Turing Not Pardoned for Being Gay

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Yes, it is first year law student stuff that what they did was correct.

Once again, would you seek to overturn half (if not more) of every conviction in history based on changes in laws?

You reverse the convictions of those still serving a sentence, but that's it.

And that is the part that you don't understand; it's not at all a question of just some random law changing, 'tis a question of the original ruling being wrong in spite of it being legal, because it is possible to rule that an old law should not have existed because it clashed with basic human rights.

But were those laws a violation of basic human rights? That is defined internationally, not singularly by the UK. The nazis violated human rights as they had been defined while the nazis were doing so, which also hurts your argument that they are the same. It would be nice if expressing sexuality was part of the agreed understanding of basic human rights, but I'd love to see you get that treaty drafted up. If you can find one, then you are clearly right of course, and I'd love to see it. It really would make me this day a little happier.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Law graduate, reporting for duty.

We can't retroactively pardon people for things that are no longer crimes, in the same way that we can't retroactively punish people for things that are crimes now, but weren't years ago.

We can offer an apology, and learn from the mistakes we have made, but we must not undermine the rule of law.

And I am the law.

[HEADING=1]Do not undermine me, lest you face my wrath![/HEADING]

Being the law, I must apologise to Turing.

Sorry Turing, my bad.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Anyone who doesn't pardon him can chuck away all of their computers as they'd be worthless without him.

And start speaking German.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

What he did was illegal at the time. Sure it sucks but if you break the law then you get punished. Just because they later change the law does not mean you were right to break it at the time.

Oh and all these "He did great works so should be forgiven blah blah blah" are the exact same sort of people who argue that Roman Polanski should be forgiven for raping a child just because he makes (apparently) good movies.
So yeah...

 

[Vault101]

I didn't find this anywhere on the site, so feel free to link me if there's already something about this.

For those of you who somehow manage to frequent sites like this and yet not know the name of Alan Turing, Alan Turing was the one of the progenitors of the modern computer as we know it.
Turing was also a homosexual, which in the 50s was considered a crime of gross indecency. He was chemically castrated, stripped of all security clearances, and essentially turned into a pariah. He would commit suicide later, likely as a result of this.

hmmm this sounds interesting..have I heard of this guy beofre?...want...WHAT?????

they carstrated him??!! did they do that back then? holy shit thats heavy

I...I dont know what to say, Im actually shocked, Ive never heard of this being done, especially around that time

 

[Vault101]

What he did was illegal at the time. Sure it sucks but if you break the law then you get punished. Just because they later change the law does not mean you were right to break it at the time.

Oh and all these "He did great works so should be forgiven blah blah blah" are the exact same sort of people who argue that Roman Polanski should be forgiven for raping a child just because he makes (apparently) good movies.
So yeah...

seriously?

1. it was a stupid law from a very conservative time, I mean an ACTUAL crime mabye, but this was not a crime, he did not hurt anyone

2. are you comparing the rape of a 13 year old to gay sex? no......

 

[thenumberthirteen]

As far as I can understand their reasoning he can't be pardoned, because that would mean them saying he wasn't gay. Which he was. It was against the law back then, and that fucking sucked. Though it's a bit like the scene at the end of the South Park movie when Cartman says to Kyle "It's ok Kyle. You're not a Jew".

A pardon won't do anything to help anyone really. Government agrees that's a stupid law, and it isn't a crime any more. That's what's important. This government didn't convict him. Nobody in parliament today had anything to do with that case. There is no reason to apologise or make things up to him. I don't like the idea of official apologies. Like saying "Sorry for slavery" when it happened hundreds of years before anyone alive in the government was even born. Apologising for, say, the Iraq war would make sense because those people who made the decision would be saying they did wrong.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

I suspect legality has something to do with the decision.
look at it another, reverse that and you open the book for more people to do it. Sounds good, until someone looks at all the reversals and calls miscarrage a justice for one of them (assume ideal case involved) and then suddenly they have more than a handful of lawsuits going on.
If there is a chance for someone to be sued someone will do the suing unfortunately.

They also have a point, a flawed law in hindsight is still a law in the past. From a legal stand point it is the right call to make (though agreeably, it does seem wrong morally considering the change in views)

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

seriously?

1. it was a stupid law from a very conservative time, I mean an ACTUAL crime mabye, but this was not a crime, he did not hurt anyone

2. are you comparing the rape of a 13 year old to gay sex? no......

1. The laws the law. Does not matter one bit what you think of it. If you do not like it then you lobby to get it changed. If you break it then you get punished.
People still get punished for non crimes like downloading shit but if you do it and get busted then you knew the risks and did it anyway.

2. Yes... A criminal is a criminal and their other activities do not give them free reign to break the law. Everyone should be held to the law regardless of how nice they are or how they contribute in other ways to society.

 

[Vault101]

seriously?

1. it was a stupid law from a very conservative time, I mean an ACTUAL crime mabye, but this was not a crime, he did not hurt anyone

2. are you comparing the rape of a 13 year old to gay sex? no......

1. The laws the law. Does not matter one bit what you think of it. If you do not like it then you lobby to get it changed. If you break it then you get punished.
People still get punished for non crimes like downloading shit but if you do it and get busted then you knew the risks and did it anyway.

2. Yes... A criminal is a criminal and their other activities do not give them free reign to break the law. Everyone should be held to the law regardless of how nice they are or how they contribute in other ways to society.

the law was bullshit, I dont care if it was "the law" it was a bullshit law based on nothing, he wasnt a real criminal, it was a guy going against society and getting in trouble for it

people have done that for a long time, that almost feels like saying Jesus was a criminal and totally deserved his crucifiction, society at the time was fucking stupid..less so in the 50's but..well still stupid, we know that now

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

Its best that they don't reverse his conviction. What was done to Turing was an injustice and as long as it stays an injustice people will stay pissed off about it (or at least stay pissed off longer) and it won't be forgoten.

Homosexuality isn't a crime anymore (in most of the world) but its always good to have reminders as to what things were like in the past and just how far we have yet to go.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

He was properly convicted of a criminal offense.
Posthumously pardoning him does nothing for the man.
I'm sure that, if he is looking down on us now, he is more happy about a UK that is currently accepting of homosexuals than a UK that would spend up government resources in a time of economic crises to pardon a dead man.

It should have never been illegal. However, pardoning him doesn't bring him back. We should just be happy that now we live in a world that is tolerant of homosexuality (I suppose that is debatable with my country, but since 2003 it hasn't been a crime here at least).

 

[Daystar Clarion]

seriously?

1. it was a stupid law from a very conservative time, I mean an ACTUAL crime mabye, but this was not a crime, he did not hurt anyone

2. are you comparing the rape of a 13 year old to gay sex? no......

1. The laws the law. Does not matter one bit what you think of it. If you do not like it then you lobby to get it changed. If you break it then you get punished.
People still get punished for non crimes like downloading shit but if you do it and get busted then you knew the risks and did it anyway.

2. Yes... A criminal is a criminal and their other activities do not give them free reign to break the law. Everyone should be held to the law regardless of how nice they are or how they contribute in other ways to society.

the law was bullshit, I dont care if it was "the law" it was a bullshit law based on nothing, he wasnt a real criminal, it was a guy going against society and getting in trouble for it

people have done that for a long time, that almost feels like saying Jesus was a criminal and totally deserved his crucifiction, society at the time was fucking stupid..less so in the 50's but..well still stupid, we know that now

Yes. We know that now.

Hindsight is a brilliant thing, the same way that in another hundred years there will undoubtedly be practices that are considered illegal now, that are standard practice then.

We judge people by the laws of today and the societal standards of today.

In his time, Turing was considered a criminal, and society considered him a deviant. Those were the standards of his time.

He can not be pardoned, for the same reason that we can't start retroactively prosecuting people for things that are crimes today, but weren't in the past.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

the law was bullshit, I dont care if it was "the law" it was a bullshit law based on nothing, he wasnt a real criminal, it was a guy going against society and getting in trouble for it

people have done that for a long time, that almost feels like saying Jesus was a criminal and totally deserved his crucifiction, society at the time was fucking stupid..less so in the 50's but..well still stupid, we know that now

And? No one cares what you think of the law. No one at all.
As I said, if you don't like laws then you try to get them changed but if you break them then tough shit for you. If you do not like a countries laws then you are free to leave.
And as for Jesus, he was not a criminal. Pontius Pilatus tried his best to get him off the hook but the people demanded he die and the propaganda about him claiming to be a king did violate Roman law. So he just had a shitty lawyer.
If he had of declared himself a king then he would have been breaking the law and thus would have deserved death.
And society is always stupid. Who knows, maybe in 100 years the law will have changed again and people will go back to executing homosexuals and they will look back on us tolerating them now as stupid.

End point is this. The law is the law. You don't like it. Tough shit. Leave if you want. You break it and you get punished.

 

[The Last Nomad]

He wasn't simply Homosexual... He was in love with a much older man who didn't return his feelings (who may not gay have been at all).
Bit of a dick move by himself if you ask me, but not deserving of what he got.

But do you really care about opinions of people who feel homosexuality is a crime?
I don't...

 

[Erttheking]

It's kinda disgusting, but people shouldn't waste their energy being stuck in the past.

 

[richd213]

Maybe the government should posthumously pardon all gay people that were harmed due to stupid laws based on bullshit.

They won't do it though because that would show that the state is not always right.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

I do. So you lose that argument.

But you're no one. So I still win.

So obviously, the burning of witches was entirely justified, and putting Jews in death camps also was. They all knowingly broke the law after all.

Seriously, where did you get that strange ideas that all laws are always right, and should always be enforced?

I never said the laws are right. Strawman arguments are pathetic.
I said that if you break the laws then you knew the consequences and took the risk. If you do not like the law then you try to change it or you leave. But you do not get to break the law then whine and call the laws unfair just because you do not like them.

 

[dyre]

It's the House of Lords. Why would a bunch of old farts concern themselves with the plight of people they find icky?

If that hadn't been the case, then at least they would have issued a condemnation or something similar to "This is wrong, and should not have happened".

They did say that. They said it was wrong and terrible, and that they won't just sweep that conviction under a rug and try to "put right what cannot be put right"

"It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence 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"

Ah, splendid. They've certainly exceeded my expectations of them. Perhaps they're at least somewhat worth having around after all.

Seems the best they could do, to be honest.

Yup, they did that they could. The OP was just being deliberately misleading to rile Escapists

 

[Daverson]

Erm, I think all this discussion about whether or not you can pardon someone for something that was illegal at the time it was committed is somewhat irrelevant. You can pardon someone for doing something illegal, if it's still illegal today. Unless I'm very much mistaken, that's kind of the whole point of a pardon.

I looked it up on wikipedia, and apparently all British soldiers convicted of cowardice during WW1 were pardoned back in 2006, so it's not like they can't do it. Regardless of what parliament might actually be thinking, in light of this you can only really view it as plain and simple homophobia.