Alan Turing Receives Royal Pardon For Homosexuality Conviction

[LiMaSaRe]

Either pardon everyone who was ever convicted of homosexuality or let the undeniable conviction stand. What are they saying, "because of his incredible achievements, we have determined that Mr. Turing can't have been gay"?

 

[DaWaffledude]

Better now than in another 60 years...

 

[jackpipsam]

It's good to it see finally done.
Good job Queen

 

[Headsprouter]

Well, if you needed any more proof of the presence of white, grey-haired men in the British Government, there you have it. I'm surprised Gordon Brown had the sense...then again, it was probably a stunt.

Y'know, if something was "right at the time" that doesn't excuse it. I'm sure Jesus's crucification was "right a the time", and look at how regretful the Christian faith is supposed to be.

Furthermore, we don't pardon black people because of Martin Luther King, we pardon them because they were all human beings, as was Mr. Turing the genius who happened to like men.

Stupid thing. "Seemed like a good idea at the time", I wish I could get away with that excuse.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Well, glad this has happened.

But rather than pardoning Turing for his 'crime', shouldn't we be asking for a pardon from Turing's relatives for treating him in such a shitty way?

This announcement comes across as magnanimous rather than repentant, which is the wrong way to approach this issue if you ask me.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

You'd think that being a genius /helping defeat the Nazis and win world war 2 would earn you the right to enjoy dick?.
Youd think

 

[CriticalMiss]

Also, the Queen is just trying to get her name in the news? Really?

She's always doing stuff like this for attention. She even put herself on stamps!

It's about time that they officially apologised, but they should be apologising for every single person who was convicted not just a famous one. Unfortunately that's not going to happen.

 

[Me55enger]

If it proves anything, it proves how times have changed.

It's a shame that in this case, he was pardoned because of his fame, as opposed to a general feeling of cultural remorse.

 

[roski]

Ahw, that's nice, some breadcrumbs of retrospective justice.

 

[lacktheknack]

ITT: Looking ALL the gift horses in the mouth.

ALL of them.

And by "looking", I mean "ripping the jaw off of the horse and examining the teeth under a microscope".

Never change, Escapist.

 

[M920CAIN]

Cool! Who's going to tell him the news? Do you guys have his email address or have him on twitter? Riight, I read about him, a bit about his bio too when studying some computer science thingies, but the sad thing is that things like this are still happening, so his case should be a reminder to us to be more, I dunno, understanding? I know, I know... it will never happen, we humans have trust issues and so on and sometimes we invent things, some true, some not so true. In any case, good for him. RIP.

 

[chadachada123]

At first I thought, "huh, cool." Then, when reading the official reasoning, and how rare pardons are when the deceased person *was completely, obviously guilty* (regardless of how fucked up the law was at that time), I became more and more convinced that this was not actually a good choice.

He is, in essence, receiving a pardon just because he was a good help to the war effort, and I think that it is a terrible precedent. Imagine a kiddie-diddler/serial rapist being pardoned because he was a famous singer, or a President getting away with committing war crim- oh wait. That does actually happen here (with R. Kelly, and Clinton/Bush/Obama, respectively). So then my case is even stronger: This IS a terrible precedent, if it ever ends up tied into celebrity fame like it is in the US. That his 'crime' should never have been a crime changes little, since the law is not meant to give favoritism towards famous people over commoners.

In addition, I think that pardoning someone after their death is a poor symbolic gesture unless, as the British government said, the man was actually innocent, which in this case, he was not. Unless it's applied all-or-nothing, this case harms more than it helps.

 

[spartandude]

Election time coming up over there or something?

Yeah the Queen is really hoping she gets a large share of the vote this year/sarcasm.

wow ... that was a crime? really? I have no words for how utterly detestable that is.

Many american states had anti homosexual laws until 2003

 

[Dogstile]

Wow, so it took like 60-some years for the Queen to pardon him?

GG government, also hiding it behind flimsy excuses such as "it was illegal at the time" is bollocks, as at those times, on the other side of the world, it was also acceptable to institutionalize witch hunts under the veil of patriotism and "doing right by your countreh".

Fuck, the amount of stuff that Turing had done for England and the World deserved a pardon in the late 80's at the latest.

To be fair, how would you feel if someone who had stabbed a child in his house got pardoned years later because "yeah, its legal now".

I mean its all well and good going "yeah, this is good, he clearly wasn't in the wrong" but the problem is he's not in the wrong now. He was in the past and inevitably in the future it will be "wrong" again.

E: Hell, look at russia right now, who think its wrong. Your morals might scream its ok, but that doesn't mean the integrity of the law should be shaken just because. I admit, I am happy to see him pardoned, but it does bring the question of the laws solidarity into question.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Wow, so it took like 60-some years for the Queen to pardon him?

GG government, also hiding it behind flimsy excuses such as "it was illegal at the time" is bollocks, as at those times, on the other side of the world, it was also acceptable to institutionalize witch hunts under the veil of patriotism and "doing right by your countreh".

Fuck, the amount of stuff that Turing had done for England and the World deserved a pardon in the late 80's at the latest.

To be fair, how would you feel if someone who had stabbed a child in his house got pardoned years later because "yeah, its legal now".

I mean its all well and good going "yeah, this is good, he clearly wasn't in the wrong" but the problem is he's not in the wrong now. He was in the past and inevitably in the future it will be "wrong" again.

It's sexual preference, and it was at a time when the state was still somewhat influenced by religion.

Also it has been legal for a loooong while now.

I'm not saying that they should've immediately pardoned him after sentencing, as yes, I understand, relative to context, but 60 years for forced castration is a bit long.

30-40 years is somewhat drawn out, but still not as silly as about 3/5 of a lifetime, and ideally when he should've been pardoned.

 

[Dogstile]

Wow, so it took like 60-some years for the Queen to pardon him?

GG government, also hiding it behind flimsy excuses such as "it was illegal at the time" is bollocks, as at those times, on the other side of the world, it was also acceptable to institutionalize witch hunts under the veil of patriotism and "doing right by your countreh".

Fuck, the amount of stuff that Turing had done for England and the World deserved a pardon in the late 80's at the latest.

To be fair, how would you feel if someone who had stabbed a child in his house got pardoned years later because "yeah, its legal now".

I mean its all well and good going "yeah, this is good, he clearly wasn't in the wrong" but the problem is he's not in the wrong now. He was in the past and inevitably in the future it will be "wrong" again.

It's sexual preference, and it was at a time when the state was still somewhat influenced by religion.

Also it has been legal for a loooong while now.

I'm not saying that they should've immediately pardoned him after sentencing, as yes, I understand, relative to context, but 60 years for forced castration is a bit long.

30-40 years is somewhat drawn out, but still not as silly as about 3/5 of a lifetime, and ideally when he should've been pardoned.

You're preaching to the choir. I know it was bullshit, doesn't mean I like the idea pardoning everyone who committed a previous crime which isn't a crime now, regardless of crime.

 

[Eveonline100]

He doesn't deserve a pardon. He was a homosexual and his deeds don't change anything. Giving him a pardon implies that in some way the law was justified and that he was in fact, a criminal. What about all the other convicted homosexuals? Do they get a pardon or are they not important enough.

good point
though in someway i pardon is at least something. Then again i don't think their will ever be a way to make this right.