Treblaine said:
the clockmaker said:
silverdragon9 said:
the clockmaker said:
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."
"his conviction has been reversed or he has been
pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice."
Emphasis mine. Within the currently standing UK legistlation that I could find (perhaps a more legally minded escapist can help out there) that was the only provision that I could find on the conditions of granting a pardon.
Then how the hell were the 306+ separate cases of Soldiers executed for "cowardice" in WW1 being posthumously pardoned? What new evidence came forward to pardon ALL of them together, not each case each with new evidence, but EVERY execution for cowardice, categorically, were pardoned.
Sets a pretty clear legal precedent for the power to Pardon.
The House of Lords have no technical excuse for refusing to Pardon, they are guilty of intellectual cowardice.
1-legislative law trumps common law, so a precedent is not grounds for ignoring what the law states.
2-reading into it simply the new evidence was a greater understanding of PTSD, that the soldiers were not, in fact cowards and as such
were not guilty of the crime that they were convicted of
3-in addition there was found to be a systemic miscarriage of justice, that the defendents were not able to call for their own witnesses and produce their own evidence. As the courts martial were found to be conducting themselves improperly, it would provide reasonable doubt on the decision that was reached.
So to compare the two cases,
-Turing was in breach of the law that he was charged under/in retrospect those charged of cowardice were found to have reasonable doubt as to thier guilt
-I can find no mention that Turing's trial (while obviously enforcing an abominable law) was conducted in anything other than a legally proper manner./The soldiers charged with cowardice were not given a fair trial.
As such, a precedent would not really apply, legally.
So he is morally entitled to whatever restitution the government can offer, but under the
law there is no case and so the house of lords, an institution concerned with the
law has no
legal grounds to grant him a pardon.
And as to the accusation of intellectual cowardice, you should read over the second paragraph of the statement again, where they call the punishment meted against him "cruel and absurd" and state that they will not "try to put right what cannot be put right" and ensure instead "that we never refer to those times". That seems to be a pretty pro-turing statement, and in fact, more politically visible than a pardon.