Turing Not Pardoned for Being Gay

[BiscuitTrouser]

However, what makes Turing noteworthy is that Britain claims him as one of their own and glorifies him as a hero, but still sees fit to set him to recorded history as a de facto criminal, plain and simple. That smacks of hypocrisy, and casts a pall on the whole issue. The people complaining have not simply said "we like him, let bygones be bygones." There are legitimate reasons to demand the pardon of an important, and invaluable, historical figure whose death is directly attributable to the actions of the body who ought to apologize.

True, and you made that clear from the beginning. I was illustrating the hypocrisy here of a group that gives the pardon to one type of person but refuses it to the other.

And all the worse if it DOESN'T stay in the public consciousness. It becomes a perversion of history. Why not just start saying that the Native Americans just suddenly started living in smaller areas and building casinos? The recognition of historical events, and the recompenses made for them (however small they may be), is an important act and one that should not be taken lightly.

At my school and others who i have discussed this with here in England turing is hailed as a hero and the horrible things done to him are viewed with horror and disgust. Recorded history cant be changed because it is what it is. We teach that turing did X and we did Y to him and ANYONE can see X was worthy of a heros life and Y was a terrible terrible pervertion of "justice". History is an objective recording. Everyone ive ever met who knows turing regards him as a hero and a man cruelly treated by the state. He is my fathers personal hero in fact, although i am, like you, refering to "Britain" like its a single guy wearing a flag shirt. Its not. Britain doesnt DO anything. Some people do. And id say most people recognise what was done was monstrous.

That said i think an apology was prudent, i feel that to mark him as the hero he was more obviously would also be nice. Apparently he is the reason the apple is missing a bite.

 

[Muspelheim]

It's the House of Lords. Why would a bunch of old farts concern themselves with the plight of people they find icky?

If that hadn't been the case, then at least they would have issued a condemnation or something similar to "This is wrong, and should not have happened".

 

[dyre]

Why'd you leave the rest of the statement out? Sensationalism at the cost of misinformation is wrong

"It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd-particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times."

Yes, it is first year law student stuff that what they did was correct.

Once again, would you seek to overturn half (if not more) of every conviction in history based on changes in laws?

You reverse the convictions of those still serving a sentence, but that's it.

And that is the part that you don't understand; it's not at all a question of just some random law changing, 'tis a question of the original ruling being wrong in spite of it being legal, because it is possible to rule that an old law should not have existed because it clashed with basic human rights.

I'm pretty sure it's already been ruled that the old law shouldn't exist, seeing as it doesn't exist any more. What doesn't make any sense is to posthumously pardon everyone who suffered from being prosecuted under crappy laws in the past. It's a complete waste of time and money, since they're already dead. And just pardoning a single person when thousands suffered from the same law is just favoritism.

 

[dyre]

It's the House of Lords. Why would a bunch of old farts concern themselves with the plight of people they find icky?

If that hadn't been the case, then at least they would have issued a condemnation or something similar to "This is wrong, and should not have happened".

They did say that. They said it was wrong and terrible, and that they won't just sweep that conviction under a rug and try to "put right what cannot be put right"

"It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd-particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times"

 

[Muspelheim]

It's the House of Lords. Why would a bunch of old farts concern themselves with the plight of people they find icky?

If that hadn't been the case, then at least they would have issued a condemnation or something similar to "This is wrong, and should not have happened".

They did say that. They said it was wrong and terrible, and that they won't just sweep that conviction under a rug and try to "put right what cannot be put right"

"It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd-particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times"

Ah, splendid. They've certainly exceeded my expectations of them. Perhaps they're at least somewhat worth having around after all.

Seems the best they could do, to be honest.

 

[RagTagBand]

Homosexuality was a crime at the time, and he was homosexual - His conviction was, legally, correct.

Anyway, Gordon Brown Posthumously apologized for the way England treated one of its greatest hero's over 2 years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/6170112/Gordon-Brown-Im-proud-to-say-sorry-to-a-real-war-hero.html

This is just as symbolically relevant as retroactively pardoning him of a crime which is no longer a crime.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Yes, it is first year law student stuff that what they did was correct.

Once again, would you seek to overturn half (if not more) of every conviction in history based on changes in laws?

You reverse the convictions of those still serving a sentence, but that's it.

And that is the part that you don't understand; it's not at all a question of just some random law changing, 'tis a question of the original ruling being wrong in spite of it being legal, because it is possible to rule that an old law should not have existed because it clashed with basic human rights.

But were those laws a violation of basic human rights? That is defined internationally, not singularly by the UK. The nazis violated human rights as they had been defined while the nazis were doing so, which also hurts your argument that they are the same. It would be nice if expressing sexuality was part of the agreed understanding of basic human rights, but I'd love to see you get that treaty drafted up. If you can find one, then you are clearly right of course, and I'd love to see it. It really would make me this day a little happier.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Law graduate, reporting for duty.

We can't retroactively pardon people for things that are no longer crimes, in the same way that we can't retroactively punish people for things that are crimes now, but weren't years ago.

We can offer an apology, and learn from the mistakes we have made, but we must not undermine the rule of law.

And I am the law.

[HEADING=1]Do not undermine me, lest you face my wrath![/HEADING]

Being the law, I must apologise to Turing.

Sorry Turing, my bad.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Anyone who doesn't pardon him can chuck away all of their computers as they'd be worthless without him.

And start speaking German.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

What he did was illegal at the time. Sure it sucks but if you break the law then you get punished. Just because they later change the law does not mean you were right to break it at the time.

Oh and all these "He did great works so should be forgiven blah blah blah" are the exact same sort of people who argue that Roman Polanski should be forgiven for raping a child just because he makes (apparently) good movies.
So yeah...

 

[Vault101]

I didn't find this anywhere on the site, so feel free to link me if there's already something about this.

For those of you who somehow manage to frequent sites like this and yet not know the name of Alan Turing, Alan Turing was the one of the progenitors of the modern computer as we know it.
Turing was also a homosexual, which in the 50s was considered a crime of gross indecency. He was chemically castrated, stripped of all security clearances, and essentially turned into a pariah. He would commit suicide later, likely as a result of this.

hmmm this sounds interesting..have I heard of this guy beofre?...want...WHAT?????

they carstrated him??!! did they do that back then? holy shit thats heavy

I...I dont know what to say, Im actually shocked, Ive never heard of this being done, especially around that time

 

[Vault101]

What he did was illegal at the time. Sure it sucks but if you break the law then you get punished. Just because they later change the law does not mean you were right to break it at the time.

Oh and all these "He did great works so should be forgiven blah blah blah" are the exact same sort of people who argue that Roman Polanski should be forgiven for raping a child just because he makes (apparently) good movies.
So yeah...

seriously?

1. it was a stupid law from a very conservative time, I mean an ACTUAL crime mabye, but this was not a crime, he did not hurt anyone

2. are you comparing the rape of a 13 year old to gay sex? no......

 

[thenumberthirteen]

As far as I can understand their reasoning he can't be pardoned, because that would mean them saying he wasn't gay. Which he was. It was against the law back then, and that fucking sucked. Though it's a bit like the scene at the end of the South Park movie when Cartman says to Kyle "It's ok Kyle. You're not a Jew".

A pardon won't do anything to help anyone really. Government agrees that's a stupid law, and it isn't a crime any more. That's what's important. This government didn't convict him. Nobody in parliament today had anything to do with that case. There is no reason to apologise or make things up to him. I don't like the idea of official apologies. Like saying "Sorry for slavery" when it happened hundreds of years before anyone alive in the government was even born. Apologising for, say, the Iraq war would make sense because those people who made the decision would be saying they did wrong.