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.
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.
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.
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!
Fairly common to leave old superseded laws on the books even here in the states.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™️.
So why not do away with the old law if the new one supersedes it?
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.
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.
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.
Hahahaha this is the most UK thing ever
@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.
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!
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™️.