The Father of Computer Science is Still a Criminal

[the clockmaker]

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.

It's similar enough to Turing's injustice:

1 - what is this common/legislature distinction? Explain this! I thought we live in a land with one law for all, no double standards.
Anyway, we aren't ignoring what the law states. A Pardon recognises the law and excuses the individual.

2 - Our understanding of homosexuality has changed, we no longer hold the delusion that men-who-love-men are also dangerous paedophile abusers as was believed back then. It's in fact turned out the Priests are more likely to abuse children than gay men. Though perhaps the UNELECTED Lords-for-life have a rather out of touch view, perhaps they still are distrustful of gays.
Also, when the soldiers were pardoned, no mention of PTSD was made, no distinction between those showing symptoms and those not.

3 - The pardoning of all the soldiers executed for "cowardice" made no distinction between the cases where defendants were able to call witnesses and anyway court partial at the time it was "hurr, it was legal at the time!" to not allow defendant to call witnesses. And I think there are some definite miscarriages if the treatment of chemical castration and such treatment leading to him resorting to suicide.

they will not "try to put right what cannot be put right"

+25'000 people who have found the obscure petition think it would do a HUGE EFFORT of putting this right.

Pardon is the single biggest thing you can do to put this right but they won't even do that. It is a nonsense fallacy that because you can't completely fix something you should just try to sweep it under the rug.

Surely the Lords can see the way this will be interpreted. The empty platitudes at the end are WORTHLESS against the words that echo through history "No Pardon will be granted".

And by the way, the intellectual cowardice was for how the Lords tried to PATHETIC excuse they were preventing Historical Revisionism. When a pardon would more than anything recognise that the law was wrong so that it EXISTED, and that it wronged people. Are THEY not exercising historical revisionism by refusing a pardon they are acting as if the law was somehow right to have back then and that there were no major injustices by it?

The Lords using the phrase "Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence" gives fabricated legitimacy to what was DEFINITELY an unjust law. It's almost as if they are reminiscent of the good old days of institutional gay bashing. They should admit the proper thing to do her would be for the law to NOT have been followed because the Law was wrong!

Empty platitudes and technical excuses after the matter are WORTHLESS compared to what they have already said.

Look mate, you seem like a decent enough sort, but you need to understand the differance between what is right and what is legal
1-Common law is law set throught precedent, so when a judge or magistrate makes a decision, it is common law. Under the bicameral system, this is trumped by legislation, law made by the government. If you think that this is a double standard you really don't understand the law and shouldn't really be telling people what is legal.
2-Morally, the cowardic case and Turings case are similar, legally they are not because while the men charged with cowardice were found not be cowards due to a new understanding, Turing was homosexual and the new understanding is that that is not a bad thing. Okay, do you see, both are morally innocent, only one is legally innocent. The articles that I read on this case placed heavy emphasis on the undiagnosed shell shock/combat fatigue/PTSD/whatever you want to call it, that the defendents suffered, with their barrister even throwing it out there in one of the interviews.
2a-You claim that the lords are distrustful of gays, do you care to back that up, or do you think it is reasonable to sling mud like that off hand?
3-There were many cases in which the trials of the people charged with cowardice were not given a fair hearing, enough to be systemic. It is impossible to determine who did and who did not get a fair trial. For a criminal conviction you need to have proved something beyond all reasonable doubt. The systemic miscarriages and opaque nature of a war time court-martial is enough to provide reasonable doubt and thus to decide, based on the burden of proof that the defendents were innocent. Turing, despite the horrible nature of the law, was given a fair trial.

4-The debate over wether or not it would be the right thing to do is a pretty subjective one and you make some fair points there, but you bold properly as if it is a value judgement as opposed to an assessment of the legality of the decision. He was in breach of a law, he was charged under that law, he was convicted and then punished under that law. Morally it was wrong, legally it was proper.

I am not trying to say that he got what he deserved, or that the government doesn't need to make amends, what I am trying to say is that legally the house of lords cannot pardon him. If you can come up with a reason why they can, I will listen, but what this concerns is not what is right or wrong, but what is legal. Because while it may be alright for individuals to break the law to do the right thing, it is never alright for a governing body to do so.

But, there is hope legally, petition the house of commons to amend the relevent acts or to pass a new act stating what you think the provisions and effect of a pardon would be. Then if the Lords do not grant a pardon, I will be right there with you. Sound good?

 

[Treblaine]

Look mate, you seem like a decent enough sort, but you need to understand the differance between what is right and what is legal
1-Common law is law set throught precedent, so when a judge or magistrate makes a decision, it is common law. Under the bicameral system, this is trumped by legislation, law made by the government. If you think that this is a double standard you really don't understand the law and shouldn't really be telling people what is legal.
2-Morally, the cowardic case and Turings case are similar, legally they are not because while the men charged with cowardice were found not be cowards due to a new understanding, Turing was homosexual and the new understanding is that that is not a bad thing. Okay, do you see, both are morally innocent, only one is legally innocent. The articles that I read on this case placed heavy emphasis on the undiagnosed shell shock/combat fatigue/PTSD/whatever you want to call it, that the defendents suffered, with their barrister even throwing it out there in one of the interviews.
2a-You claim that the lords are distrustful of gays, do you care to back that up, or do you think it is reasonable to sling mud like that off hand?
3-There were many cases in which the trials of the people charged with cowardice were not given a fair hearing, enough to be systemic. It is impossible to determine who did and who did not get a fair trial. For a criminal conviction you need to have proved something beyond all reasonable doubt. The systemic miscarriages and opaque nature of a war time court-martial is enough to provide reasonable doubt and thus to decide, based on the burden of proof that the defendents were innocent. Turing, despite the horrible nature of the law, was given a fair trial.

4-The debate over wether or not it would be the right thing to do is a pretty subjective one and you make some fair points there, but you bold properly as if it is a value judgement as opposed to an assessment of the legality of the decision. He was in breach of a law, he was charged under that law, he was convicted and then punished under that law. Morally it was wrong, legally it was proper.

I am not trying to say that he got what he deserved, or that the government doesn't need to make amends, what I am trying to say is that legally the house of lords cannot pardon him. If you can come up with a reason why they can, I will listen, but what this concerns is not what is right or wrong, but what is legal. Because while it may be alright for individuals to break the law to do the right thing, it is never alright for a governing body to do so.

But, there is hope legally, petition the house of commons to amend the relevent acts or to pass a new act stating what you think the provisions and effect of a pardon would be. Then if the Lords do not grant a pardon, I will be right there with you. Sound good?

I still don't get why the Unelected House of Lords are refusing to Pardon on grounds that describe refusing of acquittal.

New evidence of their status or evidence of poor legal procedure is grounds for acquittal, and the Soldiers were not acquitted, they were pardoned with no mention of poor trials or failure to recognise PTSD.

The problem is the House of Lords doesn't say "This decision to pardon on moral grounds must be made by a higher authority, like House of Commons". No, they say:

"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense. He would have known that his offense was against the law and that he would be prosecuted."

That talks in very final and universal terms as if for ANYONE (even Commons) to grant a pardon would be inappropriate. Because they seem to value even a long repealed and blatantly homophobic law as beyond reproach.

I only speculated on homophobia in the House of Lords, frankly I'm livid that this authority exists without the Lords being elected to position - and in position for life. The possibility of covert bigotry should definitely be considered amongst these people unelected to a position for life they can be totally out of touch with the general population's stance. Scores of them INHERITED their position in the Lords!

In my opinion EVERYTHING the House or Lords says and does should be questionable as they shouldn't bloody well exist without being elected.

 

[ConstantErasing]

So then if being a black man was against the law at the time and he was a black man and was punished for that would we still refuse to grant him a pardon because "he knew he was breaking the law and deserves the proper treatment."? I sincerely hope not, and I don't see why this should be treated so much differently. He was accused of a crime which he didn't have terribly much control over and which would not be seen as a criminal offense now. As such, in our enlightened time, we should pardon him for it.

 

[carlj]

So then if being a black man was against the law at the time and he was a black man and was punished for that would we still refuse to grant him a pardon because "he knew he was breaking the law and deserves the proper treatment."? I sincerely hope not, and I don't see why this should be treated so much differently. He was accused of a crime which he didn't have terribly much control over and which would not be seen as a criminal offense now. As such, in our enlightened time, we should pardon him for it.

Can't rewrite history. Dealwiddit.

They're also not going to go back and criminalize all the former slave owners, and everyone who opposed the Norman invasion, convene war criminal trials on former Crusaders, or round up the bones of the Donner Party and burn them in effigy for cannibalism.

It's over. This recent fad of retrospectively apologizing for past sins is grandstanding crap intended to communicate what a swell, feeling guy or gal the salesman who's offering the apology truly is. It doesn't mean squat to Turing who's worm food now or anyone else about whose grave indignations we've chosen to popularly take up the cause of gnashing our teeth and rending our garments over, and posthumously. And practically, it means nothing to contemporary men and women who are at liberty to hump whatever they have a mind to, more or less, other than the "right" to dig up a newly-declared martyr and parade him up the street as a standard of their freedom from an oppression that they, themselves, really don't experience anymore.

All this hand wringing usually to serve the interests of whiny demagogues who, having achieved in large measure the interests they sought, are now finding themselves becoming marginalized because, hey - tough to earn a good living and respect in the community as the anti-smallpox crusader after, you know, smallpox is on the wane. That and give nitwits with little better to do than jump on a cause because it sounds good on the surface and they've got time on their hands - like the Occupiers and their increasingly pointless and irrelevant nationwide Jamboree.

You're being being played like a cheap fiddle and taking up a standard to advance the cause of some weasly politician because it sounds like the "humane" and righteous thing to do.

What happened, happened. Get over it. Drive on, emo. You don't "see why" because your critical thinking skills and powers of observation are flaccid. You can either go through life getting hysterical and jumping on pet causes for other people for the rest of your life, or you can pick up a history book and see how people have been led (and it is "led," OP, not "lead.") around by the nose by transparent rhetoric just like this throughout history.

 

[the clockmaker]

Look mate, you seem like a decent enough sort, but you need to understand the differance between what is right and what is legal
1-Common law is law set throught precedent, so when a judge or magistrate makes a decision, it is common law. Under the bicameral system, this is trumped by legislation, law made by the government. If you think that this is a double standard you really don't understand the law and shouldn't really be telling people what is legal.
2-Morally, the cowardic case and Turings case are similar, legally they are not because while the men charged with cowardice were found not be cowards due to a new understanding, Turing was homosexual and the new understanding is that that is not a bad thing. Okay, do you see, both are morally innocent, only one is legally innocent. The articles that I read on this case placed heavy emphasis on the undiagnosed shell shock/combat fatigue/PTSD/whatever you want to call it, that the defendents suffered, with their barrister even throwing it out there in one of the interviews.
2a-You claim that the lords are distrustful of gays, do you care to back that up, or do you think it is reasonable to sling mud like that off hand?
3-There were many cases in which the trials of the people charged with cowardice were not given a fair hearing, enough to be systemic. It is impossible to determine who did and who did not get a fair trial. For a criminal conviction you need to have proved something beyond all reasonable doubt. The systemic miscarriages and opaque nature of a war time court-martial is enough to provide reasonable doubt and thus to decide, based on the burden of proof that the defendents were innocent. Turing, despite the horrible nature of the law, was given a fair trial.

4-The debate over wether or not it would be the right thing to do is a pretty subjective one and you make some fair points there, but you bold properly as if it is a value judgement as opposed to an assessment of the legality of the decision. He was in breach of a law, he was charged under that law, he was convicted and then punished under that law. Morally it was wrong, legally it was proper.

I am not trying to say that he got what he deserved, or that the government doesn't need to make amends, what I am trying to say is that legally the house of lords cannot pardon him. If you can come up with a reason why they can, I will listen, but what this concerns is not what is right or wrong, but what is legal. Because while it may be alright for individuals to break the law to do the right thing, it is never alright for a governing body to do so.

But, there is hope legally, petition the house of commons to amend the relevent acts or to pass a new act stating what you think the provisions and effect of a pardon would be. Then if the Lords do not grant a pardon, I will be right there with you. Sound good?

I still don't get why the Unelected House of Lords are refusing to Pardon on grounds that describe refusing of acquittal.

New evidence of their status or evidence of poor legal procedure is grounds for acquittal, and the Soldiers were not acquitted, they were pardoned with no mention of poor trials or failure to recognise PTSD.

The problem is the House of Lords doesn't say "This decision to pardon on moral grounds must be made by a higher authority, like House of Commons". No, they say:

"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense. He would have known that his offense was against the law and that he would be prosecuted."

That talks in very final and universal terms as if for ANYONE (even Commons) to grant a pardon would be inappropriate. Because they seem to value even a long repealed and blatantly homophobic law as beyond reproach.

I only speculated on homophobia in the House of Lords, frankly I'm livid that this authority exists without the Lords being elected to position - and in position for life. The possibility of covert bigotry should definitely be considered amongst these people unelected to a position for life they can be totally out of touch with the general population's stance. Scores of them INHERITED their position in the Lords!

In my opinion EVERYTHING the House or Lords says and does should be questionable as they shouldn't bloody well exist without being elected.

"Pte Farr's family have fought for 14 years to clear his name, arguing that the soldier, from Kensington in London, who was 25 years old when he was executed for refusing to fight, had shell shock."
the family of private Farr were among the prime backers of the drive for the pardon.

"I do not want to second guess decisions made by commanders in the field, but circumstances were terrible," he said. "I believe it is better to acknowledge injustices were clearly done in some cases, even if we cannot say which ­ and to acknowledge that all these men were victims of war." the defence minister speaking with regards to the decision.

" after 90 years the evidence just doesn't exist inside the cases individually". The defence minister again on why there would be a group pardon

"This is complete common sense and acknowledges that Pte Farr was not a coward but an extremely brave man.

"Having fought for two years practically without respite in the trenches, he was very obviously suffering from a condition we now would have no problem in diagnosing as post traumatic stress disorder, or shell-shock, as it was known in 1916." The Lawyer of one of the parties seeking pardon on the PTSD

"Pte Farr was executed after a 20-minute court martial on the Somme in Oct 1916. Evidence was given by a medical officer that could have allowed the tribunal to excuse him, but it was ignored." The BBC on the improper nature of the trial.

That seems like a lot of mentions for something that was not mentioned, don't you think. I mean, if you can track down the ratio decidendi (appologies for spelling) of the judge in this case and it makes no mention, then go nuts, but as it stands, the cases are not legally similar enough to use as precident.

And the house of lords are not refusing a pardon theycannot legally grant a pardon. This, in addition to your referance of the lower house of parliment as a 'higher authority' shows that you simply do not have enough knowledge of the law to debate on it, so let it be.

Funnily enough though, when I looked further into the cowardice case that you are so attached to, I found that the pardon had come through the house of commons, exactly as I suggested Turings case should in my last post.

I am going to continue saying this, what the law should be is irrelevent, the upper house cannot act on what should be. What the law is is everything in this instance and according to the law, Turing cannot be pardoned by the house of lords, so keep you accusations of homophobia away from people who have done all that the law allows them to.

 

[Treblaine]

[snip]

The Lords should still have not spoken so finally on this matter and more explicitly stated they could not acquit but that this should be passed on to the Commons to pardon.

 

[the clockmaker]

[snip]

The Lords should still have not spoken so finally on this matter and more explicitly stated they could not acquit but that this should be passed on to the Commons to pardon.

They have done everyhting they can and given the reason why they cannot do more. They have done nothing wrong.

Why don't you send a petition to the house of commons to get them to either pass an act pardoning turing or one that changes the requirements for a pardon? I would be with you on that.

 

[Treblaine]

[snip]

The Lords should still have not spoken so finally on this matter and more explicitly stated they could not acquit but that this should be passed on to the Commons to pardon.

They have done everyhting they can and given the reason why they cannot do more. They have done nothing wrong.

Why don't you send a petition to the house of commons to get them to either pass an act pardoning turing or one that changes the requirements for a pardon? I would be with you on that.

I have signed THE petition which is to the government in general.

You don't seem to realise my concern how I detect The Unelected House of Lords seems to be trying to close the book on this and that the commons won't pick this up.

 

[the clockmaker]

I have signed THE petition which is to the government in general.

You don't seem to realise my concern how I detect The Unelected House of Lords seems to be trying to close the book on this and that the commons won't pick this up.

What I see is someone who does not like the house of lords, (which is fair enough on its own), and wants to blame them for things, which in this instance are not their fault. I see someone blinded by his own good intentions to the point that he won't even check the facts that he states. I see someone who thinks that unfounded accusations of homphobia are reasonable so long as it is against the 'bad guys'.

The house of lords has done everything in their power for Turing. Their reasoning has been that 'there is no grounds for a pardon' this is due to the provisions for pardons under the law. Therefore, if they refuse after those provisions have been changed, you may have a case.

 

[Treblaine]

I have signed THE petition which is to the government in general.

You don't seem to realise my concern how I detect The Unelected House of Lords seems to be trying to close the book on this and that the commons won't pick this up.

What I see is someone who does not like the house of lords, (which is fair enough on its own), and wants to blame them for things, which in this instance are not their fault. I see someone blinded by his own good intentions to the point that he won't even check the facts that he states. I see someone who thinks that unfounded accusations of homphobia are reasonable so long as it is against the 'bad guys'.

The house of lords has done everything in their power for Turing. Their reasoning has been that 'there is no grounds for a pardon' this is due to the provisions for pardons under the law. Therefore, if they refuse after those provisions have been changed, you may have a case.

Let's not make this personal.

The House of Lords have not done everything in their power, they have the power to directly and openly petition the Commons to do what they make clear only they cannot do. I know it's subjective but I detect they are trying to sabotage any further attempts at a pardon by emphasising the illegality of his acts, even using the word "properly" to describe a process that chemically castrated a war hero who never wronged anyone. Leading to his suicide and almost 60 years before any kind of apology. Any empty platitudes that follow that pale into insignificance.

 

[DanDeFool]

Well, I see where the British government is coming from; a crime is a crime. The CEO of a Fortune 500 company should have to pay their parking tickets just the same as a janitor. The achievement of great things should not give one carte blanche to break the law.

Of course, I also see the opposition's point; anti-gay laws are backward, accomplish virtually nothing positive, and should be abolished. And if you consider how many people decided to forgive R. Kelly, Michael Vick, and Chris Brown after peeing on a little girl on camera, murdering hundreds of dogs for sport, and beating his girlfriend half to death, respectively, maybe we ought to cut the father of modern computing some slack. After all, I think those crimes are just a little more serious than being gay. (Sarcasm)

Though there is a silver lining to all this. Perhaps, if we spread the knowledge that modern computing technology was grandfathered by a gay man widely enough, maybe we can convince the fundies that ALL computing is evil. Then they'll have no choice but to leave modern society and become Luddites in the Midwest. Awesome.

 

[the clockmaker]

I have signed THE petition which is to the government in general.

You don't seem to realise my concern how I detect The Unelected House of Lords seems to be trying to close the book on this and that the commons won't pick this up.

What I see is someone who does not like the house of lords, (which is fair enough on its own), and wants to blame them for things, which in this instance are not their fault. I see someone blinded by his own good intentions to the point that he won't even check the facts that he states. I see someone who thinks that unfounded accusations of homphobia are reasonable so long as it is against the 'bad guys'.

The house of lords has done everything in their power for Turing. Their reasoning has been that 'there is no grounds for a pardon' this is due to the provisions for pardons under the law. Therefore, if they refuse after those provisions have been changed, you may have a case.

Let's not make this personal.

The House of Lords have not done everything in their power, they have the power to directly and openly petition the Commons to do what they make clear only they cannot do. I know it's subjective but I detect they are trying to sabotage any further attempts at a pardon by emphasising the illegality of his acts, even using the word "properly" to describe a process that chemically castrated a war hero who never wronged anyone. Leading to his suicide and almost 60 years before any kind of apology. Any empty platitudes that follow that pale into insignificance.

Firstly, no disrespect to the man, he did the world a great service during the war, but it is my personal belief that only men and women who served under direct, personal danger are war heros. That is in no way to diminish what he did, he was a great man, but it is not the same as wading through blood for mile after mile, as comabt service personel did. I see this in the same way that Curtain was the greatest PM australia ever had, but was still not a 'war hero.'

Secondly, it is the role of the lower house to introduce legislation, the role of the upper house to approve it. Not the other way around. Frankly I find this whole thing baffling, the lower house has done wrong here, by ommision if not by act, and you are intent on blaming the lords for it. It is as if john has slapped you in the face and you blame steve for not catching his arm. you are too intent on the actions of the lords to see that the blame lies elsewhere and I do not think that to be a personal slight, but rather a remark on the way that you have acted in this discussion. If I wanted to slight you personally I would not attribute your misplaced focus on your good intentions.

And having had a few of my own casues trampled by the govenment let me tell you that an empty platitude is 'the government regrets that we cannot take this action' rather than strongly worded praise of this man and even stronger condemnation of the laws that broke him.

 

[Treblaine]

Secondly, it is the role of the lower house to introduce legislation, the role of the upper house to approve it. Not the other way around. Frankly I find this whole thing baffling, the lower house has done wrong here, by ommision if not by act, and you are intent on blaming the lords for it. It is as if john has slapped you in the face and you blame steve for not catching his arm. you are too intent on the actions of the lords to see that the blame lies elsewhere and I do not think that to be a personal slight, but rather a remark on the way that you have acted in this discussion. If I wanted to slight you personally I would not attribute your misplaced focus on your good intentions.

And having had a few of my own casues trampled by the govenment let me tell you that an empty platitude is 'the government regrets that we cannot take this action' rather than strongly worded praise of this man and even stronger condemnation of the laws that broke him.

OK, If commons are guilty of inaction then I'm not angry at Steve for failing to catch his arm, I'm angry at John (Lords) for the slap in the face (Pardon refusal).

Lords could still have done more than saying "oh it was awful but a Pardon would be the wrong approach to this" They actually suggest it is NOT appropriate to Pardon him! Your excuses for them are NOT the same as the excuses they make for themselves.

 

[Kinguendo]

No matter what your opinion on homosexuality, you can't deny Turing really took it in the ass.No matter what your opinion, you can't deny Turing really took it in the ass.

Again, people gloss over how he was allegedly a child molester,

And I heard Obama was allegedly a Muslim, Kenyan, Nazi. I also heard that people that tend to say a lot of nasty things about you when they're trying to get you out of the way.

Yeah, Obama....

That makes so much sense in this same context!

Why else would people refuse to elect him as President of the United States!

Oh wait...

Why else would people want to destroy the life of a gay man in 1950's Britain?

OH WAIT!
They waited until he was of no further use then disposed of him. And IF they had credible evidence that he was child molester, why not charge him with that?

Well, they charged him (and convicted him) with a sex crime, and then let him decide his punishment... imprisonment, or chem castration. Why? Cause they liked his work.

If they were afraid he was going to go sell his secrets to the highest bidder, I could understand false charges.... but I have yet to hear that that was the case.

No, because that was the options given to convicted homosexuals at that time. What is wrong with you? Why are you spreading all of this misinformation?

 

[Shavon513]

Homosexuality may have been against the law at the time, but it was a law that violated human rights.

I think if GB posthumously was pardoned, it would send a positive signal to the nation, and to the world, that GB acknowledges the evil of this law and truly regrets it. An official apology from Parliament is just words: it would actually mean something if they pardoned him.

 

[AT God]

I don't understand pardoning a dead person. He wasn't killed because of it, and to me thats the only pardon that really matters. However, I think if the House stated it was wrong to make the law in the first place, that would be a nice thing to do. Saying he was breaking the law is valid but also kind of brings up the whole controversy of homosexuality being a choice, which isn't a good idea to debate by a government.

I can understand he broke a law, but they could at least acknowledge the law was wrong, unless they think it was justified in which there are bigger problems in their future. Turing was a great man regardless and creating this news article is the best way to honor him, by educating people who may not have known about his accomplishments.

 

[the clockmaker]

Secondly, it is the role of the lower house to introduce legislation, the role of the upper house to approve it. Not the other way around. Frankly I find this whole thing baffling, the lower house has done wrong here, by ommision if not by act, and you are intent on blaming the lords for it. It is as if john has slapped you in the face and you blame steve for not catching his arm. you are too intent on the actions of the lords to see that the blame lies elsewhere and I do not think that to be a personal slight, but rather a remark on the way that you have acted in this discussion. If I wanted to slight you personally I would not attribute your misplaced focus on your good intentions.

And having had a few of my own casues trampled by the govenment let me tell you that an empty platitude is 'the government regrets that we cannot take this action' rather than strongly worded praise of this man and even stronger condemnation of the laws that broke him.

OK, If commons are guilty of inaction then I'm not angry at Steve for failing to catch his arm, I'm angry at John (Lords) for the slap in the face (Pardon refusal).

Lords could still have done more than saying "oh it was awful but a Pardon would be the wrong approach to this" They actually suggest it is NOT appropriate to Pardon him! Your excuses for them are NOT the same as the excuses they make for themselves.

For gods sake, I have demonstrated, quoting the law, why they have done all that they legally can. And you still continue to say no, with no backing in facts. You are angry that they have not done more, but do not seem willing to show how they can do so without breaching the law or their purpose for existing in the first place. You would rather have the upper house in a bicameral system propose legislation than admit that it is the lower houses fault.

And it would not be legally appropriate to pardon him, for gods sake, that has been pretty conclusively shown, so unless you have some new evidence that the lords are less concerned with the law that with what is nice, or a precident that is actually a precident, then please stop saying this as some horrific act. The implication, when a legal decision is made, that all terms within the decision relate to the legality of the decision unless stated otherwise. When they say appropriate, the clear implication is that it is legally appropriate, when they say impossible, they do not mean time travel, they mean that it cannot be done under the law.

you obviously do not have a great knowledge base on the law, as shown several times in this discussion, noteably you seeming belief that common law was some sort of fuedal 'one law for us and one for the nobels', so stop clutching at straws to blame the upper house for this, you are letting your dislike of the fact that they are not elected cloud your vision on what the facts are.

This actually seems to be a pretty common phenomenon here, where someone will do something that they don't like, and then escapists will blame their favorite political punching bags for not stopping them.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

No matter what your opinion on homosexuality, you can't deny Turing really took it in the ass.No matter what your opinion, you can't deny Turing really took it in the ass.

Again, people gloss over how he was allegedly a child molester,

And I heard Obama was allegedly a Muslim, Kenyan, Nazi. I also heard that people that tend to say a lot of nasty things about you when they're trying to get you out of the way.

Yeah, Obama....

That makes so much sense in this same context!

Why else would people refuse to elect him as President of the United States!

Oh wait...

Why else would people want to destroy the life of a gay man in 1950's Britain?

OH WAIT!
They waited until he was of no further use then disposed of him. And IF they had credible evidence that he was child molester, why not charge him with that?

Well, they charged him (and convicted him) with a sex crime, and then let him decide his punishment... imprisonment, or chem castration. Why? Cause they liked his work.

If they were afraid he was going to go sell his secrets to the highest bidder, I could understand false charges.... but I have yet to hear that that was the case.

They charged him being gay, he was asking about doing boys which from what you said he was accused but never charged or found guilty of. What every happened to innocent until proven guilty, because your pretty gung oh and something he was accused of but never proven guilty of.

 

[ConstantErasing]

So then if being a black man was against the law at the time and he was a black man and was punished for that would we still refuse to grant him a pardon because "he knew he was breaking the law and deserves the proper treatment."? I sincerely hope not, and I don't see why this should be treated so much differently. He was accused of a crime which he didn't have terribly much control over and which would not be seen as a criminal offense now. As such, in our enlightened time, we should pardon him for it.

Can't rewrite history. Dealwiddit.

They're also not going to go back and criminalize all the former slave owners, and everyone who opposed the Norman invasion, convene war criminal trials on former Crusaders, or round up the bones of the Donner Party and burn them in effigy for cannibalism.

It's over. This recent fad of retrospectively apologizing for past sins is grandstanding crap intended to communicate what a swell, feeling guy or gal the salesman who's offering the apology truly is. It doesn't mean squat to Turing who's worm food now or anyone else about whose grave indignations we've chosen to popularly take up the cause of gnashing our teeth and rending our garments over, and posthumously. And practically, it means nothing to contemporary men and women who are at liberty to hump whatever they have a mind to, more or less, other than the "right" to dig up a newly-declared martyr and parade him up the street as a standard of their freedom from an oppression that they, themselves, really don't experience anymore.

All this hand wringing usually to serve the interests of whiny demagogues who, having achieved in large measure the interests they sought, are now finding themselves becoming marginalized because, hey - tough to earn a good living and respect in the community as the anti-smallpox crusader after, you know, smallpox is on the wane. That and give nitwits with little better to do than jump on a cause because it sounds good on the surface and they've got time on their hands - like the Occupiers and their increasingly pointless and irrelevant nationwide Jamboree.

You're being being played like a cheap fiddle and taking up a standard to advance the cause of some weasly politician because it sounds like the "humane" and righteous thing to do.

What happened, happened. Get over it. Drive on, emo. You don't "see why" because your critical thinking skills and powers of observation are flaccid. You can either go through life getting hysterical and jumping on pet causes for other people for the rest of your life, or you can pick up a history book and see how people have been led (and it is "led," OP, not "lead.") around by the nose by transparent rhetoric just like this throughout history.

Why not? Why shouldn't it matter to him? Oh sure, you can argue that he is dead and it can't possibly matter to him now, but what about back then? We live such pathetically short lives that most of our impact on the world will be how we are remembered by history. This is not merely about grandstanding, this is about giving people the recognition and representation in history that they deserve. I, for one, in his place would not like to be remembered as a criminal and we owe it, not only to him, but to ourselves, to write history as it should be properly written. We can't change history but we can certainly rewrite it. And even if this ultimately has no effect on him, it will still give comfort to people alive today to know that we are willing to admit our mistakes and write our legacy, the most important thing we have as mortal beings, correctly.