While there were certain outliers (the hebrews) the fact is homosexuality was largely ignored or even embraced at one time. From the Sacred Band of Thebes and Roman Pan-sexuality to the non sexuality-defined ancient Egyptian culture. It wasn't until monotheism and God took hold that homosexuality actually dealt with much in the way of systematic abuse. That was roughly 1700 years ago, whereas recorded history goes back about 6000 years, fully behaviorally developed human history roughly 50,000 years ago, and homo sapien history extends to 200,000 years.Akalabeth said:
True and yet... not true.
The royal prerogative of mercy is essentially was a monarch-only capacity. But now it's mostly exercised by the Prime Minister or Cabinet who in turn answer to Parliament. Home Secretary judges domestic issues, Defense Secretary judges military issues, etc. Those secretaries are advised by several different bodies depending on the nature of the pardon demanded. But largely royal prerogative is held accountable to Parliament, which is a bicameral system consisting of the House of Commons and, yes, the House of Lords.
For recognizable miscarriages of justice the Criminal Cases Review Commission is contacted and dealt with. For something like Turing's case, where the law itself is construed to be unjust, the House of Lords would be the group to contact. There's a procedure, and it starts with them. They, however, slapped it down, and hence all the hue and cry.
And in response to the second portion of your reply, there's a difference between an apology and an official concession of wrongdoing. The apology is demonstrating that it was unfortunate and cruel what happened to Turing, but not a recognition that he was an innocent and blameless man. He's still a criminal, and it besmirches the good name of a man wronged by his nation. The House has essentially stated: "Yeah, that sucks, but what are you gonna do?"
OK, perhaps it was more eloquent than that, and did actually address a slight wrongdoing. But there's talk and then there's action. To recycle an earlier example with a few distinct alterations, if I hit your mother with a car, escape without being positively identified, and return years later with a tiny apology but no intention to turn myself in for my crime because "I'm trying super-hard not to run over people anymore," my apology becomes a hollow and meaningless gesture.
Yes, official, legal admission of wrongdoing won't undo what happened to Turing. It's not meant to. If one were to apply the logic that it would only be a worthwhile endeavor if it could somehow undo the past, then why even punish anyone for a crime? Just make sure they promise never to do it again! Apparently it's just as good.
It's supposed to return a little dignity to this man and offer up something more than words as contrition for what happened to him and the government's involvement in it.
