Pardon for Alan Turing

[Pure]

The British gov't has rejected proposals for a pardon for Turing, computer science pioneer and code breaker for the Brits in WWII. He was convicted of 'gross indecency', aka, gay sexual acts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-no...ng-pardon-lord-mcnally-lord-sharkey-computers

[[e-petition here
http://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/23526]]

Government rejects a pardon for computer genius Alan Turing

But the campaign goes on in his centenary year, with support from all over the world. Leading US mathematician calls for 'hullabaloo in the UK' over the decision

The government has given an initial rebuff to the campaign for a pardon for Alan Turing, the brilliant British 'father of the computer' whose career ended in tragedy after a gross indecency conviction at a time when gay sex was against the law.
[...]
Asked by the Liberal Democrat Lord Sharkey whether a pardon would be considered, to mark this year's centenary of Turing's birth which is the subject of international scientific celebrations, he[Lord McNally] told peers:


[McNally] The question of granting a posthumous pardon to Mr Turing was considered by the previous Government in 2009.

As a result of the previous campaign, the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an unequivocal posthumous apology to Mr Turing on behalf of the Government, describing his treatment as "horrifying" and "utterly unfair". Mr Brown said the country owed him a huge debt. [...]

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

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.

 

[mynameisben]

The British gov't has rejected proposals for a pardon for Turing, computer science pioneer and code breaker for the Brits in WWII. He was convicted of 'gross indecency', aka, gay sexual acts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-no...ng-pardon-lord-mcnally-lord-sharkey-computers

[[e-petition here
http://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/23526]]

Government rejects a pardon for computer genius Alan Turing

But the campaign goes on in his centenary year, with support from all over the world. Leading US mathematician calls for 'hullabaloo in the UK' over the decision

The government has given an initial rebuff to the campaign for a pardon for Alan Turing, the brilliant British 'father of the computer' whose career ended in tragedy after a gross indecency conviction at a time when gay sex was against the law.
[...]
Asked by the Liberal Democrat Lord Sharkey whether a pardon would be considered, to mark this year's centenary of Turing's birth which is the subject of international scientific celebrations, he[Lord McNally] told peers:


[McNally] The question of granting a posthumous pardon to Mr Turing was considered by the previous Government in 2009.

As a result of the previous campaign, the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an unequivocal posthumous apology to Mr Turing on behalf of the Government, describing his treatment as "horrifying" and "utterly unfair". Mr Brown said the country owed him a huge debt. [...]

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

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.

Maybe another hundred years from now. It's rather clear that Lord McNally and his small-minded political ilk would never pass the Turing Test.

 

[estragon]

A "pardon" would mean that Turing had been convicted of a crime, not that he was a victim of an unjust law in an unjust society. One is pardoned for having done wrong, and he did nothing wrong. It is the UK government (and of course the US government and every other government that in the past, and at present, enacts and enforces such unjust laws) which needs a pardon.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I think those offenses on the part of "democratic" governments are unpardonable.

 

[estragon]

I think those offenses on the part of "democratic" governments are unpardonable.

Tio, they need it, but maybe shouldn't get it.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Tio, they need it, but maybe shouldn't get it.

and here in Canada, as seems tobe the case in the US as well, the right-wing thinks that democracy means the majority can impose its will on everyone. The US Bill of Rights, and in Canada the much more recent Charter of Rights and Freedoms, were instituted to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. De Tocqueville's Travels in America, with its warning about the potential abuse of democracy, should be required reading in high schools in all democratic countries.

 

[estragon]

My man G. B. Shaw called rule by the majority, without protections for the minority, to be "a most pestilential tyranny".

 

[Boxlicker101]

I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of persons who were convicted of violations of laws and punished and later died. If those laws were later repealed, should those persons be pardoned?

In the first half of the 19th Century, in the USA it was illegal to help slaves escape. People of conscience violated those laws, and some of them were convicted and imprisoned. Should those people now be posthumously pardoned?

If bootleggers were convicted during Prohibition, should they now be pardoned, since the laws they broke have been repealed?

If one of my remote ancestors was a bondsman in England and was convicted and hanged for trying to keep the lord of the manor from fucking his wife, should my ancestor now be pardoned?

 

[SamScribble]

I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of persons who were convicted of violations of laws and punished and later died. If those laws were later repealed, should those persons be pardoned?

In a word, Boxlicker: yes. Although I think it is unreasonable for the present generation of citizen-taxpayers to be required to pay restitution to the descendants of the wrongly convicted - as is sometimes the case. The present generation of citizen-taxpayers had nothing to do with previous travesties.

 

[oggbashan]

A posthumous pardon is a waste of time.

Alan Turing's achievement has been recognised.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In a word, Boxlicker: yes. Although I think it is unreasonable for the present generation of citizen-taxpayers to be required to pay restitution to the descendants of the wrongly convicted - as is sometimes the case. The present generation of citizen-taxpayers had nothing to do with previous travesties.

This is not a matter of being wrongly convicted. This is a matter of being posthumously pardoned after violating a law which is no longer on the books, and should never have been on the books.

I have no idea how many people were convicted of breaking such laws, but it may me in the millions.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In a word, Boxlicker: yes. Although I think it is unreasonable for the present generation of citizen-taxpayers to be required to pay restitution to the descendants of the wrongly convicted - as is sometimes the case. The present generation of citizen-taxpayers had nothing to do with previous travesties.

Most countries have property laws that say that someone who is in possession of stolen goods has no right to keep those goods, even if they acquired them in good faith.

The loss of income and property generations ago can have hugely deleterious effects on the succeeding generations. There's a pretty strong argument that reparations are due those folks. The money and proprty that their families lost went into the common weal after all, and has been used by citizen taxpayers -- along with interest accrued-- since. You're not paying out-- you're repaying.

 

[oggbashan]

This is not a matter of being wrongly convicted. This is a matter of being posthumously pardoned after violating a law which is no longer on the books, and should never have been on the books.

I have no idea how many people were convicted of breaking such laws, but it may me in the millions.

Some of my ancestors were sentenced to transportation to Australia for offences that now wouldn't merit a suspended sentence.

Postumous pardons are rewriting history. What seems unfair and unjust now fails to recognise that the world was different then.

The only pardons that I think were justified were for SOME of those shot for cowardice in the First World War, or WW2 RAF Bomber Command crew discharged for 'lack of moral fibre' after more missions than US crew ever attempted. The only limit on missions for the RAF was the end of the war.

The 'lack of moral fibre' tag not only meant dishonourable discharge but condemned many of them to being unemployable, when they had endured more than the human mind could take.

For Alan Turing we should be grateful for what he did and regret that the laws of the time didn't allow different sexual orientations.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

A pardon in many cases may not be in order for any, save those for whom there may have been extenuating circumstances. For those convicted rightly of things no longer crimes, though, I think an apology may be due.

 

[Stella_Omega]

For Alan Turing we should be grateful for what he did and regret that the laws of the time didn't allow different sexual orientations.

And for many other men as well, who might not have been as exceptional as Turing but did not deserve the persecution they endured either.

 

[trysail]

and here in Canada, as seems tobe the case in the US as well, the right-wing thinks that democracy means the majority can impose its will on everyone. The US Bill of Rights, and in Canada the much more recent Charter of Rights and Freedoms, were instituted to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. De Tocqueville's Travels in America, with its warning about the potential abuse of democracy, should be required reading in high schools in all democratic countries.

Ask cigarette smokers about the tyranny of the majority.


I believe Alexis Charles Henri Clerel de Tocqueville's book was titled: Democracy In America.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Ask cigarette smokers about the tyranny of the majority.


I believe the title of Alexis Charles Henri Clerel de Tocqueville's book was titled: Democracy In America.

Ask cigarette smokers or other air polluters.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Ask cigarette smokers about the tyranny of the majority.


I believe the title of Alexis Charles Henri Clerel de Tocqueville's book was titled: Democracy In America.

I stand corrected, Trysail; I was thinking of his travels in America resulting in the book.

And yes, there can be a fine line between tyrannies; I have a certain sympathy, though, for King James' edict on religious freedom in New York. All were free to practise their beliefs as long as they didn't interfere with others practising theirs.

 

[ishtat]

Alan Turing should not be pardoned. If he was pardoned it would not change the regard in which he is now held in the slightest.

It would however give the advocates of pardon a warm cosy glow and salve the British conscience; that would be a bad thing. Turing's conviction should remain what it is, a stain on Britain which should persist as a permanent national embarrassment.

The late forties and early fifties were a cathartic period for British "justice." Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley both of subnormal intelligence, and both innocent, were wrongly executed for crimes they did not commit. Ruth Ellis was famously and disgracefully refused a reprieve from hanging for the murder of her faithless lover in the emotional aftermath of a miscarriage.

Chief Justice Goddard, possibly the most vile and perverted man ever to hold the position, and David Maxwell Fife the Attorney General, the man who hanged Bentley and opposed the toleration of homosexuals were of course made Lords. However, History has condemned these men and destroyed their reputations. One of the inadvertent results of retrospective pardons is that the foul work of such men is also forgotten.

We should try to learn from History not to change it.

Intel and Google have done the right thing for Turing's memory through the Turing award.