The Father of Computer Science is Still a Criminal

[Weaver]

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.)

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

Would either of you care to provide a credible source?

I doubt he was. In the 50s it seemed child molester and homosexual were considered to be the same thing. The charges were combined to make the person seemed more monsterous, even if they didn't do it.

Any of these videos clearly highlights how short sighted most people were at the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37kHRMSdsj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXYnEobD_0k

 

[Karthak]

I can't believe so many people agree with this decision.

 

[Geisterkarle]

Maybe I'm from the wrong country for this, but I am really surprised how many people think that this decision is ok!

Because Godwin was already used, I will too:
Many brutal, cruel,... things the Germans did during the "3. Reich" was because of the LAWS they made! So basically with this decision you can tell some survivors that they deserved all the cruelty, because it was just the law back then! I see a double standard here...

btw. the earth is moving around the sun!

 

[Sandytimeman]

I just think that the House of Lords is bitter about homosexual no longer being grounds for chemical castration. I mean you say you can't see them being that way. But here in the US we have politicians that actively campaign on anti-homosexual platforms and constantly try and outlaw gay marriage and rights.

If half of these people had their way, they'd be hanging gays in the street.

Idk if he was a child molester but as the legal authority if he was they should have charged him with that.

As it stands, they are setting a president that if you were gay during WW2 and were punished for it, the government was completely right about it. That is not cool.

 

[brazuca]

That would be ilegal. Ex post facto law in mallen parten (latin) as you said is against most countries constitutional rights. I know for fact that this is ilegal in the US. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Number one, we don't have a codified constitution. The government could pass a series of laws that decreed every family's first-born son will be taken away and killed, King Herod style. And if the laws pass the vote then you can't cite a single constitutional ruling to stop this.

The UK parliament has Absolute Power.

There is not such thing as an unconstitutional law in the UK.

Number Two, even if this Ex-post-facto law was in place preventing pardons and they couldn't be bothered to amend it, why did it not apply is 2006 when they were able to posthumously pardon all the soldiers they executed for cowardice in the First World War?

Number three, Ex-post-Facto has never been applied to prevent pardons or clemency, only to escalating punishment after a crime, or charging someone for a crime when they committed said act when before said act had been criminalised.

US and UK most definitely have the power to execute pardons, especially posthumously.

No ex post facto is getting some conduct that was not a crime, transform it into a crime and then press charges against that person for that old conduct. It was very commom during the Imperial Roman times. I know UK does not have a constitution, but as wikipedia says:

"Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, but several noted legal authorities have stated their opinion that parliamentary sovereignty takes priority even over this.[7][8] For example, the War Crimes Act 1991 created an ex post facto jurisdiction of British courts over war crimes committed during the Second World War."

I do not see UK returning to this habbit as in a democracy this kind of posture can and will bring a lot of insecurity to any opposition to the governament. The case of this article was a pardon to a crime that was in fact committed. Pardons are not the same as an amnesty, that would be the case. Look wikipedia again for amnesty

 

[Burninator]

Man, this is bullshit. European law is positive law. That, admittedly means that law is abstract from the moral backdrop of society. However, the fact that it's abstract does not mean it's wholly seperate. The basic precepts of morality must always be expressed within law. By condoning Turing's past prosecution, the British government is sending a message that it considers the laws after which he was condemned to have coincided with basic morality, which is utterly ridiculous. Sexuality is a form of identity, and the right to manifest your individual identity is a basic principle of society. There are limits to this, when the individual causes harm to society, such as in the case of pedophilia. And those limits are regrettable, but necessary.

But aside from those limits, identity is a basic right. Laws infringed horribly upon that right, yet the government continues to insist upon the legitimacy of those laws.

Edit: Just to clarify real quick, I'm aware that what the government is doing is legal. I just don't consider it moral by any stretch of the word.

 

[Treblaine]

That would be ilegal. Ex post facto law in mallen parten (latin) as you said is against most countries constitutional rights. I know for fact that this is ilegal in the US. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Number one, we don't have a codified constitution. The government could pass a series of laws that decreed every family's first-born son will be taken away and killed, King Herod style. And if the laws pass the vote then you can't cite a single constitutional ruling to stop this.

The UK parliament has Absolute Power.

There is not such thing as an unconstitutional law in the UK.

Number Two, even if this Ex-post-facto law was in place preventing pardons and they couldn't be bothered to amend it, why did it not apply is 2006 when they were able to posthumously pardon all the soldiers they executed for cowardice in the First World War?

Number three, Ex-post-Facto has never been applied to prevent pardons or clemency, only to escalating punishment after a crime, or charging someone for a crime when they committed said act when before said act had been criminalised.

US and UK most definitely have the power to execute pardons, especially posthumously.

No ex post facto is getting some conduct that was not a crime, transform it into a crime and then press charges against that person for that old conduct. It was very commom during the Imperial Roman times. I know UK does not have a constitution, but as wikipedia says:

"Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, but several noted legal authorities have stated their opinion that parliamentary sovereignty takes priority even over this.[7][8] For example, the War Crimes Act 1991 created an ex post facto jurisdiction of British courts over war crimes committed during the Second World War."

I do not see UK returning to this habbit as in a democracy this kind of posture can and will bring a lot of insecurity to any opposition to the governament.

"No ex post facto is getting some conduct that was not a crime, transform it into a crime and then press charges against that person for that old conduct."

Either way, that has nothing to do with pardoning a dead person for what WAS a crime but no longer is, but today is considered a very WRONG thing to prosecute/persecute over.

You also don't answer for #2 and #3. Which would have anyone think Ex Post Facto is utterly irrelevant and the House of Laws were perfectly able to pardon Turing SHOULD THEY HAVE WANTED TO!

I wouldn't cite democratic principals of UK on a day like this, when a thoroughly undemocratic institution as The House of Lords has made such a callous and dishonest decree. This is a Black day for democracy. And ugly reminder of how far we have to go.

This is 2012 for crap sake, why the hell do we still have to take this shit from these unelected, unrepresentative and out of touch House of Lords. KICK EM ALL OUT! I don't care if you have to pay them off, it'll be money well spent securing democracy we should have had centuries ago.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

"It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offense 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."

In other news, the Supreme Court reaffirms their conviction of Harriet Tubman for being an 'escaped negro' and helping other slaves escape captivity.

Seriously? Fuck you Parliament.

 

[silverdragon9]

For god's sake!

-A pardon states that you were innocent of the crime that you were convicted of.
-It was illegal at the time to be homosexual
-Turing was homosexual
-Turing was in breach of that law.

He was given an appology, but a pardon is not possible under the law. It would be meaningless under the law. And since it is a legal action, it would be pointless to do it. People think that because they ask someone to 'pardon them' when they bump into them in the corridor that it is synonomous with forgiveness, but under the law it is a very specific thing.

They are not saying that the law was right, they are not saying that being gay is wrong, they are simply stating what the law was and what the facts are.

actually you're describing acquittal; to quote Wikipedia "A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the cancellation of the relevant penalty; it is usually granted by a head of state (such as a monarch or president) or by a competent church authority."

 

[RA92]

Wikipedia is a simple search.... perhaps you didn't see that part?

A nonfiction historian (Anthony Cave Brown) wrote about it. I would dare to say he was almost an expert (more than you or I) on the goings on of the WWII era behind the scenes...

But I just think it's a more valid reason for the House of Lords to not pardon him as opposed to they just being evil homophobes.

Savvy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Cave_Brown

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.

Don't waste your time on Sober Thal. He's the Escapist's official tro... contrarian.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Law does not work backwards.

As times change standards for society change as well, Turing was lawfully convicted in front of impartial jury on the bases of a (At that time) solid accusation.

They apologized and I believe that is enough.

 

[Knusper]

Well obviously it won't matter to him, but why not have a body of people that apparently holds the experts of various fields in the land officially pardon it? When we realise how screwed how we were. we're more likely not to repeat it. Actually, whilst we're at it, can they not apologise for ALL homosexuals convicted?

 

[sleeky01]

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but:

According to Wiki he was described as an aggressive homosexual. I need more context. What does this mean?

 

[Formica Archonis]

We've got through three pages and no one's said "Well, bugger."

Classy joint youse got here.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Where is Ada Lovelace's stamp?

 

[J.d. Scott]

The dead are dead. The best application of this is to the living. Alan Turing was a brilliant man who was demonized, convicted of a unjust crime, chemically castrated, and driven to suicide. As for the A.C. Brown quote, it's the type of persecution that would happen to a known homosexual in the climate of the 1940s.

What one should take from this is the value that any time we allow "morality" to take the place of reason, the reason dies. One can trace a line of dead thinkers from Turing to Galileo to Socrates (and there's probably dozens I'm missing) backward and forward, all unjustly killed. Defend reason. Defend humanity. Build your own moral code and destroy all others. Prevent the next Alan Turing from suffering. It's too late for the previous one.

The history should stand, if only so we can learn properly from it. There is no balm for Turing in the pardon. The dead do not care. The repair would be for England's reputation, and based on Parliament's response, perhaps England does not deserve it.

 

[Lieju]

What would it help, exactly, to give the guy a pardon? He's dead.

Its not even a case where he was wrongly convicted, he was gay, wasn't he?
The law was horribly unjust and bad, let's just remember that such horrible things were done.

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but:

According to Wiki he was described as an aggressive homosexual. I need more context. What does this mean?

Probably that he had sex with other men.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Yes Turing is dead but if we don't acknowledge what was done to him was wrong - and no, this toothless apology is not acknowledgement of that - then we are tacitly approving of it. For LGB people everywhere, a pardon says "Not only do we feel bad, we acknowledge it was and is unconstituional and immoral to demonize and illegalize this mans individual nature"

It is -incredibly- important for the living. Turing may be dead, but his legacy as a homosexual man who helped save the free world gives LGB individuals an example to aspire to, and his death stands as a clear example of how bigotry and hatred can destroy the best of us.

I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but:

According to Wiki he was described as an aggressive homosexual. I need more context. What does this mean?

It means he was foreward. A flirt. Probably a top. He liked men, he liked having sex with men. It doesn't mean he went around beating people up (unless they were into that sort of thing).

 

[Blind Sight]

As to the 'Turing was a pedophile' comments: homosexuals were often suspected on charges of pedophilia in the early 20th century for no other reason then their sexuality. For example, Robert Baden Powell, founder of the boy scouts, had to deal with that myth because he was likely a repressed homosexual. Wikipedia articles or unsourced sites are not valid evidence in claiming that his pedophilia was real or even a legitimate suspicion. You're going to have to find some more legitimate scholars (not to mention some decent primary and secondary sources) before any claim like that can be even taken seriously.

To the OP: Overall this is just a discussion that is going to be politicized very quickly. But I can understand the choice was made due to legal complexities, rather then any bigotry. It's very difficult to pardon someone in this sense, and I think it's not a bad idea to just avoid the subject altogether. This isn't really new either, haven't some people been trying to get Oscar Wilde pardoned for at least the last decade?