolan,
Posted: Feb 17 2010 at 2:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Unethical based on what, his opinion? Should we allow people to decide which laws to follow based on what they feel is unethical, immoral, or unjust? Laws are laws for a reason.
Unethical based on the fact that it has since been overturned as being, in real terms, "none of our damn business."
Your second point is just silly. Sexually transmitted diseases are not confined to homosexual men.
Your second point is just silly. Sexually transmitted diseases are not confined to homosexual men.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Unethical based on what, his opinion? Should we allow people to decide which laws to follow based on what they feel is unethical, immoral, or unjust? Laws are laws for a reason.
No. Laws are laws because someone decided they wanted it to be a law and had sufficient power to make it so.
Do you believe that someone who did not follow orders during say, 1940s era Germany should still be required to declare their treason conviction on a job application?
Godwining: Lazy argumentation at its finest.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
A whole laundry list of health related issues can easily be tied into male homosexuality, making the unethical aspect irrelevant.
Samira wrote:
Your second point is just silly. Sexually transmitted diseases are not confined to homosexual men.
It's also not quite a crime to have a disease.
Just as Planned.
#34Raolan,
Posted: Feb 17 2010 at 3:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Confined, no. But unless I'm mistaken, male homosexuality was one of, if not the leading cause of the spread of AIDS and other STDs during that time, giving the law a valid reason for having existed. Especially when you take into account time specific medicine, diagnostic capability, and medical beliefs.
AIDS didn't exist as a disease in 1959. I've never heard anyone claim that homosexual behavior was a leading factor in spreading syphilis or gonorrhea, which were the major STDs of that era.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Raolan wrote:
Quote:
Your second point is just silly. Sexually transmitted diseases are not confined to homosexual men.
Confined, no. But unless I'm mistaken, male homosexuality was one of, if not the leading cause of the spread of AIDS and other STDs during that time, giving the law a valid reason for having existed. Especially when you take into account time specific medicine, diagnostic capability, and medical beliefs.
The law predated AIDS.
Would you outlaw hemophilia on the same basis?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Raolan wrote:
Quote:
Your second point is just silly. Sexually transmitted diseases are not confined to homosexual men.
Confined, no. But unless I'm mistaken, male homosexuality was one of, if not the leading cause of the spread of AIDS and other STDs during that time, giving the law a valid reason for having existed. Especially when you take into account time specific medicine, diagnostic capability, and medical beliefs.
Varrus, that you?
It's quite possible that male homosexuality was blamed for those things. That doesn't mean it actually was the leading cause of the spread of STDs.
'Cause, you know, straight people have **** sex, too. And multiple partners. And spread disease.
#38Raolan,
Posted: Feb 17 2010 at 3:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) My dates are off, sue me. It's been awhile since I looked into it. Although it's believed AIDS dates back to the late 50's and was initially blamed on male homosexuality.
Quote:
The point still stands that the law was likely based on something and it's not up to the individual to decide whether the law should be followed or not based on personal beliefs.
Rosa Parks should have stayed at the back of the bus.
Quote:
Would you outlaw hemophilia on the same basis?
Quote:
Hemophilia isn't a communicable disease.
Duh. it is just another thing that STD spread was blamed on.
Edited, Feb 17th 2010 4:52pm by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
Quote:
Hemophilia isn't a communicable disease.
No, but it does require the swapping of blood products. CLEARLY a risk factor for disease.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
The point still stands that the law was likely based on something and it's not up to the individual to decide whether the law should be followed or not based on personal beliefs.
An ethical person would certainly consider it a responsibility to question unfair and discriminatory laws, and respond with civil disobedience as required. Not that this gentleman was doing that; but there are precedents for ethical law breaking.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Raolan wrote:
My dates are off, sue me. It's been awhile since I looked into it. Although it's believed AIDS dates back to the late 50's and was initially blamed on male homosexuality.
Yeah, there were no anti-homosexuality laws passed in the UK in the 1950's based on an indigenous man in the Belgian Congo dying of an unknown disease.
Quote:
The point still stands that the law was likely based on something
"Homophobia" is the word you're looking for.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
The point still stands that the law was likely based on something and it's not up to the individual to decide whether the law should be followed or not based on personal beliefs.
An ethical person would certainly consider it a responsibility to question unfair and discriminatory laws, and respond with civil disobedience as required. Not that this gentleman was doing that; but there are precedents for ethical law breaking.
"Your honor, I put it in his pooper for Truth, Freedom, and the American Way!"
Just as Planned.
Thank you, Captain **** America.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Raolan wrote:
The point still stands that the law was likely based on something and it's not up to the individual to decide whether the law should be followed or not based on personal beliefs.
Perhaps we should take women's rights away again. I mean, those laws were based on somethng, right?
Also, people decide whether laws should be followed or not based on personal ethics all the time. Look up Civil Disobedience some time.
#46Raolan,
Posted: Feb 17 2010 at 4:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're probably right, but it doesn't change the fact.
Raolan wrote:
You're probably right, but it doesn't change the fact.
What fact?
Quote:
Rosa Parks was tried and convicted. The law was changed while she was in the process of appealing the conviction. Completely different situation.
Not according to you. She broke the law while it was the law.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Master Dozer wrote:
Raolan wrote:
You're probably right, but it doesn't change the fact.
What fact?
The fact that someone in the UK must've hated homos enough to make a law, so this guy should have to suffer.
#50Raolan,
Posted: Feb 17 2010 at 4:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Word it how you want, the fact remains that he willing decided to break the law, so yes, he should pay the consequences.
Quote:
Word it how you want, the fact remains that he willing decided to break the law, so yes, he should pay the consequences.
If heterosexual sex were outlawed, would you refrain from having sex ever again? If you were convicted of having sex would you feel that the judgment was fair?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 215
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (215)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- 1959 conviction still haunts gay man seeking work
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC