• livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      @NoIWontPickaName optics. The last thing any politicians want is being acused of “abolishing rape laws”.

      Easier to just leave the legacy law in place as long as you’ve got the whole thing covered.

      We have the same thing in New Zealand.

      • bus_factor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Also, you usually can’t remove laws after they pass. You just add another saying the old one doesn’t count. In this case you might as well leave the old “no raping allowed” law in. It’s not something we want people to do anyway, and keeping it is one less law than removing it!

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Most realistically, no one is going to go on the books as the person who voted to repeal the crime of rape.

      More pragmatically, repealing a law that someone is in prison for always creates an argument that they shouldn’t be there any more. Often seen with drug legalization, but I’m sure someone would try to argue that because the exact type of sexual assault they were guilty of isn’t a crime anymore, despite an equivalent existing, that they should get some type of break.

      I’m not in the UK, so I can’t speak to their legislative process as specifically unfortunately.

      Follow-up: I started to look it up, and as far as I can the the UK legislative bookkeeping system is fucking insane. They don’t organize their laws in sections, they just refer to them by the act that passed it. So rather than passing a law that says “we’re amending section 792.5078r to include new definitions”, they just say “here’s a new act with a new crime, and rape includes mouths now”.
      Also the UK has three legal systems, they’re bound together in what feels like a very disorderd fashion, and the following sentence from their judiciary scares me deeply, as a proper American:

      Our lack of a written constitution is one of the consequences of the way the current political and legal institutions in the United Kingdom have evolved since 1066

      https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/justice-sys-and-constitution/

    • Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Fairly common to leave old superseded laws on the books even here in the states. Spending legislative time going back to undo something for no practical reason is a luxury reserved for Big Deals™️.

    • d00ery@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Because the old law is still applicable in some situations and now the prosecution potentially has 2 options to choose from …

      I don’t know the real answer but I’d guess it’s a mix of “if ain’t broke don’t fix it” and the cost of removing the law (time debating in parliament) that could be better spent.

      • yeather@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s like charging someone with first, second, and third degree murder. If the first definition doesn’t sit well with the jury the second or others might.