No Pardon For Turing

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by samzenpus on Monday February 6, 2012 @01:50AM from the do-the-crime-do-the-time dept.

mikejuk writes "A petition signed by over 21,000 people asked the UK Government to grant a pardon to Alan Turing. That request has now been declined. A statement in the House of Lords explained the reasoning: '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.'"

15 of 728 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's not a choice by Rik+Sweeney · 2012-02-06 01:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

ensure instead that we never again return to those times
Then perhaps pardoning him would be a step in the right direction?

--
Summation 2
1. Re:It's not a choice by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-02-06 02:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In the interests of fairness, they could just change the verdict from "guilty" to "Formally undecidable in many of the most interesting cases". That should justify the special handling.
2. Re:It's not a choice by eternaldoctorwho · 2012-02-06 02:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think I see their point in that last statement. By "undo-ing" this awful thing, they would pretending like it never happened. It's the same justification why the Nazi concentration were never torn down: as a whole, the human race should never forget the immensely awful things that we were capable of in the past. To do so dooms us to repeat it. That being said, I am all for the pardoning of Alan Turing. He was a great man, cruelly betrayed by his own nation.
3. Re:It's not a choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-06 02:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Could offer a blanket pardon, to everyone convicted under those laws.
4. Re:It's not a choice by Chrisje · 2012-02-06 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No. As some other poster already commented, apologizing to his family, or for that matter to all families of people that got persecuted for similar reasons, would go a long way towards the right direction, but a pardon is just silly. The man got convicted, and is dead as a result of what happened A posthumous pardon would just feel like a big wallop of mustard after the meal.
  So at the end of the day I find the statement of the House of Lords quite correct, but would appreciate it if someone could apologize for this. Having said that, this is an endless cycle. In Holland, the Catholic Church needs to apologize for the Inquisition, but the protestants need to apologize for what they did to Catholics after the inquisition, the VOC people should apologize to the Indonesians, West-Africans, South-Africans (the black ones), the KNIL people should apologize to some Indonesians, the Japanese should apologize to some KNIL people I know, the English should apologize to us for taking Manhattan away, the Dutch should apologize to the English for giving them Manhattan, etc etc etc.
  The apology business is a never ending circle-jerk because if I had a dime for every group that has been maltreated somewhere on the planet during mankind's history, I'd never have to work again.
5. Re:It's not a choice by wisnoskij · 2012-02-06 02:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I am pretty sure the UK government did officially apologize for Turing's treatment (And I am sure they mentioned everyone else convicted of the same laws at the same time) like a year or two ago.
  And I concur, while pardoning him does not really wipe the evidence that it happened away it is still a step in that direction and not something that should be done.
  In a way, as a guilty man, he is a pioneering gay rights activist and that should be remembered not pardoned.
  It is no "crime" to be convicted of breaking an unjust law, and it can be considered a virtue.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
6. Re:It's not a choice by Moryath · 2012-02-06 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And I concur, while pardoning him does not really wipe the evidence that it happened away it is still a step in that direction and not something that should be done.
  In a way, as a guilty man, he is a pioneering gay rights activist and that should be remembered not pardoned.
  It is no "crime" to be convicted of breaking an unjust law, and it can be considered a virtue.
  Bullshit.
  The issuance of a pardon can be done in the manner to indicate that the conviction should never have occurred because the law you were convicted under was unjust.
  Which is better: An apology saying "well we're sorry you were convicted but you're still guilty", or a FULL apology acknowledging that the law was so unjust that it never should have existed, much less been the basis of criminal convictions?
  Not only that - if Turing were alive today, do you have any question they would have granted the pardon long ago? If it would be important to grant the pardon to a living person, it's just as important to grant the pardon today, for the peace of mind of his family and for the improvement of society in the FULL acknowledgement that what happened, and the laws it happened under, never should have.
  A man was harassed, persecuted, and driven to suicide by people enforcing an entirely unjust law. A pardon, posthumous or not, is in order.
7. Re:It's not a choice by softwareGuy1024 · 2012-02-06 03:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think you missed his point. Choice or not, it was a moronic law. Even if it was his choice, why should he be persecuted for it?
8. Re:It's not a choice by StingRay02 · 2012-02-06 03:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Perhaps I misread the poster's intent, but I took the conversation as:
  "It's not a choice, so pardon the man."
  "What if it were a choice? Then the conviction should stand?"
  To be convicted of a crime and chemically castrated for being a homosexual is inhumanly wrong. Whether that homosexuality is a choice or not bears absolutely no weight.
9. Re:It's not a choice by bobbocanfly · 2012-02-06 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They turned a blind eye to it when he was working at Bletchley and was regarded as "indispensable" to the war effort. As soon as he was no longer required they stopped turning a blind eye and he was convicted. Many would see that as betrayal.
10. Re:It's not a choice by timeOday · 2012-02-06 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Don't put all your weight on the question of whether behavioral disposition is a choice, or you may get trapped into defending everything from pedophilia to rape to securities fraud. For the most part we don't choose our feelings, only our actions. More to the point is the fact that homosexuality is a consensual choice with minimal impact on anybody else. That is what makes it different than the others I listed.
11. Re:It's not a choice by softwareGuy1024 · 2012-02-06 04:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, the religious martyrs die because they suffer from a debilitating infectious mental illness otherwise known as faith. Once their minds are corrupted by that memetic vector, they no longer have true free will and are subject to the will of the memes that pass through the hive mind. Consumption of a single host is insignificant to the hive, and may even provide vectors for infection of new hosts.
  Wrong, religious martyrs die because they oppose the religious norm. Following the popular conventions of the popular religion is the safe bet that rarely causes you harm. The martyrs may be good or bad, but they are always independent thinkers.
Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-06 01:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

They are actually spot on with this. What entitles Alan Turing to a pardon above all others that endured the same fate? The statement is clear and regrettable, and effectively a pardon to all rather than a select few - it's just not a formal pardon. If they had to do it with every past law that was deemed unfair by modern standards they would waste a lot of time, especially in the United Kingdom.
Something in the HoL statement makes sense: by vikingpower · 2012-02-06 01:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
This train of thought is not so stupid at all. "Pardoning" Turing would help no one, and would not increase his glory. The glory he has, he has in our minds.
QFD

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Here's a beter idea by Hatta · 2012-02-06 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Instead of retroactively correcting the injustices of the past, how about we look at who is suffering injustice today? What are we doing today that future generations will be appalled at? We still persecute people for making harmless personal choices. Let's stop.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!