Turing Not Pardoned for Being Gay

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Sounds rather silly to put 'Follow the rules' above the actual goal of making said rules, for instance having a just society. The rules failed, it's silly to revere them in the first place and worse still to attach the same reverence when they have failed.

It is silly. You're allowed to break the rules, I encourage that you do, but you agreed to follow those rules when you chose to be a citizen of that country and you have to face the consequences if you do break them. The rule might have been wrong but that doesn't mean you're allowed to disregard it, get caught and then set free.

I don't like the rules, I think the entire concept of the rules is silly, but I accept them because I have to. Nobody ever wants to play without them.

 

[kurupt87]

;ERL ZfhML:mfjh
[F@hry[xfm,
[ mxry
[j,rzr r jryokkpro onjm

Look, this is simple. thenumberthirteen has already said it in a way more accessible than I can. But fuck it some people still don't get it.

It is not about the state being unwilling to accept it was wrong.

A pardon means that you are declared innocent of the crime which you'd been convicted of. The crime he was convicted of is that he was gay, so giving him a pardon effectively means declaring him straight.

He wasn't, would probably not (I can't claim to know him) like to be thought that he was and neither would anyone respecting his memory.

The decision not to pardon is actually really fucking morally respectable. You're essentially arguing for them to rewrite history. For the government to cast themselves, the previous representatives of them at any rate, in a better light. They have refused because they acknowledge that what was done was so bad that it cannot be undone.

The British State, which the current Lords now represent, did something bad. Instead of rewriting it when given the opportunity, they acknowledge and apologise. Pretty fucking impressive in my book.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

No, that is nonsense. People rarely get to choose to be a citizen of the country in which they reside. Furthermore no agreement is requested. It might be nice and all to pretend there is some kind of actual consent of the governed, but in reality no meaningful form of consent can exist in any feasible form in the current state of the world.

If you're a citizen of a country then you agree to follow that countries rules. If you don't agree with them then you renounce your citizenship and reside somewhere else in the world.

No, but if people in charge can set you free when they realize it's wrong people should not just go "Oh but it was the law!" they should be fine with letting someone go free. Otherwise they are enforcing the rules for the sake of the rules which is pointless.

You broke the rules. Regardless of the rule you broke you must be punished. Why else would they enforce the rules? Because they're right? I love that joke, please tell me that's your reason.

They are not going to break down due to pardoning someone for what we now recognize to be unfair. I don't find pardoning him to be of any use, but it's pure hyperbole to talk about it as if the system would crash down if we didn't treat the rules with the overblown reverence you're asking for them. Recognizing that they were wrong in the past and correcting failures the past rules had is not the same as not having the rules. If, for instance, someone were still in prison for such an offense they should be released now that we recognize it was wrong.

I didn't say it would crash down and I didn't imply it either. You're making up arguments now. Correct the failure and appeal for a shorter sentence. They broke the rules and have to face up to that, but if the rule they broke is changed then they shouldn't be punished for that rule.

This is why I always make the first or last rule of anything I do "don't break the rules."

 

[him over there]

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.

Sorry it was just so fitting.

Do we really need to do this? Why does it have to be official, isn't public acknowledgement what really counts, not some bureaucratic pardon? Isn't the fact that people know enough instead of some irrelevant record?

 

[GeneralFungi]

*Edited due to misinformation. Sorry guys.*

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Snip.

I wasn't arguing, I was explaining why I was right. You didn't seem to understand I was right so I repeated myself to emphasise how right I was. People tell me I'm arrogant and big headed, but I'm fairly certain it's an appropriate attitude for me.

Yes because you have a ridiculous admiration of the rules and dogmatically think that they need to be enforced even when enforcing them does not suit our purposes.

Admiration? Oh dear lord. I hate the rules, I'd far prefer the rules never existed and we all lived in a world where we had full control over our each and every action. But people don't like that idea, it scares them too much, so I have to live with the rules. I don't necessarily follow them but I accept the consequences for not following them.

I've also been calling them the rules because it makes the law sound childish.

 

[GothmogII]

No, that is nonsense. People rarely get to choose to be a citizen of the country in which they reside. Furthermore no agreement is requested. It might be nice and all to pretend there is some kind of actual consent of the governed, but in reality no meaningful form of consent can exist in any feasible form in the current state of the world.

If you're a citizen of a country then you agree to follow that countries rules. If you don't agree with them then you renounce your citizenship and reside somewhere else in the world.

No, but if people in charge can set you free when they realize it's wrong people should not just go "Oh but it was the law!" they should be fine with letting someone go free. Otherwise they are enforcing the rules for the sake of the rules which is pointless.

You broke the rules. Regardless of the rule you broke you must be punished. Why else would they enforce the rules? Because they're right? I love that joke, please tell me that's your reason.

They are not going to break down due to pardoning someone for what we now recognize to be unfair. I don't find pardoning him to be of any use, but it's pure hyperbole to talk about it as if the system would crash down if we didn't treat the rules with the overblown reverence you're asking for them. Recognizing that they were wrong in the past and correcting failures the past rules had is not the same as not having the rules. If, for instance, someone were still in prison for such an offense they should be released now that we recognize it was wrong.

I didn't say it would crash down and I didn't imply it either. You're making up arguments now. Correct the failure and appeal for a shorter sentence. They broke the rules and have to face up to that, but if the rule they broke is changed then they shouldn't be punished for that rule.

This is why I always make the first or last rule of anything I do "don't break the rules."

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been Godwinned yet. :/

That said, you must consider yourself lucky then that you chose to be born in the country you were born. And I would like to applaud your selflessness in opening your own home to refugees, because you clearly understand their dilemma, I mean, you're right. They can't stay where they are without breaking the law, so the only choice is to move to another country, and I'll bet those people sure are glad that there are plenty of countries just waiting with open arms to help them along in the world and protect them from their oppressors.

Redeem yourself a little then and tell me that even if I agree that the 'law is the law' that you would indeed fight to change a law if such was unjust or at least that you yourself thought so. Because if the response to that is anything resembling a no, then I have no words for that kind of despicable attitude.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

That said, you must consider yourself lucky then that you chose to be born in the country you were born. And I would like to applaud your selflessness in opening your own home to refugees, because you clearly understand their dilemma, I mean, you're right. They can't stay where they are without breaking the law, so the only choice is to move to another country, and I'll bet those people sure are glad that there are plenty of countries just waiting with open arms to help them along in the world and protect them from their oppressors.

Yes, the idea is that if you disagree with your country's rules then you leave. Asylum seekers are more than welcome, regardless of whether they 'leech' off the government or 'steal' jobs.

Redeem yourself a little then and tell me that even if I agree that the 'law is the law' that you would indeed fight to change a law if such was unjust or at least that you yourself thought so. Because if the response to that is anything resembling a no, then I have no words for that kind of despicable attitude.

Why, for the love of all life, would I not fight to change something that's wrong? If the rules are wrong then you must change them. That doesn't mean to say you should disregard the rule and expect no punishment for breaking it.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

For all your supposed dislike of them you're insisting they be enforced in a manner that is unnecessarily harsh.

I insist that people accept consequences for their actions, I assume that the rules be enforced.

 

[GothmogII]

Interestingly enough, Turing was -not- convicted of being a homosexual, but of committing homosexual acts or rather acts of 'gross indecency', meaning, no, a pardon would not be calling into question his status as a homosexual.

When Turing's home was burglarized a few months later in 1952, Turing went to the police. Arnold Murray insisted he was not the perpetrator, but he said that he knew who had committed the crime. That man, a petty thief named Harry, was arrested. At the trial, Harry exposed the homosexual relationship between Alan and Arnold. As homosexuality was against the law in Britain at the time, the robbery case took on an entirely different form. Alan Turing soon found himself on trial, charged with "gross indecency." He pleaded guilty to all twelve counts against him and was sentenced to his choice of one year in prison or a year on probation while undergoing treatment for his "condition." Alan chose the latter and began undergoing organo-therapy, which centered on large doses of estrogen intended to reduce his sex drive.

Thing is, the man himself pleaded guilty to all charges. I'm sure the treatment -seemed- like the gentler option. But to think, if he had spent that year in prison that he might even be alive today. Though, unlikely given he'd be around 99, 100 years old? Then again, it's not entirely unheard of.

 

[Ympulse]

From the news article:

"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted.
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".

The house of lords got it right. Understand where you've made a mistake in the past, and ensure it doesn't happen again. Going back and putting white-out on the past doesn't work.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Bullshit. You're for enforcing consequences on their actions when it isn't necessary. You're for enforcing rules when we've gone past them know better.

Yes, I am for enforcing consequences; the consequences for breaking the rules. Disagreeing with the rule is allowed, changing the rule is allowed, disobeying the rule isn't and there are consequences for doing that. Regardless of whether the rule is right or wrong, you don't break it and expect to get away with it once you're caught.

I'm repeating myself again. This is hopeless, you're not going to get it, I give up.

 

[LilithSlave]

I think that we should do everything in our power to acknowledge how disgusting that was.

 

[Stickfigure]

I think your statement is false and misleading. The law didn't "directly" deprive the world of this guy, rather he did when he committed suicide.

Also it wasn't a miscarriage of justice, it was simply a law in a different time. If a man in the middle ages or whenever had his hand cut off because he was stealing, would it be considered now a miscarriage of justice that he was convicted and sentenced?

No it would only be considered to be a measure that is too harsh to fit the values of contemporary society and law. A miscarriage of justice would be if the guy was convicted of a crime when in fact he was innocent for example.


The best way to honour people in these sorts of circumstances is to simply remember what they've done, and hope or ensure that contemporary and future laws treats people with more fairness.

Man, I leave for a few hours and this gets away from me.

Before I start, I love the SN. Not a lot of people observe proto-Ultima.

Anyway, to the actual point; theft is still a crime. While the punishment far outweighs the action, one could argue that it was meant as a deterrent, albeit an over-the-top one. Homosexuality has actually only relatively recently been perceived as a crime of any kind (in the scale of human history, anyway). And after that ill-advised bout with so-called "righteousness," we're moving back on the right track. But the two are not comparable in the slightest. It's a miscarriage in the sense that justice was not served by this action: they saw fit to punish that which was wrong to punish, cost a man his life, and cost the world a genius who likely had more to offer than what 41 years gave us.

And yes, I said cost a man his life. He was deprived of all the facets by which he could conduct all but the most rudimentary experiments, he was deprived of colleagues that could assist in the endeavor, he was stripped of status and rank, all secondary motivators for human existence, as well as certain primary ones (as many of his friends and relations needed to distance themselves after he was labeled a security risk by the House of Lords and various other governing bodies). They may not have killed him (though chemically castrating him certainly didn't do him any favors), but they set up a scenario wherein it likely seemed the only choice for a man who had mere years ago been looked upon as a hero, a savior.

Change is a good way to honor, but it is not the only way. These aren't mutually exclusive notions, which many of you seem to feel isn't the case. You can both change and publicly acknowledge past mistakes, and do your best to make amends for them. The "whoops, oh well" approach is insulting, and demonstrates a startling lack of depth or capacity for reasoned judgment.