The Father of Computer Science is Still a Criminal

[Monsterfurby]

Yes, his contributions were great. Yes, nobody should be sentenced based on their sexual orientation. Yet, at the same time, here's the tricky thing with laws: they apply at the time of their validity, without any exceptions.

Living in a society governed by laws requires adherence to that principle, no matter how inappropriate certain laws may seem in hindsight. Any exceptions made based on subjective perceptions of achievement or greatness or whatever can only hurt the entire system.

Also, who pardons the most sentenced criminals? Mostly dictatorships, who change their perception of who is guilty and who is not on a whim.

Better to honor him civilly and let this rest.

 

[teebeeohh]

so by that logic the Nazis should just have made killing jews legal and nobody would get prosecuted for the Holocaust because hey, it was legal at the time.

 

[NeuroticDogDad]

I think Dr Turing was a superbly intelligent man and I am fond of the statue of him that sits in a park no more than 100 yards from where I am now, which is why it is hard to say but the House of Lords is not wrong.

Posthumous pardons are for people who are found to be innocent of the crime that they committed. Alan was a practicing homosexual at a time when this was a criminal activity. A pardon is quite simply not appropriate for this case. An apology and many tributes are appropriate and these things are being or have been done.

Do you have any idea why he hasn't been pardoned?

Is the above explanation satisfactory?

You are inventing a theory for the sake of it. You have no evidence for quite a serious accusation and the reason for the refusal to pardon Dr Turing is quite clear.

I want to say 'I give up, the dude is a focal point 'for science' (lol) and gay activists, who am I to bring up his possible indiscretions that have caused his refusal to be pardoned...

Let people believe what they want, it makes things easier, eh? (That's how religion still holds people)

Considering you're using an argument similar to "You can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore he does" it would appear that you're the "religious" person here. Bringing up the "possible indiscretions" adds to a discussion but sticking by them when it is obviously not the case is frustrating and nonsensical.

 

[Quellist]

Personally I would grant a Posthumous pardon to every single man convicted of being gay during those times as a statement that the Law itself was wrong.

And as to the 'suspicion' of child molestation you have to take that in context of a time where homosexuals were considered sexual deviants by default, thus of course if someone was molesting children it must be the gay man, after all he's a freak anyway...

 

[Soviet Steve]

Any distinction between child molestation and homosexuality wasn't surfacing before after the 1950s in the west, and the excuse is still utilized in Africa to outlaw it.

Spoiler: Some delicious propaganda to illustrate

 

[Treblaine]

I remind everyone that the House of Lords is made up entirely of NON-ELECTED INDIVIDUALS!! A huge proportion are even HEREDITARY! As in they got this job LITERALLY JUST BECAUSE THEIR DAD HAD IT!!!!

As disgusting as this is our elected officials still allow these sociopaths to remain part of our political establishment. Our elected officials actually allow these people to make such decisions as the power to pardon the most blatant injustice. FUCK THAT!

The lords aren't fooling everyone, the WHOLE POINT OF A PARDON is the recognise that the law was unjust!

This needs to be a lightning rod for reform (if not absolute abolishment) of the House or Lords. Replace it with a popular vote house like they have under the US constitution, they didn't have a bloody war to be separate over the price of tea, they separated over shit like this. A bunch of Lords having this much power.

A power they have demonstrated they have no competency to wield. Democratically, they certainly have no right.

 

[xPixelatedx]

While sucky, it's not surprising. While the law was bullshit, it WAS the law at the time and he broke it. Pardoning someone for a "crime" he DID commit is a massive can of worms you don't want to open. It sucks, but you don't go making exceptions in law or the whole bloody thing falls to bits.

Yeah I know, right? Everything that also happened to both women and African Americans before they were given rights was also justified! After all, any act of defiance they showed was just 'breaking the law' at the time. Law is a good thing, law means order. It's good to have order, otherwise we would have Nazi's riding Dinosaurs through our streets.

If a law has long since been changed or removed - especially one of discrimination or prejudice - that is already an acknowledgment that it was Wrong. I think they should apologize to everyone effected by it, it's the humane thing to do. All governing powers should be responsible for what they allowed to transpire, if for any reason then to make them more considerate of the laws they pass in modern times.

Also the child molester thing. It is impossible to tell now, because people - most notably people of the more simple variety - usually connected homosexuality with child molestation. Hell, people STILL do it today! So that could very well be BS.

 

[tkioz]

As I said in another thread on this topic...

Personally I should think Turing should not only be posthumously pardoned, he should also receive a posthumous Victoria Cross for his wartime service (forget the "in the face of the enemy bit" he was at danger of being lynched by his own people and he still contributed!), a posthumous George Cross for his services after the war in computing science, and that counts as services to humanity.

FFS they give knighthoods to rockstars and puffed up little premadonnas, this man should go down in history with his name kept in the same company as Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking!

Hell most every nation on the planet should be giving him their highest civil honour, not only did he fight one of the most evil empires in history, but he literally contributed to the birth of the modern world.

All this bullshit about him being a child molester is just bullshit, there is no evidence, just slander, he was convicted on being gay.

I imagination some of people posting he "deserved what he got" are Americans (just based on statistical breakdown of the 'net, not that Americans are any more or less tolerant then any other nation), well, look at the good Americans who took part in WWII and were later "convicted" of being communists, they never did anything wrong, other then holding a viewpoint that some disagreed with, and yet like Turing they had their lives ruined by rumour and accusation.

 

[Megalodon]

I remind everyone that the House of Lords is made up entirely of NON-ELECTED INDIVIDUALS!! A huge proportion are even HEREDITARY! As in they got this job LITERALLY JUST BECAUSE THEIR DAD HAD IT!!!!

As disgusting as this is our elected officials still allow these sociopaths to remain part of our political establishment. Our elected officials actually allow these people to make such decisions as the power to pardon the most blatant injustice. FUCK THAT!

The lords aren't fooling everyone, the WHOLE POINT OF A PARDON is the recognise that the law was unjust!

This needs to be a lightning rod for reform (if not absolute abolishment) of the House or Lords. Replace it with a popular vote house like they have under the US constitution, they didn't have a bloody war to be separate over the price of tea, they separated over shit like this. A bunch of Lords having this much power.

A power they have demonstrated they have no competency to wield. Democratically, they certainly have no right.

Just have to point out that most Lords aren't hereditary anymore, only 90 of 788, most are appointments are for life peers made by the political parties.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/lords-by-type-and-party/

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It isn't often that people can make me sick to my stomach.

The people who condemn Turing using his machines manage it though.

But yeah, Jobs Innovates, Turing "gets away with".

Filth. The lot of you.

 

[vxicepickxv]

That's just stupid. "Pardons" are called "pardons" for a reason. It's the government forgiving you for committing a crime that you did commit, not one that you didn't. It's a way of saying "We know you did something illegal but we're going to let you get away with it." Pardons aren't appeals on sentences. Pardons are forgiveness for sentences. They weren't asking for them to undo the court's decision. They were asking the British Government to forgive the crimes, not find that no crimes were committed. Seriously, do these people even know what a "pardon" is?

I'm going to sound incredibly anal with the way I say this, but pardons aren't for forgiving you for a crime you committed, but for a crime you were convicted of.

Sometimes the two are the same, sometimes they're not.

Sometimes you could be found innocent of a crime, but the State of Texas will execute you years later, because well, it's Texas.

 

[Treblaine]

I remind everyone that the House of Lords is made up entirely of NON-ELECTED INDIVIDUALS!! A huge proportion are even HEREDITARY! As in they got this job LITERALLY JUST BECAUSE THEIR DAD HAD IT!!!!

As disgusting as this is our elected officials still allow these sociopaths to remain part of our political establishment. Our elected officials actually allow these people to make such decisions as the power to pardon the most blatant injustice. FUCK THAT!

The lords aren't fooling everyone, the WHOLE POINT OF A PARDON is the recognise that the law was unjust!

This needs to be a lightning rod for reform (if not absolute abolishment) of the House or Lords. Replace it with a popular vote house like they have under the US constitution, they didn't have a bloody war to be separate over the price of tea, they separated over shit like this. A bunch of Lords having this much power.

A power they have demonstrated they have no competency to wield. Democratically, they certainly have no right.

Just have to point out that most Lords aren't hereditary anymore, only 90 of 788, most are appointments are for life peers made by the political parties.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/lords-by-type-and-party/

My point was not that CURRENTLY people can become a Lord by inheritance, but that those who DID inherit their peerage are somehow still allowed to make any bloody decisions. We can't even wait for them to retire but have to wait for them to die.

Are we still living in the dark ages? People who inherited position should have a purely ceremonial role in deference to elected officials requests and ruling! Not set public polity!

A public office should not be inherited like private property! And I mean retroactively as well, this should be undone!

And I don't agree at all that it is right for even elected officials to set life peerages, that is too far removed from democracy. How can UK object to despotic leaders like "Presidents for Life" when we are arbitrarily appointing Lords for Life? And not just till retirement FOR LIFE! Until they are old and completely out of touch!

How can we lecture other countries about poor democratic practice when we practice this!?!? Only by hypocrisy.

 

[hatseflats]

Yep, and one of the reasons why left wing politics drive me crazy. The guy pretty much got what he deserved.

It's sort of like saying that because Hitler made many great contributions, especially before World War II (the guy was an international "man of the year") that we should pardon him for all of his crimes, like that little holocaust thing, so he can be remembered as a humanitarian and economic reformist....

To put this into perspective, despite his sexual orientation being a crime he managed to rise to a position of great prominance. What he was doing would doubtlessly have been overlooked it it wasn't for associated crimes. Fair or not, social status has always had it's privleges, and keeping certain things "in the closet" at the time was one of them. If he had not been a child molester, this would have fallen under the catagory of "vile rumor" which right now given how the political conditions changing would perhaps be validated as true.

Are you trolling or just... nvm.
First of all, what Hitler did actually wasn't against the law at the time. So that comparison is way off. What that fact does show is that "the law" is a pretty shitty way to judge people. Dutch people collaborating during WWII with the German occupiers, betraying the location of Jews in hiding, were in fact not doing anything illegal. Which also made prosecution rather difficult after the war was over. It wasn't pretty.
Anyway, should we really judge people for not keeping to idiotic laws? If the law states it's your duty to betray Jews, should you do so? Should we judge people for not abiding a law which they cannot meet (for, you know, simply being a homosexual)? I would say no.

Also, I have no words for the fact that you're comparing the person who's responsible for tens of millions of casualties, torn families and the cold blooded murdering of millions of innocent people with someone who violates the law for nothing but loving men and who helped fight the aforementioned dictator.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Again, people gloss over how he was allegedly a child molester, only given till his work was done, before being given the choice of imprisonment, or chemical castration.

He decided on the chems. He then committed suicide.

If people think that The British House of Lords is some sort of evil homophobic group, so be it... but perhaps what was possibly 'swept under the rug' is why they refuse to pardon the man.

(The Prime Minister who eventually 'apologized' to him was a baby when Alan Turing was convicted. Just sayin.)

Thanks for the rather important tid-bit on information. Hate when articles "forget" to add somewhat important little things like possible child molester. Not sure if it's true or false (though I would imagine him being in libraries a lot anyway) it's better to know than to not.

 

[FalloutJack]

With respect, denying a dead man a little dignity for posterity's sake is something of a 'beating the dead horse' moment. People convicted of crimes and then proven innocent by the DNA testing that came years later are released. We can't go "Sorry, Turing, old chap. It was all hot-blooded intolerance and foolishness in the end.", now that being gay isn't a crime? I find that pathetic, especially since he certainly can't harm anyone NOW. I suppose he'll announce candidacy and win an election against a living man, since it's happened before in the U.S., right?

It's the difference between intellectually being innocent of a crime, and being morally innocent of a crime.

The fact is, he was guilty of the crime, regardless of whether the law dictating the crime was right. People who are proven innocent via DNA testing are not.

Not exactly the same thing...

That's one particular detail I'm not gonna care about. I may not be any sort of gay rights activist, or even know many people who are gay themselves. I'm just anti-moron, against things in general that are caused by one form of stupidity or another. And if your judgement is clouded by things like red tape and finicky little details when the man is already dead... Well, that's pretty much on the list, now isn't it? You can try to argue that one with me, but I'm not gonna see it your way.

 

[Dogstile]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't pardoning only done when you've been found innocent of committing said crime after your death or before, not because the law has changed?

 

[Vivi22]

Emphasis is my own.

Early in 1944 a suspicion arose that he might have been the man responsible for molesting schoolboys at the main public library in Luton, a large industrial town not far from Bletchley. While no proceedings arose, it was decided that the need for good order and discipline required his removal - but not before he had done his finest work.

And the bold parts really tell you all you need to know don't they? I'm not sure how anyone couldn't be skeptical of claims that a man, known to be a homosexual at the time, was molesting children.

 

[zefiris]

Yep, and one of the reasons why left wing politics drive me crazy. The guy pretty much got what he deserved.

Nah, the reason is just that you're a crazy right-winger and homophobe. And I'm not even left, I vote for a right-wing party in my country. But compared to that party, you're still an extremist.

The guy didn't get what he deserved. Yes, I know your kind wants us to die, but that's expected of right-wing crazies. Treating us like human beings is something you just are incapable off, because your religion didn't teach compassion, but hate.

Jesus would cry at what horrible things you are doing in his name.

Then why do they not pardon him, if not for the fact that there may be something they don't want to admit that he was guilty of? Is it so crazy to think that they have knowledge they would rather not release to the public?

Because homophobia is still a thing influencing politics? Homophobia is visibly on the rise in Britain right now, and the House of Lords has been notoriously backwards and tends to only act sensibly when they are forced to.
Maybe, just maybe, they simply went along with their homophobic beliefs, as they did earlier?

The thing is: Your argument doesn't even work. If child molestation had any chance of sticking, they'd have used it as a justification. It's pretty much proof that the charges were lacking a basis in reality that it was neither officially brought up back then, nor now.

Just look at the actual charges back then. He was accused of being the one molesting schoolboys, because he was gay and was somewhat in the area. That's it. He was the one that was pointed at because gay => icky => deviant => chief suspect. Oddly, other evidence doesn't seem to exist.

How come? Because, maybe, it's just a rumor? A typical rumor, too. Even today, people think that gay people are automatically child molesters, even when the statistics kinda show the opposite. Homophobia at its finest.

They made the right call. No matter his contributions to society he was still guilty of a criminal offence. It does not matter one bit what we think of the laws back then. So it is only right that he stay a criminal.

You are currently arguing that the Nazis had a right to kill the jews because their laws supported it, and that anyone fighting them was a filthy law-breaker that should be put into prison even after the war is over.

Well, if you want to be in this camp, that's your choice. It's saying a lot about you, to be honest.

The law can be criminal. The law is made by people, not some supernatural law-entity that is without fault.