Turing Not Pardoned for Being Gay

[Stickfigure]

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. In addition to being something of a war hero, having helped with the enigma machine and thus allowed Allied forces to decode Nazi communications, Turing had also established many of the primary concepts that helped define both computer science and artificial intelligence. All of the games we play, the machines we play them on, and the AI of the active obstacles we face in them are products of this man's designs.

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.

Recently a fairly large community (~21,000 people) petitioned the UK House of Lords to posthumously pardon the late father of computer science. This request was denied on the grounds that Turing was "properly convicted of a criminal offence." [http://www.i-programmer.info/news/82-heritage/3735-widespread-celebrations-but-no-pardon-for-turing.html] It seems egregious to me that the lawmaking body that was, at the time, directly responsible for depriving the world of one of its greatest minds and committing what would now be considered a hideous miscarriage of justice does not see fit to offer anything in the way of an apology or act of contrition for this.

But hell, what do I know. What do you people think of this?

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

I think Kendarik is correct. It's a terrible thing that was done to Turing, and if the UK Parliament wanted to make a statement that they no longer agree with that position and support Turing (similar to the Catholic Church and Galileo Galilei), that's well and good. They shouldn't try and re-write history by sweeping it under the rug; they should acknowledge the mistake and let it stand as a learning experience.

 

[JoJo]

Technically he does deserve a pardon, since he was a pretty awesome guy and definitely didn't deserve the fate he got, but in practice it's a difficult situation. Look back across British history and there are countless cases of properly applied justice at the time which we would no longer consider just (e.g. witch trials, anti-Semitic purges, execution for petty crimes). In reality it would take a tremendous amount of effort to pardon every poorly convicted person ever, and unfair if we only targeted the famous ones when many other good people also suffered the exactly same.

Better we learn from our past mistakes than to try to undo what's too late to fix.

Edit: Gah, ninja'd on two counts. That's what I get for typing up a long reply

 

[Stickfigure]

I know that it won't undo history. But an official observance of an action that besmirched the good name of a great man and probably stymied years of progress seems... like not all that difficult a thing to do. Hell, it may have taken them centuries to do, but was the Catholic pardoning of Galileo any less important just because he was no longer around to observe it?

I guess the "Well apologizing's not gonna bring him back" argument rings a bit hollow to me. A good step to show that people seek to move forward is to address the sins of the past. Perhaps a broader pardon for all people convicted of indecency with regards to homosexuality might've been a good move. This just seemed... well... like needless posturing for the House of Lords.

 

[MammothBlade]

He got an apology, and that's good enough. You can't erase the fact that Turing was given a criminal conviction, any more than you can erase every criminal conviction in history that is now considered wrong and unjust. What's done is done. The guilt is not on the current British establishment or its people.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

What exactly the point of pardoning someone posthumously? Seriously, what is accomplished?

 

[Stickfigure]

What exactly the point of pardoning someone posthumously? Seriously, what is accomplished?

National recognition of the notion that one's "wrongdoing" was the fault of the system in place? Official observance of black marks in one's history as opposed to simply whitewashing it or even justifying it is deliberate and willful acknowledgement of past misdeeds. An official observation is, admittedly, largely ceremonial, but the proper recognition of history is important in appropriately developing. On macroscopic to microscopic levels, one cannot grow if one refuses to acknowledge their own wrongdoings, however incidental they feel they are.

But let's take that aside for a second. This very same House of Lords that won't apologize for essentially driving a man to suicide because they found him guilty of being "icky" has backed posthumous pardons for WWI deserters in the past (which is still viewed as a punishable offense, if I recall). Yes, they were executed for their actions. But they were no less guilty of being deserters than Turing was of being gay. So... what's the justification?

 

[kurupt87]

I think that if you go back and undo every criminal conviction in history because the laws have since changed you have a mess on your hands. The decision was correct.

With that logic, the Nuremburg trials should never have happened. I mean, sure, what the nazis did was horrible and violated all notions of human rights, but it wasn't actually illegal at the time!

Come on, you know that shit won't fly!

And no, I don't give a crap that I just fulfilled Godwin's Law.

Flawed argument.

Your argument would only be applicable if the Nazi's were still around and they chose to do the Nuremburg Trials.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

National recognition of the notion that one's "wrongdoing" was the fault of the system in place?

Isn't that kind of self evident given that the laws of the time which were broken have since been abolished?

 

[Stickfigure]

Isn't that kind of self evident given that the laws of the time which were broken have since been abolished?

You mean the same way Jim Crow laws have been abolished and now none of the figures that get elected to office are grossly racist and try to enact vote-limiting laws?

There's a difference between incidental legal changes and official acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

You mean the same way Jim Crow laws have been abolished and now none of the figures that get elected to office are grossly racist and try to enact vote-limiting laws?

There's a difference between incidental legal changes and official acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

Right, but the public doesn't need to be told that people who were convicted for violating the repugnant and antediluvian laws of Jim Crow were victims of an unjust system. That is quite brazenly obvious, anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that 'Buggery' was a barbaric law and that subsequently any people convicted for breaking it were victims of injustice. What does telling the public what they already know accomplish? Futhermore, as others have mentioned going back to retroactively overturn every decision where the law has since changed would be an insurmountable task.

 

[Stickfigure]

Right, but the public doesn't need to be told that people who were convicted for violating the repugnant and antediluvian laws of Jim Crow were victims of an unjust system. That is quite brazenly obvious, anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that 'Buggery' was a barbaric law and that subsequently any people convicted for breaking it were victims of injustice. What does telling the public what they already know accomplish? Futhermore, as others have mentioned going back to retroactively overturn every decision where the law has since changed would be an insurmountable task.

Except that large populations actually don't understand that those laws were all that unjust. Much of the Republican party moves to have state laws set up that make it increasingly more difficult to vote if you're anything that doesn't qualify as their party's target audience.

People forget things. Quite easily, in fact. And the less moral people who never agreed with these things to begin with are fond of demonstrating that there is a malaise towards certain minorities by using examples such as these.

No one asked for every decision to be overturned. That is a ridiculous straw man argument and I'd thank you not to resort to fallacies (you were doing a fair job of expressing your point without them). A noteworthy group of people requested a formal pardon for someone who was unjustly tried and convicted of a law that punished an unharmful biological imperative that in no way harmed anyone, including himself. Just as people be no less deserving of a pardon if they were tried and convicted of the crime of having six fingers.

The point isn't necessarily to immediately benefit any one person. This is to embrace a global hero, and offer official acknowledgement of a huge blemish on the nation's history and perhaps give closure to relations and what few living friends of Turing are left. Like if they were to, say, pardon all the deserters of WWI that they executed. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6046010.stm] You know. As an example.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

No one asked for every decision to be overturned.

Then who decides which cases are overturned? Are we only going to seek retroactive justice for those who are noteworthy/historically significant? That's the point, what of the thousands of people who have been victims of unjust legislation in the past? Are we just saying sod it, they're not important enough to be recognised?

The point isn't necessarily to immediately benefit any one person. This is to embrace a global hero, and offer official acknowledgement of a huge blemish on the nation's history and perhaps give closure to relations and what few living friends of Turing are left. Like if they were to, say, pardon all the deserters of WWI that they executed. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6046010.stm] You know. As an example.

Yes, I find that example to be an equally fruitless exercise as well. I'm just arguing against (or at least questioning the merit of) the concept in general (or at least with cases of this kind of age) as I don't think that posthumously pardoning someone, particularly when they've been dead for nearly 60 years has quite the impact/social significence that you seem to claim it does. I don't think it's something that's going to stay in the public conscious for very long, or that there are really that many people outside the people campaigning for this who are closely following the developments of this story. And even then, an apology after the fact rings pretty hollow, I think much more attention should be afforded to implementing/invalidating regulation that would liberate those who are still around to benefit from it.

 

[Stickfigure]

Then who decides which cases are overturned? Are we only going to seek retroactive justice for those who are noteworthy/historically significant? That's the point, what of the thousands of people who have been victims of unjust legislation in the past? Are we just saying sod it, they're not important enough to be recognised?

Fair enough. While offering it to the most notable figures may be a representative act, it does not officially recognize this act. I guess the destruction of a mind that had already in 41 years--

A) Beat the Nazis
B) Invented the modern precepts of computing
C) Invented the modern precepts of artificial intelligence

while egregious, is not the only circumstance in which an apology is noteworthy. A broader action would be a worthy endeavor.

However, what makes Turing noteworthy is that Britain claims him as one of their own and glorifies him as a hero, but still sees fit to set him to recorded history as a de facto criminal, plain and simple. That smacks of hypocrisy, and casts a pall on the whole issue. The people complaining have not simply said "we like him, let bygones be bygones." There are legitimate reasons to demand the pardon of an important, and invaluable, historical figure whose death is directly attributable to the actions of the body who ought to apologize.

Yes, I find that example to be an equally fruitless exercise as well. I'm just arguing against (or at least questioning the merit of) the concept in general (or at least with cases of this kind of age) as I don't think that posthumously pardoning someone, particularly when they've been dead for nearly 60 years has quite the impact/social significance that you seem to claim it does. I don't think it's something that's going to stay in the public conscious for very long, or that there are really that many people outside the people campaigning for this who are closely following the developments of this story. And even then, an apology after the fact rings pretty hollow, I think much more attention should be afforded to implementing/invalidating regulation that would liberate those who are still around to benefit from it.

True, and you made that clear from the beginning. I was illustrating the hypocrisy here of a group that gives the pardon to one type of person but refuses it to the other.

And all the worse if it DOESN'T stay in the public consciousness. It becomes a perversion of history. Why not just start saying that the Native Americans just suddenly started living in smaller areas and building casinos? The recognition of historical events, and the recompenses made for them (however small they may be), is an important act and one that should not be taken lightly.

If one were to run over your pet and not stop, and you confronted him decades later and he didn't offer any apology, stating "Well apologizing isn't gonna bring him back..." then the person clearly has learned little even if he has avoided ever hitting another animal again. The act is partially symbolic, but nevertheless important. Not every act needs to have an immediate, appreciable result in order to be a worthy endeavor.