Akalabeth said:
I'm pretty sure people have been stoned to death for being gay for as far back as Old Testament times (ie pre-jesus). Beyond that is there any written history to suggest otherwise?
While there were certain outliers (the hebrews) the fact is homosexuality was largely ignored or even embraced at one time. From the Sacred Band of Thebes and Roman Pan-sexuality to the non sexuality-defined ancient Egyptian culture. It wasn't until monotheism and God took hold that homosexuality actually dealt with much in the way of systematic abuse. That was roughly 1700 years ago, whereas recorded history goes back about 6000 years, fully behaviorally developed human history roughly 50,000 years ago, and homo sapien history extends to 200,000 years.
You're assuming they even have the ability to do so. Pardons are generally granted by a political body, in the case of the UK it seems to be the monarchy (on advice of political ministers within the government). The judicial body, or the law however is seperate from government, and for a reason. That's why sometimes you have acts passed by parliament or the senate or whomever, and then the supreme court of the respective country says the new law is unconstitutional and has to be changed.
So put another way, you might be asking for something that they simply cannot give. The law does not grant pardons, so holding the law body accountable is a waste of time. The political body can grant pardons, but only if there exists within the law a legal mechanism to do so. Another post by in this thread by a self-important law graduate seems to suggest that by law, you cannot grant a pardon for this. So . . is there any point to this?
You could give a symbolic "pardon", just as soldiers executed during the first world war were given a symbolic pardon, but the government has already apologized so if they gave a symbolic pardon it would just be another apology. So, again what's the point?
True and yet... not true.
The royal prerogative of mercy is essentially was a monarch-only capacity. But now it's mostly exercised by the Prime Minister or Cabinet who in turn answer to Parliament. Home Secretary judges domestic issues, Defense Secretary judges military issues, etc. Those secretaries are advised by several different bodies depending on the nature of the pardon demanded. But largely royal prerogative is held accountable to Parliament, which is a bicameral system consisting of the House of Commons and, yes, the House of Lords.
For recognizable miscarriages of justice the Criminal Cases Review Commission is contacted and dealt with. For something like Turing's case, where the law
itself is construed to be unjust, the House of Lords would be the group to contact. There's a procedure, and it starts with them. They, however, slapped it down, and hence all the hue and cry.
And in response to the second portion of your reply, there's a difference between an apology and an official concession of wrongdoing. The apology is demonstrating that it was unfortunate and cruel what happened to Turing, but not a recognition that he was an innocent and blameless man. He's still a criminal, and it besmirches the good name of a man wronged by his nation. The House has essentially stated: "Yeah, that sucks, but what are you gonna do?"
OK, perhaps it was more eloquent than that, and did actually address a slight wrongdoing. But there's talk and then there's action. To recycle an earlier example with a few distinct alterations, if I hit your mother with a car, escape without being positively identified, and return years later with a tiny apology but no intention to turn myself in for my crime because "I'm trying super-hard not to run over people anymore," my apology becomes a hollow and meaningless gesture.
Yes, official, legal admission of wrongdoing won't undo what happened to Turing. It's not meant to. If one were to apply the logic that it would only be a worthwhile endeavor if it could somehow undo the past, then why even punish anyone for a crime? Just make sure they promise never to do it again! Apparently it's just as good.
It's supposed to return a little dignity to this man and offer up something more than words as contrition for what happened to him and the government's involvement in it.
