New Call For Turing Pardon

mikejuk writes "As 2012, Alan Turing Year, draws to close a group of highly regarded UK scientists, including Professor Stephen Hawking, have repeated the call for a posthumous pardon for Turing's criminal conviction in a letter to the Telegraph. The letter has re-opened the debate, which is controversial even for those who support the idea that Turing was treated in an unfair and appalling way, was formally acknowledged by the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2009 when he apologized for the treatment Turing had received. In February Justice Minister Lord McNally rebuffed a 23,000 signature petition for a pardon saying: 'A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense.'"

Comments

He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[StefanJ]

. . . he needs an official declaration that he was never guilty in the first place, and should never have been prosecuted.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. What he did was wrong and he was handled appropriately.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Peter Simpson]

. . . he needs an official declaration that he was never guilty in the first place, and should never have been prosecuted.

As the government always had the option not to prosecute under the law, the least they can do is to explicitly declare the law an error and apologize to and pardon *all* who were prosecuted under it.

It's not about Turing, so much as it is prosecuting people for something they should never have been prosecuted for (and the government always made the decision whether or not to prosecute)

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[kdemetter]

I can't make out whether you are serious or sarcastic.
I hereby invoke Poe's Law.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[somersault]

It wasn't wrong, it was just illegal. There's not really any such objective thing as "wrong" anyway, only what individuals or societies decide for themselves to be moral or immoral. The majority of people don't consider being gay to be immoral.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[girlintraining]

. . . he needs an official declaration that he was never guilty in the first place, and should never have been prosecuted.

I think you're misunderstanding what the Judge is saying. Whether someone's guilty or not does not mean they were right or wrong, ethical or unethical. It means that they met an arbitrary standard based on three criterion; The state of mind of the actor, the actual act itself, and the motivations for doing so. The law is not about right or wrong, good or evil, it is about application of a defined criterion and determining whether it meets it or not. That's it. That is all.

The laws, even back then, were sufficiently complex and vague in many places that everyone commits a criminal offense at least once a day. In the United States, I have played a game with friends I like to call "Who Wants To Be A Felon" -- and then record their daily activities (for one day) and tell them, based on which laws, how many felonies they committed. The rules are: You can't just sit in your house and wait it out, you have to do something you'd ordinarily do on an average day (go to work, use a computer, eat breakfast, etc.) At the end of the day, I collect the cameras and if I can't find a felony you've committed during that 24 hour period, you get $500 bucks. Dozens have tried. Nobody's won so far.

That's the reality of our legal system. It's also why you should never, under any circumstances, talk to the police. I'm serious -- even during a routine traffic stop say "no comment" to every question except your name, address, request for driver's license and other necessary papers. That's why the much maligned 5th amendment was created: Not to protect the guilty, but to protect innocent people that might otherwise, through a lack of understanding of the legal system, wind up convicting themselves for a crime they didn't commit. And yet far too many people give up this right -- 86% of cases never go to trial because of confessions. And let me be frank: When you sit down in an interrogation room, you're going up against an olympic boxer with 20 years of experience questioning people. If you open your mouth, you are going to lose.

Now, with that detailed analysis of why our legal system is completely divorced from the idea of justice, and why the judge was totally correct in saying a pardon should not be issued, let's also consider that Mr. Turing is dead. He won't benefit from a pardon. But we can all benefit from a frank discussion about how society allowed a man to be tortured for being gay, and use that as a stepping stone to more progressive thinking. I think if Mr. Turing were alive, he would be pleasantly shocked to discover in how many places the tides of religious intolerance have been turned back and gays are now given most (if not all) the same legal recognition and protections as heterosexuals are. I think he would also be standing next to people like George Takei in saying that it does get better. And it does.

But only if we remember in the darkness, what we've seen in the light.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Gort65]

The Westboro story is elsewhere.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Orga]

... he's dead.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"At the end of the day, I collect the cameras and if I can't find a felony you've committed during that 24 hour period, you get $500 bucks. Dozens have tried. Nobody's won so far."

Sure you do. You have a pattern of telling a lot of whoppers on Slashdot and I doubt you have even done this once much less dozens of times. Care to post a vid if the story is true? I bet at least ONE of your participants would allow it. Or are you lying again?

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

guys if you don't like the law you need to change it. If you break the law you will be punished, that's how it works. Sure it's hard work changing the law, and even today we have stupid laws that will seem savage and inconsiderate to future generations, but you have a responsibility to tackle it now rather than moan about something in the past.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[ackthpt]

. . . he needs an official declaration that he was never guilty in the first place, and should never have been prosecuted.

Or a declaration that the law used in the prosecution and conviction was an evil, mean and stupid law, put on the books by a bunch of stinkers.

and Britain should never apologise for slavery because it was a totally cool thing with the Crown at the time

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[ackthpt]

... he's dead.

.. Jim.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that makes the posthumous part a bit easier. It would be a shame to have to kill him prior to pardoning him.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[niado]

In the United States, I have played a game with friends I like to call "Who Wants To Be A Felon" -- and then record their daily activities (for one day) and tell them, based on which laws, how many felonies they committed. The rules are: You can't just sit in your house and wait it out, you have to do something you'd ordinarily do on an average day (go to work, use a computer, eat breakfast, etc.) At the end of the day, I collect the cameras and if I can't find a felony you've committed during that 24 hour period, you get $500 bucks. Dozens have tried. Nobody's won so far.

Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole, unless you are playing this game only with a particularly lawless set of individuals.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I often chat and joke with cops that pull me over. I've never been convicted of anything they would not have known anyway (e.g. being unlicensed, or speeding etc.) but I've often got off simply because they thought I was a nice guy. Other times I've had them show me the gadgets in their car.

But I guess, at the end of the day, it comes down to how charismatic one can be; and remember, cops are just normal people too.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a pattern of telling a lot of whoppers on Slashdot
 
Right? She posts multiple times a day, is an expert on everything she talks about and has time to play intellectual games with her friends that involve them carrying around cameras and taking apart their day to look for obscure laws that most people don't realize are laws. Amazing.
 
I think girlintraining just needs to feel important and throws out anything she can and hope that she sounds knowledgeable enough that people who don't know better mod her up to pad her ego.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

. . . he needs an official declaration that he was never guilty in the first place, and should never have been prosecuted.

I don't know if there is such an instrument; but what we really need for this situation(and a fair few others) is some equivalent of a 'pardon' that constitutes a formal repudiation of the law in question.

"Pardon" = "Guilty; but we'll let it slide because something something or other." What we need is a "Law XYZ was total bullshit, even when it was still on the books, and prosecutions for violation of it, however formally correct, are similarly unjust."

It's perfectly correct not to pardon Turing, there's no evidence that the conviction was procedurally or factually troubled(and selective pardoning of cool guilty people is, if anything, an offense to justice itself); but it is worth noting that the 'crime' he was convicted of never should have been a crime.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Kittenman]

There's not really any such objective thing as "wrong" anyway, only what individuals or societies decide for themselves to be moral or immoral. .

Now there's a can of worms.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this is that everyone has a pet law that in their eyes criminalises something that should not be a crime be it blasphemy, age of consent, some drugs or illegal parking on Sundays.

Only social evolution decides when and where these are acceptable or unacceptable, and its not all a one way street.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . he needs an official declaration that he was never guilty in the first place, and should never have been prosecuted.

*sigh* Yeah, sure, and after that, you still won't be happy and you'll start bitching that we need to arrest and imprison the entire bloodlines of each law enforcement official involved in the case.

Then you still won't be happy and you'll demand the closure of the entire district where he was arrested (entirely; all buildings, law enforcement-related or not, and the entire region evacuated) to preserve it as a historical marker and warning against ever doing that again.

Then you still won't be happy and you'll claim we require the obliteration of the entire British Isles just in case anyone escaped the Great Turing Purge to really REALLY mollify your vague, nebulous rage over the memories of the persecution of someone you read about a long long time ago, and we NEED to make sure we teach the world a lesson.

Then you still won't be happy and, to really REALLY REALLY make you forget all this, we need to go back in time and stop the formation of England or any royal bloodlines in that area of the planet, just to make sure this never happens again.

And somehow, you'll still remember that this happened before in some timeline, and it still just BUGS you, y'know? Arrrrrrg! How can you ever be happy? So next, you notice that all these horrible, horrible people involved in this live on the same planet...

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Rob the Bold]

There's not really any such objective thing as "wrong" anyway, only what individuals or societies decide for themselves to be moral or immoral. .

Now there's a can of worms.

The other way is a can of worms, too, since you'd then have to somehow determine which moral code was the correct one -- assuming that one of the existing ones is the correct one, which might not be the case.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[girlintraining]

Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole, unless you are playing this game only with a particularly lawless set of individuals.

Well you don't have to take my word for it. How about a public defender in California who now teaches at Harvard Law and a career detective with 20 years under his belt? This was the video that inspired the game I play, precisely because so many people think like you do.

People like you are in fact so resistant to the idea that they can easily be a criminal too, just like the ones they shun and look at disgust at on TV, that I put my money where my mouth was. $500 seems the magic number for people to give their belief about this aspect of the legal system a spin on the wheel as it were. And it's a real contest, make no mistake man. I take all the footage and logs of what they've done and ask a real and licensed public defender in my state to look over my work and tell me whether it would be actionable or not. A lot of times, I get the interpretation wrong, but never once have I failed to walk out of their offices with a yes vote.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[SourceFrog]

The problem is just look who they're asking for a pardon .. the government, who are little more than a bunch of criminally-minded sociopaths who don't care about doing the right thing. It is a strange concept to even ask such people for a "pardon", as if their "blessing" carries any moral weight - Alan Turing arguably contributed far more to society than any of these people (like Lord McNally). The silver lining here is that I suspect in 500 years, 1000 years, people will still remember Alan Turing positively as an important figure in the development of computing, while if anyone remembers "Lord McNally" (doubtful) it will be as the asshole prick who denied Alan Turing a "pardon".

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Sarten-X]

I personally don't see many felonies, but misdemeanors are commonplace. The most common I see are traffic violations (mostly speeding, failure to signal, and "rolling stops"), but other violations are often so trivial that people don't even realize they're breaking the law. Simple things like having a crack in a window or a garbage can turned over can be against local laws.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[SourceFrog]

Considering that things like "curfew" and "loitering" ("the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time") are amongst the most commonly prosecuted felonies in the US, just to start with, I don't think it sounds too hyperbolic (e.g. http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php). Linger for a few seconds too long on the sidewalk while out to lunch? Sorry, guilty of loitering.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe you do it either. Seems like you are either a super-genius with a lot of time and resources or just a bullshitter. Too may posts where you are an "expert" in divergent areas. I could be wrong, but 99 times out of a 100, it is just bullshit.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[MyLongNickName]

Can I try? I could use $500. If you follow me for a week will you give me $3,500? I am sure you could get me for some non-felonies on me as i do drive and am sure there are some things you could find there. But a felony? Doubt it.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Zordak]

What we need is a "Law XYZ was total bullshit, even when it was still on the books, and prosecutions for violation of it, however formally correct, are similarly unjust."

It's called "changing the law." Like, "Hey, you know how we used to think it was a good idea to say that X was against the law? Well, we changed our minds. We are repealing the law that makes X illegal. You can X all the livelong day if you please. You can X your friggin' brains out. We won't bother you about it. So if anything, good or bad, happens because you just go nuts X-ing from sunrise to sunset and into the dark of the night, c'est la vie and all that. We are OUT of the business of policing X." How much more repudiation of the former law do you need?

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Loitering in and of itself is NOT a felony.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, no. You're absolutely full of shit on this.

Perhaps you mean "misdemeanors" when you say "felonies." Using a strict definition, most adults probably commit a half-dozen misdemeanors every day, give or take. But It's pretty hard to commit a felony without knowing it.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[StormReaver]

Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole...

Go to youtube and watch this video, and then see if you still think it's hyperbole. A career defense attorney/law professor and a career police interrogator explicitly agree: you are committing crimes just going about your day to day life, and if you say anything to the police other than, "I have nothing to say," you may be condemning yourself to prison without even realizing you did something illegal.

So never, ever, ever, *EVER* talk to the police except for those very limited items you must divulge (which, unfortunately, vary from state to state). "Stop and identify" laws come to mind.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[girlintraining]

I don't believe you do it either. Seems like you are either a super-genius with a lot of time and resources or just a bullshitter. Too may posts where you are an "expert" in divergent areas. I could be wrong, but 99 times out of a 100, it is just bullshit.

I'm not a super-genius, just a regular one. Second, I do have a lot of time, but not a lot of resources. Third, it is possible for someone to be well-versed in many different areas of human understanding, without either time, resources, or intelligence, as long as one is curious and persistent.

Lastly, regarding your "99 times out of a 100"... citation needed. *evil grin*

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[CastrTroy]

I think that this is why a lot of places don't want to make marijuana legal. There's a whole bunch of people in jail (in some places more than others) for possession of marijuana , there's a whole lot more people who have criminal records for possession of marijuana. If they all of a sudden decide it's no longer illegal, there's going to be a whole lot of people who all of a sudden want their criminal records wiped clean. There's a whole lot of people who are going to want to get out of jail for things that are no longer crimes. Sure what they did was illegal at the time, but if the state comes around and says, "sorry, we were wrong, doing that isn't actually wrong" there's going to be a lot of grief from people who's lives have been ruined because of unjust laws.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

This gets modded up as well and I find it sad.

Loitering is generally a misdemeanor. And loitering is not waiting too long on a sidewalk. It has a specific definition legally and always involves ignoring an order to move on.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I try? I could use $500. If you follow me for a week will you give me $3,500? I am sure you could get me for some non-felonies on me as i do drive and am sure there are some things you could find there. But a felony? Doubt it.

Conspiracy to engage in gambling across interstate borders. You just failed.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[niado]

Well you don't have to take my word for it. How about a public defender in California who now teaches at Harvard Law and a career detective with 20 years under his belt? This was the video that inspired the game I play, precisely because so many people think like you do.

This is a 48-minute video of a lesson regarding the 5th amendment and "not talking to the police". It seems interesting though I do not feel inclined to watch the whole thing.

People like you are in fact so resistant to the idea that they can easily be a criminal too, just like the ones they shun and look at disgust at on TV, that I put my money where my mouth was.

A "crime" can be somewhat minor, though even with our obfuscated legal system it would be rare to commit a crime by accident. A "felony" is usually defined in the US as a serious crime that carries a prison sentence of over 1 year. I have definitely never committed a felony at any time in my life. (FYI - traffic law violations are not generally considered crimes, though reckless and dangerous violations often are, depending on state/country.)

$500 seems the magic number for people to give their belief about this aspect of the legal system a spin on the wheel as it were. And it's a real contest, make no mistake man. I take all the footage and logs of what they've done and ask a real and licensed public defender in my state to look over my work and tell me whether it would be actionable or not. A lot of times, I get the interpretation wrong, but never once have I failed to walk out of their offices with a yes vote.

Sheldon Cooper, is that you?

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[niado]

I personally don't see many felonies, but misdemeanors are commonplace. The most common I see are traffic violations (mostly speeding, failure to signal, and "rolling stops"), but other violations are often so trivial that people don't even realize they're breaking the law. Simple things like having a crack in a window or a garbage can turned over can be against local laws.

Often minor infractions such as these are not considered criminal.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[niado]

Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole...

Go to youtube and watch this video, and then see if you still think it's hyperbole. A career defense attorney/law professor and a career police interrogator explicitly agree: you are committing crimes just going about your day to day life, and if you say anything to the police other than, "I have nothing to say," you may be condemning yourself to prison without even realizing you did something illegal.

The parent made a specific claim that people in general cannot go even a single day, with $500 on the line, without committing a felony. I stand by my statement that this is ridiculous hyperbole, and I feel that it harms a discussion of the actual issue of the obfuscation of law.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[steelfood]

this is wild hyperbole

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently neither you nor the list creator comprehend the distinction between a civil infraction, a misdemeanor, and a felony.

Simple loitering, failing to shovel snow off your sidewalk, smoking a joint in a park in Boston-- you can be issued a citation for these things and fined. They are not felonies.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[somersault]

The law isn't really about right and wrong though. The law is the law. If you live somewhere and choose to disobey the laws, you have to take responsibility for it. Changing the law isn't necessarily saying "sorry, we were wrong", it's more like "okay, the majority of people are voting for this, so here you go". I don't consider it unjust for those people to serve out their sentences. I'd hope their sentences aren't that big either since even cops and judges probably don't consider weed that big a deal.

I think of the laws against weed and such like as fairly arbitrary things, like speed limits. Nobody's going to apologise for the laws being in place, but if society changes or technology improves to a place where the subject can be viewed in a different light (for example if everyone had self driving cars, or there was some magical new device that meant nobody could ever die from crashing), then the law is likely to change too.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[niado]

It seems that you are correct, as evidently GP is claiming the statement in question is actually true...

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Gambling involves an event with uncertain outcome, ie chance. This involves skill not chance. However I suspect most of the "felonies" that girlintraining finds are in fact misdemeanors and most of them involve poor interpretation of the law like what you just did.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[DerekLyons]

I take all the footage and logs of what they've done and ask a real and licensed public defender in my state to look over my work and tell me whether it would be actionable or not.

'Actionable' != "felony" - you're moving the goalposts, so no wonder you've never paid out the $500. You're telling those that have taken your bet that they're going to be judged by one set of standards - and then actually judging them by a much less strict standard. Not to mention I seriously doubt that an actual 'real licensed' public defender would spend the time pro bono to actually go through the entire day's worth of tapes. (And worse yet, it sounds like he doesn't see the whole day's tapes - just your edited version and biased interpretation of the contents.)

So, like the grandparent, I'm not buying it. You're either cheating, or exaggerating, or both.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[js33]

if I can't find a felony you've committed during that 24 hour period, ... Dozens have tried. Nobody's won so far.

Example scenarios, please. Not that I have reason to disbelieve you, but you are talking about felonies here, not misdemeanors. At least a short vignette and a citation to U.S. Code or state law, and maybe some court decisions, because otherwise the other comments are fully justified in that you're full of hot air.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're still avoiding the questions that have been put out there. You're a big bullshit artist and I hope more people see you for it. Humble your ass a bit and you might learn something.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[chrismcb]

Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole, unless you are playing this game only with a particularly lawless set of individuals.

In other words, pretty much any American Citizen. There are a LOT of federal laws. I wouldn't take this guy up on it, although it would be interesting to know what laws I am breaking;

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

but if the state comes around and says, "sorry, we were wrong, doing that isn't actually wrong" there's going to be a lot of grief from people who's lives have been ruined because of unjust laws.

Well, then we should stop making unjust laws. I'm sorry, but the excuse of, but it will make things difficult is an unacceptable reason for righting the wrong. Pretty sure we all were supposed to learn that in kindergarten (If you confess now, then you'll be punished, but you won't be punished as severely if you continue to lie).

If a law is unjust, then we need to own up to that fact and face the consequences.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Mjlner]

Considering that things like "curfew" and "loitering" ("the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time") are amongst the most commonly prosecuted felonies in the US, just to start with, I don't think it sounds too hyperbolic (e.g. http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php). Linger for a few seconds too long on the sidewalk while out to lunch? Sorry, guilty of loitering.

Hyperbole! Please show a case of someone being charged and convicted for loitering after lingering a few seconds! The loitering laws of the US are primarily used to disperse gangs and I'm pretty sure that in most of the cases, the arresting officer has first ordered the suspects to disperse. The SCOTUS has already determined that charging people with "just hanging around" just isn't enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_v._Morales

I'm neither American nor a lawyer and I'm in no way convinced that the US judicial system is particularly good, but it's simply not true that "in America, everyone's a felon, whatever they do". It is hyperbole, BS, FUD and myth.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[mwvdlee]

How about all the other people that have been convicted of the same "crime". And everybody who has been convicted of other things that are no longer considered crimes. And what about everybody that has not been convicted of things that are considered crimes now?

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Xest]

"As the government always had the option not to prosecute under the law, the least they can do is to explicitly declare the law an error and apologize to and pardon *all* who were prosecuted under it."

For what it's worth they do this for people who were convicted under those laws and are still alive. They can request that their record be whiped clean etc.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Professional Slacker]

Simply theorizing the existence of such a set of morals is enough to show that objectively wrong acts exist. However it is not sufficient to judge any specific action. For any given finite set (of moral systems, acts judged by those systems, meta-moral systems by which to judge moral systems, farm animals, etc) a unique ordering is possible with a first (best) and last (worst) element. There exist some number of moral systems in all of existence (some known by humanity, far more not), of those one is best and from it some act is deemed worst. We can offer commentary on the sub set of moral systems known to man, but that doesn't change set theory. I don't claim to have a useful answer just a theoretically correct one.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[CastrTroy]

The difference between weed and speed limits is that weed can get you a criminal record, while speeding is a traffic offense, which only really effects your insurance prices. Sometimes if you speed a lot, they'll take your car away, but you won't ever get a criminal record. Unless you hit someone then you may be tried for vehicular manslaughter. The problem with marijuana laws is that in many places, they've done polls and found that the majority of people are in favour of legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana, yet the politicians still can't be bothered to put it to a real vote, or to just change the law, even though the majority of the people think the law is unjust.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

A felony is a serious crime punishable by at least a year in prison. Where in the US is loitering a felony?

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Myopic]

It's only a can of words to shallow thinkers. Moral relativism is abundantly self-evident to anyone who applies even a small amount of critical thought.

Most people agree on most moral issues because most people share the same kind of moral brain. That doesn't lessen the obviousness of the relativism. Also, moral relativism does not in any way invalidate the providence of moral determinations. Society is still justified in getting together and deciding what behaviors are punishable.

Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . .

[Myopic]

Calling it "among the most commonly prosecuted felonies" is cute, but your own cite shows that loitering prosecutions account for one percent of all the prosecutions on that list.

Better idea

[Feefers]

Prime Minister Cameron makes a general statement not just for Turing but for all those tortured and prosecuted under what we now rightly see was a terrible and cruel "law". Society has moved on and a bold declaration that not just Turing but all those convicted of crimes of this nature are considered to be pardoned would solidify how far we have progressed.

Re:Better idea

[serviscope_minor]

Your better idea is already coming up.

When being gay was decriminalised, the existing criminal convictions were not stricken from the record, so there are still people in the UK with a criminal record for being gay even though it is not a crime.

Nice.

I believe a new law is being passed to unilaterally strick all convictions of such nature, leaving such people with a clean record.

Re:Better idea

[loufoque]

I have a better idea: we stop wasting precious time of busy people and let them do their work to fix actual problems.
Nothing good comes from dwelling on the past.

Re:Better idea

[Rob the Bold]

I have a better idea: we stop wasting precious time of busy people and let them do their work to fix actual problems.

Aren't there other persons yet alive convicted of the "crime" that Turing was? As such, the problem is contemporary.

Nothing good comes from dwelling on the past.

Isn't there a famous quote about forgetting the past?

Re:Better idea

[Chris Burke]

When being gay was decriminalised, the existing criminal convictions were not stricken from the record.

So when being gay was decriminalized, but there was still a massive societal stigma against being gay causing many homosexuals to stay "in the closet", they would nevertheless have to answer "yes" to "are you a convicted felon?" questions on job applications and list their homosexuality conviction and thus out themselves to their potential future employer?

Holy fuck!

Does the UK have anti-discrimination in employment laws?

I believe a new law is being passed to unilaterally strick all convictions of such nature, leaving such people with a clean record.

Obviously far too long in coming, but better late than never I guess!

Re:Better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK is not a federalized state. You can't commit a "felony" there. So it would be silly for people to ask that question in an interview.

Re:Better idea

[Chris Burke]

The concept of felony is completely unrelated to the concept of federalism. The term originated in English common law.

Which according to Google still applied in the UK until 1967, but doesn't anymore. So yeah I guess it would be silly to ask that now! But is there any requirement to disclose criminal convictions? Or any circumstances in which criminal record is made available? That's really at the heart of the issue I raised in my post.

Re:Better idea

[Xest]

Some employers will ask you to go through a CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check. This is common in the world of finance, or if working with kids. Basically it is you that receives a copy of the check which will list any convictions - there are different levels of check - some may miss off minor things, like say, police cautions for being drunk and disorderly, but effectively the copy you receive lists the criminal records stored on you.

It is then upto you to show it to your employer, if you refuse to disclose it because you don't like what's on there then they can either refuse you the job, or take the risk. If you show it to them it's upto them how they wish to proceed.

But yes, there have been any number of cases where people convicted of being gay all those years ago have been turned down for jobs because of this and didn't realise they could get it struck from their record.

Re:Better idea

[Chris Burke]

But yes, there have been any number of cases where people convicted of being gay all those years ago have been turned down for jobs because of this and didn't realise they could get it struck from their record.

Thanks for the helpful info. And yeah that sucks. :(

Agree complete

[neminem]

An official "pardon" for a joke of a "crime" would just legitimize the "crime", and say "it's ok to be gay, but only if you're a brilliant scientist". The above declaration would, on the other hand, send a much stronger message, and would actually mean something.

Re:Agree complete

[loufoque]

What is a crime and what isn't is arbitrary. At the time, the law, said this was a crime, so it was.
There is no absolute definition of crime, just what a jurisdiction will classify as crime during a certain time period.
Therefore, technically, there is no reason to give a pardon at all.

The thing is, emo people would feel better if a pardon was given, because the previous law was unjust (whatever that means) and therefore changed. So the real question here is the following: shall we throw logic out the window to make the masses happy?
The answer, of course, is no. There is no sufficient popularity to gain to justify such nonsense.

Re:Agree complete

[davidwr]

Legally, the prosecution did not commit any error in law and, if they had discretion to prosecute or decline prosecution, it's hard to make a case that they made an error in judgment.

Parliament, representing the people, did their job as the law reflected social norms of the time and it did not violate any "basic rights" of Englishmen as they were understood at the time.

What is needed in this an any other situation where a government, representing the people and acting in good faith, acts in a way that a future generation realizes is just plain wrong, is an apology from the current government "on behalf of" is predecessor and the people it represented.

Parliament can and should come out and say "Many years ago, our country adopted laws and policies which we now know were morally wrong. We apologize for those acts. We cannot undo all of the wrong that was done, but this is what we are doing...." followed by specific details such as nullifying criminal convictions, etc.

By the way, the text from the pardon refusal (taken from here) says

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

While I agree about never returning to those times and I agree that the past cannot be fully "put right," I disagree that no action is better than partial action. There are no doubt some people who are alive today who would personally benefit from such a pardon. There are also descendants who would benefit in intangible ways from a pardon of their now-deceased family member. Society also benefits when governments admit and, when possible, take action to correct mistakes.

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. What he did then was a crime, and a posthumous pardon (aside from being a huge waste of time) does not help the gay rights movement. Saying "we forgive you for being gay because you're a great Briton" is not an appropriate honor. Being happy that an unjust law has been removed is. A pardon is not an apology. It is very much the opposite.

Re:Agree complete

[neminem]

You will note that I basically agreed with everything you said. (Other than my sarcasm quotes around "crime", which I will stick to.) Yes, it was a "crime" at the time. Therefore, pardoning would be silly, and wouldn't help much with anything, given Turing's long dead, he wouldn't care much. Officially retconning the very existence of the "crime" out, though, while it would do just as little to help Turing, would send the strong message, "we feel this was a terrible idea and are sorry we used to think otherwise." They wouldn't do anything "to make the masses happy", they'd be doing it, at least hopefully, because they *agreed* with those masses and wanted to show their agreement. Yes it was a crime at the time. Yes, the people responsible for sentencing the dude to punishment did exactly what the law said they should have done. But... so?

Re:Agree complete

[Datoyminaytah]

Following this logic, if he were still alive and in prison, there would be no reason to release him once his "crime" ceased to be labeled as a "crime."

Re:Agree complete

[Golddess]

shall we throw logic out the window to make the masses happy?

Lets ignore the fact that the man is dead and instead pretend that he is alive and in prison. How are we "throwing logic out the window" to release a person from prison because the law that put him there was changed/repealed?

No, the real question here is why you think it is ok to incarcerate someone for something that is no longer a crime, just because it was a crime when they did it.

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

... because the previous law was unjust (whatever that means) and ...

Unjust. Adjective. Definition: not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

You're welcome.

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

Also why BOTHER with it? He has been dead for quite some time. There is no reason to retry him (which is what people are asking for) using modern laws. It is a waste of time and money. Something any CS guy (like turing) would probably see as waste. CS guys hate waste...

Re:Agree complete

[Zalbik]

"we feel this was a terrible idea and are sorry we used to think otherwise."

I understand the first part of this sentence, but I'm completely baffled by the second part.

Who is doing this saying? The government? It was a different government at the time Turing was convicted. So are they trying to say:
"we (the current government) feel this was a terrible idea and are sorry previous governments used to feel otherwise"

Why should a current government apologize for the acts of people completely unrelated to them?

Re:Agree complete

[cayenne8]

There are also descendants who would benefit in intangible ways from a pardon of their now-deceased family member.

I do not know that much about Turing, but unless he swung both ways, I don't see how he would have any descendents?

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

"Many years ago, our country adopted laws and policies which we now know were morally wrong."

What, has scientific evidence of their moral wrongness been unearthed?
Has a mathematical proof of its moral wrongness been demonstrated?
Maybe a divine revelation?
No, of course not. They know no such thing. What you mean is, "...which a majority of us now deem to be morally wrong."

Re:Agree complete

[loufoque]

Who is this "we" you're speaking of?
Society?

Re:Agree complete

[loufoque]

There is no room for what I think in this.
The only things that matters is what the law says should apply.

And a judge has already ratified that there is nothing to do as far as the law and the juridical system are concerned.

Re:Agree complete

[VValdo]

Steven Fry agrees:

With due respect to Stephen Hawking, let's not pardon Alan Turing. He did nothing wrong. Let's have him on a banknote. And Ada Lovelace too.

Re:Agree complete

[ribuck]

Parliament can and should come out and say "Many years ago, our country adopted laws and policies which we now know were morally wrong. We apologize for those acts. We cannot undo all of the wrong that was done, but this is what we are doing: repealing all laws against victimless crimes, and releasing everyone currently imprisoned for victimless crimes

Fixed it for you!

Re:Agree complete

[Golddess]

There is no room for what I think in this.

Yes, there is. You claim that we would be "throwing logic out the window" if we were to release a person from prison because the reason for which they were incarcerated is no longer a crime. I for one would love to know how you came to that conclusion.

The only things that matters is what the law says should apply.

So you are saying that you believe we would be "throwing logic out the window" because the law says that people incarcerated of something that is not currently a crime, even if it was a crime when they first did it, must continue to serve their sentence? If the law truly does say that, then I suppose you would be right. But I would love to see a citation for that law.

Re:Agree complete

[MBGMorden]

Well, kinda. Some people who are gay will begin a heterosexual relationship merely to appear normal within society.

They don't really "swing both ways" - they are merely engaging in a facade to appease the masses. Those people may even have children within this relationship.

I actually have a female relative who ended up in such a situation with her husband. After 5 years of marriage and 2 children he explained to her that he just couldn't keep it up any longer (no pun intended) - that he was gay and he wanted a divorce.

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. It was a crime then - it is not now. Calling what he did a crime is considered silly in the extreme today. So why not give a pardon. To Turing and all other convicted using that particular law. Some of those others are still alive.

I don't see how 'logic is thrown out the window'. A law was bad, this hurt people, why not do something about it?

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no room for what I think in this.

Yes, there is. You claim that we would be "throwing logic out the window" if we were to release a person from prison because the reason for which they were incarcerated is no longer a crime. I for one would love to know how you came to that conclusion.

you came to that conclusion yourself. Alan Turing is not in prison. This pardon will not released him from prison. He is dead and it doesn't matter if they pardon him or not. He will still be dead.

The only things that matters is what the law says should apply.

So you are saying that you believe we would be "throwing logic out the window" because the law says that people incarcerated of something that is not currently a crime, even if it was a crime when they first did it, must continue to serve their sentence? If the law truly does say that, then I suppose you would be right. But I would love to see a citation for that law.

Alan Turing is not in prison right now...there is no sentence he is serving...he is dead...

Re:Agree complete

[HPHatecraft]

Legally, the prosecution did not commit any error in law and, if they had discretion to prosecute or decline prosecution, it's hard to make a case that they made an error in judgment.

Parliament, representing the people, did their job as the law reflected social norms of the time and it did not violate any "basic rights" of Englishmen as they were understood at the time.

What is needed in this an any other situation where a government, representing the people and acting in good faith, acts in a way that a future generation realizes is just plain wrong, is an apology from the current government "on behalf of" is predecessor and the people it represented.

Parliament can and should come out and say "Many years ago, our country adopted laws and policies which we now know were morally wrong. We apologize for those acts. We cannot undo all of the wrong that was done, but this is what we are doing...." followed by specific details such as nullifying criminal convictions, etc.

By the way, the text from the pardon refusal (taken from here) says

Vee vere juust follow-enk oorders!

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, should all the bootlegging convictions from Prohibition be pardoned because we later decided that it should not be a crime?

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely.

Re:Agree complete

[AmiMoJo]

This question comes up every time the government apologises for anything, including when it apologised for Turing's conviction.

You have to understand that it is the institution of government issuing the apology, not the individuals or the party currently in power. It's a big like suing a public company - doesn't matter if it is sold on, all the staff are changed and so forth, you are suing the institution and it can still be held accountable for prior actions even if none of the people responsible are still around.

In fact that happened to the government as well. Recently it has to pay out large amounts of money for being complicit in the torture of a man, despite the complicity taking place under the last ruling party and having little to do with the current people.

Re:Agree complete

[NikeHerc]

What he did then was a crime, and a posthumous pardon (aside from being a huge waste of time) does not help the gay rights movement.

Being straight, I can't speak to the gay rights movement. I can say, however, that if England likes the fact that they are speaking English and not German, they owe Turing a *huge* debt because of his crypto accomplishments during WWII.

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a crime and what isn't is arbitrary. At the time, the law, said this was a crime, so it was.
There is no absolute definition of crime, just what a jurisdiction will classify as crime during a certain time period.
Therefore, technically, there is no reason to give a pardon at all.

The thing is, emo people would feel better if a pardon was given, because the previous law was unjust (whatever that means) and therefore changed. So the real question here is the following: shall we throw logic out the window to make the masses happy?
The answer, of course, is no. There is no sufficient popularity to gain to justify such nonsense.

===
to give him pardon would be to pardon his peers, and if any are still alive, there may be a demand from the government for financial compensation for the harm done to them.

Re:Agree complete

[disambiguated]

This kind of defeatist moral nihilism wouldn't be so annoying if it was expressed with a little intellectual humility.

What, has scientific evidence of their moral wrongness been unearthed?

Maybe. You seem to think (with no uncertainty) that it's a foregone conclusion that such evidence is impossible. It isn't.
Mathematical proofs are for math. Science is about weight of evidence, not proof.

You seem to think the only two logical possibilities are moral nihilism or morality from religion. They aren't.

No, of course not. They know no such thing.

Again, so arrogant, and yet so ignorant.

This stuff has been debated for thousands of years, right up to the present day, in philosophy and science (yes, science.) But never mind that -- AC on Slashdot has it all figured out.

Educate yourself, or STFU. Here's a good place to start:

Science of Morality
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions?

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is we still persecute people for victimless crimes and we are still passing NEW laws which persecute people for victimless crimes.

Re:Agree complete

[Mjlner]

So the real question here is the following: shall we throw logic out the window to make the masses happy?

"loufoque, meet religion! Religion, meet loufoque!"

Re:Agree complete

[Anonymous Coward]

After 5 years of marriage and 2 children he explained to her that he just couldn't keep it up any longer (no pun intended) - that he was gay and he wanted a divorce.

Gosh, this is really gay (pun intended).

Re:Agree complete

[ultranova]

You have to understand that it is the institution of government issuing the apology, not the individuals or the party currently in power. It's a big like suing a public company - doesn't matter if it is sold on, all the staff are changed and so forth, you are suing the institution and it can still be held accountable for prior actions even if none of the people responsible are still around.

And this gets us to the real problem: giving a pardon implies that this is sufficient to make up for the misdeed. Turing died before his time, which is a tragedy both for himself and the world, and nothing can change that anymore. Pardon is something a malefactor needs, not its victims, but none remains anymore who could give it. So let the UK always be remembered as the country which drove Turing to suicide and carry that shame around for however long it exists. It has been well deserved.

Re:Agree complete

[Golddess]

I'm sorry, what part of "Lets ignore the fact that the man is dead and instead pretend that he is alive and in prison" was difficult for you to comprehend? If you oppose the pardon because the man is dead, but are ok with pardons for people still alive, just say so.

Properly convicted

[swm]

... But as records of courts and justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.

—Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Godwining it here

[Jeng]

And the Germans don't need to apologize for the Holocaust since the Jews were put to death in what was at the time a lawful process.

I'm sorry, but blaming the rules is just another way to not acknowledge just how badly they fucked him over.

Re:Godwining it here

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Germans don't need to apologize for the Holocaust since the Jews were put to death in what was at the time a lawful process.

If they apologized specifically to one Jew without apologizing to all the others, I think that would be a bit off.

Re:Godwining it here

[Desler]

I'm sorry, but blaming the rules is just another way to not acknowledge just how badly they fucked him over.

They fucked over many people under that law. Why should Turing be the only one given a pardon?

Re:Godwining it here

[serviscope_minor]

I'm normally a fan of Goodwining. Despite the bad rap it gets, it's a remarkably good way of pointing out that the logical conclusion of someone's ill thought idea is to (for example) support the position of the SS.

In this case, I disagree that a pardon should be issued.

A pardon is not the same as an apology, and does not serve the same purpose.

Re:Godwining it here

[Anonymous Coward]

By apologizing you acknowledge guilt. The current generation of Germans had no influence on the actions (or lack thereof) of (some of) their ancestors, just like the current UK government had no influence on the laws that were in place over half a century ago (except perhaps those who are over the age of 77, as they were eligible to vote at that time). Admitting guilt for something you had no say in makes no sense and demanding apologies for such things is ridiculous.

Re:Godwining it here

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have removed God as the source of morality and justice to make the case that homosexuality is not wrong,
then you no longer can logically argue that the Holocaust was wrong. All you can say is that it was legal, and
and we have a different standard now. If there's no moral authority outside of ourselves, then it's just different; not wrong.

Re:Godwining it here

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Godwin, as in Godwin's Law.
So you're not really as big a fan as you claim since you can't be buggered to get it right. And if you are buggered at least you won't be charged by the Crown for it anymore!

Re:Godwining it here

[lewscroo]

Turing surely shouldn't be the only one. But he's a damn good catalyst to get things going to pardon everyone prosecuted under such an unjust law. Do you think this would be brought up at Slashdot (or elsewhere) if the article said 'We need to Pardon Bob Smith for having committed the crime of being gay'?

Re:Godwining it here

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a sign and reminder to the current generation that braying about national pride and the history of the UK is more embarrassing than anything else.

Re:Godwining it here

[Anonymous Coward]

Which Germans? How much, how long and to whom. (genuine question)

Re:Godwining it here

[spazdor]

Or if they "pardoned" or "absolved" him/her of being a Jew, as in "you're not guilty of that crime after all". That's also a bit off.

Re:Godwining it here

[spazdor]

If pardons were issued for the Holocaust, it would not be issued on behalf of any individual German nor of the "current generation of Germans", it would be issued on behalf of the German government or the state itself, which is an institution that outlives individual people. Why should any individual German imagine that *Germany* apologizing incriminates them?

Re:Godwining it here

[steelfood]

This certainly would've been true had Nazi Germany won the war.

Re:Godwining it here

[Jeng]

Why do you think that god was the source of anything?

All that you attribute to god is within you.

Re:Godwining it here

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's a good catalyst because it was mentioned on Slashdot? I'm sorry but I really don't see what you're saying here.
 
Ultimately, this situation doesn't need a catalyst for everyone convicted to be pardoned. There is no process involved that requires that the pardoning start with one person. You're making a fake construct to prove your "point."

Re:Godwining it here

[Thiez]

> Why should any individual German imagine that *Germany* apologizing incriminates them?

Because ostensibly the individual Germans are collectively responsible for the current German government, and the German government represents Germany? Governments and states may outlive individual people, but surely they don't outlive generations, as far as culpability is concerned? Surely in a democracy the government of a country represents the people currently living and voting in that country, and not those living and voting 60 years ago?

Re:Godwining it here

[Anonymous Coward]

The current German government is responsible for obeying treaties signed by their predecessors in office, and they are likewise morally accountable as representatives of the institution, to give apologies on behalf of that institution for the wrongs of their predecessors in office. That's how institutional responsibility works.

Absolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The word of the day is Absolve. Not for the government but for the Crown and specifically the Queen to Absolve Turing
of all crimes moral, ethical, and physical.

absolve /bzälv/
Verb
Declare (someone) free from blame, guilt, or responsibility.
Give absolution for (a sin).

Re:Absolution

[SuricouRaven]

The Queen's job is conditioned upon her not actually doing anything. If she actually started to use the powers of her office... well, everyone loves the queen, she could probably get away with it. But the monarchy would be stripped of all power even on paper after that, and her successors would struggle to prevent a complete abolition.

Re:Absolution

[spazdor]

I think this absolution would be symbolic and not-actually-doing-anything enough, given that the person in question is dead.

Re:Absolution

[mog007]

I doubt that. The queen still retains ownership of a large portion of land in the UK, and leases it to the people for a small fee.

There is no legal obligation for the sitting monarch to do this, it's just tradition. The sitting monarch leases the land to Parliament which then leases it out to companies and citizens, and collects taxes on the land.

The queen uses the money she makes from the lease to live like a... well, like a queen.

Re:Absolution

[Anonymous Coward]

The Queen is the head of the Anglican church, which considers mortal absolution heresy.

So... that is unlikely.

Also good god you don't want the monarch saying anything even vaguely religous. I don't know whether the government or the bishops would be more pissed.

That's what pardons are for.

[Hatta]

If he was never convicted, he wouldn't need a pardon would he?

Let it stand

[swm]

I think they should let the conviction stand.
It is a reminder of how far we have come...and of how far we still have to go.

LOL fags

[Anonymous Coward]

Turing = fag. That butt-humping pervert deserved what he got. He's also burning in hell for all eternity for his sick perversions. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Re:LOL fags

[SuricouRaven]

Unsubtle, no decent hook line. Inept.

Zero out of five troll-points for you. Get back under your bridge until you've learned to do it properly.

Re:LOL fags

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you still found the need to respond. Methinks you were more bothered than you let on.

Re:LOL fags

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks he was mostly bothered by how utterly stupid you appear to be. I know I am but any response is a good response, hmm? I'm sure each comment gets you off which is good because that is about all you get sitting in your dark messy room by yourself. Snickering proudly to yourself how witty and clever you are; knowing deep down that you are no more intelligent than anyone else. You just have time, a lot of time.

Re:LOL fags

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, hey Fred Phelps. Hope you enjoyed getting rammed in port 80 (or the Glory Hole as it's know by hackers) by a whole bunch of anonymous guys.

Re:LOL fags

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear not GP, although your attempt was poor, your 0/5 is a Slashdot troll score, a site which has a long standing reputation for world class trolls. Don't be discouraged; practice on less demanding sites. When you can consistently score 4/5 on most Reddit boards you will be ready for Slashdot.

Pardon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will God pardon him? If your a Christian, perhaps. But most likely not as he most likely never asked God for forgiveness of his sins nor would have received forgiveness.
As for the government, why pardon criminals that are guilty? A crime is a crime. Just because next year your country will legalize having sex with sheep, cows, babies, and any small creature that moves doesn't make it right today, ( or tomorrow for that fact).

Re:Pardon?

[somersault]

Christianity, Islam and perhaps Judaism are about the only people that believe being gay is wrong as far as I can tell. These 3 religions basically worship the same god, and he hates gay people.

What other religions are against it?

Some Christians can tell that it's not right to persecute gay people though, and try to mess with the parts of the Bible that condemn man-sex, to bring it round to their own way of thinking. Kind of admirable, but still ultimately misguided..

Re:Pardon?

[sribe]

Will God pardon him?

Of course not, your obvious homophobia makes it clear that this figment of your own imagination could never pardon him.

Re:Pardon?

[rbprbp]

Just because next year your country will legalize having sex with sheep, cows, babies, and any small creature that moves doesn't make it right today, ( or tomorrow for that fact).

Slippery slope anyone?

Re:Pardon?

[hazah]

Whatever you are smoking, stop, it's really hurting your brain cells.

Re:Pardon?

[DorkFish]

Islam definitely idolizes a completely different god than Christians and Jews. Islam takes only some of the Bible, mixes in a large amount of non-biblical doctrine and sacrilege, provides for man-imposed world domination, and then calls it peace-loving. Christians and Jews worship the same God of the Bible (not Allah). While there are other differences, the primary difference is that Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. I am not sure what you mean by misguided, but I'll comment how I think is appropriate: Sin is sin. Homosexuality should not be the primary focus, as being a liar, a thief, an adulterer, and not loving God are things we are all guilty of committing. If we see just how wicked we truly are, when compared to a perfect God, sexuality becomes fairly insignificant. The Bible indicates that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of God, but neither will a couple of people having sex outside of marriage, people stealing food from a store, nor people lying to their friends. If you swindle another person or a company out of money or a product, you are included in that list. If you commit one single murder, that makes you a murderer. Similarly, it only takes one little white lie to make you a liar, steal only one piece of candy to make you a thief, and you only have to look at one person lustfully to be guilty of the sin of adultery (or fornication). Many people think that they will go to Heaven because they are good. The Bible says that there are no good people. The only way to Heaven is to abandon your sinful life, accept that Jesus took your punishment on himself by dying, and accept his sacrifice as payment in full for your sins. After that, live your life as close to sinless as you can, read the Bible, pray to God in the name of Jesus, and then tell others about how to obtain salvation from an eternity in Hell. True Christians don't get saved as a way to improve life. It probably will make your life more difficult, since you will post things like this on Slashdot, which will result in getting spammed by multiple flamers, probably modded down, and lots of cursings and death wishes will come your way. Salvation should be pursued for the purposes of serving and obeying the God that gave you life, which makes your eternity MUCH better than the Hell we all deserve.

Re:Pardon?

[Kwyj1b0]

Will God pardon him? If your a Christian, perhaps.

Bad grammar, on the other hand, is unforgivable. Eternal fires await those who mix up "your" and "you're". Hell will be slightly hotter than your current residence (under a bridge).

Re:Pardon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Salvation should be pursued for the purposes of serving and obeying the God that gave you life, which makes your eternity MUCH better than the Hell we all deserve.

I have to say that your god is kind of a dick. I mean, he creates humans to be inherently flawed, and then when the original humans behave in a flawed manner as expected, he damns them and all of their descendants to eternal punishment? Oh, except we can get out of the punishment we "deserve" by providing obeisance in the exact manner described in an ancient book. Some of the things we're prohibited from doing according to that book include eating shellfish, wearing clothing made from mixed threads, letting women speak, and having gay sex. Perfectly logical.

Personally, I prefer to think that I'm a pretty decent person, and if I've committed any moral wrongdoings, I'll make amends for them myself rather than letting a millenia-old proxy take the fall for me. I'm a grown up, I can take the blame for my own actions -- and I don't need to take blame for anything my ancestors did.

Look at it from the position of an outsider. Let say that Christians believe "N" crazy things. Given that, we can say that Muslims believe "N +/- 1" crazy things. Sure, they're not equal, but they're roughly equivalent.

Re:Pardon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paragraphs, motherfucker, can you use them?

Re:Pardon?

[mcgrew]

Christianity, Islam and perhaps Judaism are about the only people that believe being gay is wrong as far as I can tell. These 3 religions basically worship the same god, and he hates gay people.

God doesn't hate gays, he hates some of the things they do. He hates some of the things you and I do as well. "Being gay" isn't a sin, having sex with another man is, and that's not nearly as bad as having sex with another man's wife. After all, that one's in the "big ten".

I was talking with a lesbian friend who wished she could be straight "so I won't go to hell." I pointed out to her that it was as much of a sin for me to eat her pussy as it was another woman, since we're not married, and pointed out the core tenet of the religion itself, which is your sins are forgiven. All that is required is that you repent. And as I said, gays' sins are no worse than mine.

Some Christians can tell that it's not right to persecute gay people though

The irony is that people persecuting gays are sinning in God's name. Christ himself said "treat others as you would want to be treated." That makes persecuting people a sin.

Re:Pardon?

[somersault]

I have to say that your god is kind of a dick. I mean, he creates humans to be inherently flawed, and then when the original humans behave in a flawed manner as expected, he damns them and all of their descendants to eternal punishment

This was the conclusion I came to myself actually. It made it a lot less scary to realise that it all wasn't true anyway. Even if the Christian god did exist, he would not be worth worshipping.

It's kind of funny how when you do things with other people, or when given a challenge by other people, it often feels more meaningful and purposeful than it would have if you'd just decided to do the same thing of your own accord. I think of religion a bit like that now. If you're told that life has meaning, it's a lot more comforting to just accept that than to realise that in fact it has no meaning other than what you choose to give it..

Re:Pardon?

[rochrist]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster says you are damned for all eternity.

Re:Pardon?

[DorkFish]

I did use paragraphs, AC. Unfortunately, I my comment was posted from my el-cheapo Android phone, which is set up differently than my pc. When I previewed the posting, I saw that everything had been run together. I decided that I didn't want to spend another 6 weeks trying to fix the posting on my phone, so I decided to click Submit. I knew all along that YOU would be responding, most likely with poor grammar and/or punctuation usage, and that you would most likely be using words that should come out of the mouth of nobody.

My 6th grade English teacher used to tell us that people that use "cuss words" were just too lazy and immature to learn the English language well enough to be able to express themselves well enough to be able to get the point across, necessitating the use of foul language as a "crutch." She was probably onto something there.

Re:Pardon?

[DorkFish]

I ate the Flying Spaghetti Monster for breakfast. Of course, then I had to get the taste out, so I fried up some bacon. All better.

Re:Pardon?

[DorkFish]

Here is a verse from the Bible that shows more detail on who will end up in Hell. This is above and beyond the "big ten," as are plenty of other verses in the Bible. I can provide more, or you can do the research, if you so desire.

(NASB) 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

I completely agree with your statement that people that persecute gays are sinning. Christians are supposed to help people to be able to make a decision in love and respect. Doing so via a form of persecution will most likely harden people hearts. Instead of infuriating them, a Christian should make a non-Christian think, because a decision has to be made voluntarily to follow God. It must be voluntary.

Mcgrew also stated, "God doesn't hate gays, he hates some of the things they do. He hates some of the things you and I do as well." Here is something to keep in mind in regards to this. God might not hate you for being a sinner, but ALL sin will be punished. If you want to accept the punishment upon yourself and endure an eternity of agony, just keep living like you desire. YOU will be punished for YOUR sin, and that punishment will never end. In order to escape the fury of Hell, you absolutely must repent and accept Jesus. Repentance means that you admit that you are a sinner, and then you turn from your sinful lifestyle and live according to God's Word (The Bible).

The part about accepting Jesus means: I'm a sinner. I have broken God's laws, and I'm going to be sentenced to Hell. The only way I can get out of it is if somebody else takes my punishment for me, and if the Judge accepts that. Since God is the Judge, he has already accepted a plea bargain arrangement to keep me from being punished. He allowed his Son, Jesus Christ, to come to Earth as a man, live like the rest of us (but without sin), and to be given the death penalty, despite the fact that he didn't deserve it. God then breathed life back into his Son, bringing him back from the dead, to live eternally as our Savior. This was the plea bargain, and I only have to accept that it was "payment in full" for the wrongs I've done.

Re:Pardon?

[Son of Byrne]

I had a moment of sadness after reading your comment. I know that you'll vehemently defend your beliefs and I'm certainly not interested in persuading you otherwise, but it still saddens me to see thought processes like these. Stuff like this is what I believed for years and years and wasted a lot of time arguing about till I decided to believe in what is believable.

It always seemed absurd to me to imagine trying to convince someone to *un*believe what they're already 100% convinced of. If you get curious though, then trust me when I say, there's plenty of literature that will help you understand.

Ill second your Godwining motion....

[TiggertheMad]

And the Germans don't need to apologize for the Holocaust since the Jews were put to death in what was at the time a lawful process.

I'm sorry, but blaming the rules is just another way to not acknowledge just how badly they fucked him over.

Your point is valid, that legal behavior isn't necessarily moral behavior, and that admitting that he was wrongly prosecuted is implicitly suggesting that the people in power at the time were in the wrong. However, I don't actually believe that the Nazis ever actually bothered to legalize the murder of Jewish people under the legal system, they just went ahead and did it anyway. They didn't really bother with stuff like trials, for all but the most rare of cases. I'm sure that someone with more historical knowledge of the 1930s German court systems can add additional information to the thread, though.

Re:Ill second your Godwining motion....

[Anonymous Coward]

Jews were typically declared "enemies of the State" by the Nazis, allowing for their persecution. The reality was that it was the State which was the "enemy of the Jews."

Outrageous

[MyLongNickName]

I am about 40 years old, and for most of my life considered homosexuals to be somehow inferior with through genetics or lifestyle choice. My world view has changed quite a bit, mostly by seeing real-world homosexuals, and strangely enough a closeted homosexual who claimed to be "cured".

It is hard to put a date on when my view changed, but now I see how wrong I was and fully support same-sex marriage and make sure to show my support as a way of undoing some of the ignorance I helped spread.

In the same way, we have an opportunity to not just pardon Turing, but express just how wrong we were. It will never erase the harm, but it will help heal the wound.

Re:Outrageous

[Trillian_1138]

As a queer person, thank you for A) being open to changing your mind and B) sharing that experience. As Dan Savage noted, most of the people who voted for marriage equality this past election were straight. I don't always agree with Savage, but here he was spot on: The LGBT community owes thanks to the straight allies, and I appreciate you weighing in on this /. discussion to speak your mind.

Re:Outrageous

[jarlsberg71]

I second Trillian_1138. Thanks for growing as a human being. May others learn what you have.

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

In contrast, my attitude hasn't changed much over the years of my own ordinary 20-year heterosexual marriage. It's summed up by a pretty famous quote by a politician in my country: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." Furthermore, if people want to get married and take on the benefits and responsibilities that come with that kind of commitment to another person, I can't see how their gender enters into the equation. The government should recognize it regardless. In my country, they already do. I think the idea that the government recognizing same-sex marriages somehow diminishes heterosexual marriages is ridiculous. At the time the idea first came up, I admit I had to think about it a bit. But I quickly realized it would have ZERO effect on my own marriage or how much I love my wife, so why not? How could I deny other people the same opportunity that I have had?

If my wife and I lived back in the time that Turing did, we'd probably have been in trouble with the law and or society's perceptions too (Living together out of wedlock! Oh my!). Thank goodness things have changed, and consenting adults can find their own way through their relationships with little government interference. The less the better.

As for the pardon, honestly I don't see much point unless you are going to do it for everyone previously convicted under that law and related ones. I personally think the apology should be enough and that doing more is redundant, but if people want to take another step to make an even stronger point that we have moved on, then do it for all. You shouldn't have to be a scientist and war hero to acknowledge the mistake that was made.

Oh for crying out loud...

[Ga_101]

I really do not get this "You must apologise for everything!" mentality that has sprung up over the past 15 years or so.

I'm from the UK. The UK has done some seriously horrible things in both it's distant and recent history.
While Turing is a personal tragedy, his story isn't even a blip on the radar of what has been carried out by my country in the grand scheme of horribleness.
Yes. Outlawing homosexuality is wrong. Leaving India, Ireland etc. to starve is wrong. Conquest at the barrel of a gun is wrong. Slavery is wrong. We get it. But, to be harsh, the current generation isn't really disputing any of that. Your beef is with the generations that have come before, rotting in their graves and if given their lives again, probably would have done the exact same thing.

What meaning does a pardon or an apology have if it is not from those that actually performed the act?
For it just smacks of the worst kind of tokenistic politics.

I for one am sick to death of meaningless apologising for the many and numerous mistakes of my parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on.
I have enough mistakes of my own to be accountable for.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Darth Snowshoe]

I think a better thing than a pardon, which is legally if not rhetorically problematic, would be a monument. This would be more meaningful.

It needn't be big, or central, or tremendously expensive. It could just be a quiet place people could go to, to pay their respects. The could read a bit of his story, and think about what he did, and about the other people these laws effected. Rather than being a divisive thing, it could be a place for healing or unburdening.

I know, this sounds stupid on the surface. But I'm thinking about the Viet Nam Memorial in Washington. It was very divisive at the onset. But it's the one place in DC that is truly quiet, and truly moving.

If you really want to do something respectful for his memory, recognize his sacrifice, make amends to his ghost - the monument is the way to go.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[MozeeToby]

But, to be harsh, the current generation isn't really disputing any of that. Your beef is with the generations that have come before, rotting in their graves and if given their lives again, probably would have done the exact same thing.

Queen Elizabeth was crowned the year Turing was convicted. Now, the monarch is certainly not all powerful, but you can hardly say that the crime was committed by a generation of people long dead and buried when the head of state at the time remains the head of state today.

As for what's makes Turing such a special case that he personally deserves attention against a background of crimes committed to millions: He was one of the smartest, most influential people of his age, he laid the groundwork for modern computing, there is no telling what kinds of advances might have been possible in the world of computers if we had his insight for another few decades. And more than that, Turing was a fucking war hero. His work in code breaking and computer engineering saved countless allied lives during WWII. And how did his country repay him? Prosecution, insults, public humiliation, and finally castration. Because he had a consensual relationship with another man.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will help dispel the last vestiges of old prejuidices. In the same way I think a monument to all of the slain, enslaved and expelled Irish and Indians should be erected front and centre in Buckingham palace, Westminster, and outside number 10, so that the remaining prejuidices against all these people can likewise be let go of. And there's still plenty of it in jolly old engerlund.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep I'm bloody sick of it too, and how far can it go? Should the Italians apologise for everything they, as Romans, did in their conquests? Should France apologise for Napoleon? Should Germany apologise for the Goths? Should Iran apologise for Persia? Iraq for Babylon? How about the Greeks?

Fuck all this apologising. If it's in recent memory, set it straight for those who are directly affected, but catering to their descendants is a fucking waste of time.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Anonymous Coward]

Name some other people in the UK who were powerful in 1953 and remain powerful today. I don't think you can.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Ga_101]

I hate to point this out, but there were not many people in their mid twenties in any position of power in the 1950's.
That and the vast majority of Elizabeth II's generation are very much dead.

Thankfully old men die and attitudes change.
Unfortunately it often takes the old men dying for it happen.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[MozeeToby]

The point I was making is that 70 years isn't so far, the ideas and attitudes aren't that far removed from the present; in fact there is a significant minority who would see those laws reenacted if they could get their way. Think about it this way, there may not have been many people in power then in power now, but I can guarantee you that there are people who worked in those offices then that are running those offices now.

The government making an explicit declaration "the way we treated homosexuals was wrong, especially in the case of Turing" would go a long way toward cementing that view in the public's consciousness.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[MozeeToby]

Last I checked, there aren't groups of Romans saying they should really reconquer the Germanic regions. There's not many Frenchmen longing for the return of their military dictator. You know what there are though? Homophobes who would gladly see those laws put back on the books. Who would happily castrate anyone who performs a homosexual act. It's not just about apologizing, it's the government saying "what happened was wrong, and it will never happen again".

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[hey!]

It's not that you "must" apologize for everything. It's that in so many cases, apologizing is the rational thing to do. Cases like this are the extreme example. Not only the people who were harmed by the wrong in their grave, the people who might be harmed by the apology are in their grave too. True the benefits of apologizing are not so high, but the costs are nil.

Apologizing is often a cheap way to alleviate an unproductive conflict, or in this case to help sweep the political detritus of a largely finished unproductive conflict off the political stage. In my country there are people who have an irrational fear of our government apologizing - as if people will stop fearing our drones and smart bombs and our global force projection capabilities if one of of leaders ever utters a humble word.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I think the apology obsession is really about.
Despite the comments here, the opinion that the anti-sodomy laws were wrong is far from unanimous.
People want an official declaration that their beliefs are now enshrined in law, and that the opposition is officially out of favour.

Re:Oh for crying out loud...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your beef is with the generations that have come before, rotting in their graves and if given their lives again, probably would have done the exact same thing.

First, if any nation is going to take pride in the good things that it's ancestors constructed, it should also take responsibility for the crimes of those ancestors.

Second is the matter of precedent. We should pass judgment on past generations to set an example, so that people today think about how future generations will judge us. A lot of decision makers care about posterity's opinion of them.

Third, this gives us a good chance to push back against conservatism--the demand that we defer to the "wisdom" of the past.

who gives a fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously. who gives a fuck? he's dead, who cares, move on. pardoning him has no real effect on today's world, so there's no need to do it.

Re:who gives a fuck

[Gort65]

seriously. who gives a fuck?

I imagine his relatives for a start...

Re:who gives a fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, his relatives seem OK with the formal apology and aren't calling for anything more. Most of them appear to accept that the conviction was made and understand that it was the law at the time. They're sad that his life was ruined but are remarkably reasonable about the whole thing.

Stop imagining, there are plenty of interviews that actually show what his relatives think of things.

How about we all stop demanding some paper pusher to file some forms and build a statue to Turing and his achievements instead. That would have far more impact on the current and future attitudes towards Turing and what was done to him.

Not just Turing...

[hpa]

... but everyone ever convicted under this barbaric law should have their convictions expunged. Keep in mind there are probably some that are still alive, which makes it even more important.

Re:Not just Turing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally. The idea that we should be pardoning anything is silly; "we forgive you beacuse you were a great boffin"

It is us that should seek a pardon from Turing for inflicting such barbaric treatment on him. Him and every other poor soul we did it to.

And by "us" I don't mean any individuals born way after his death should feel personal remorse for it of course; we're citizens of a democratic state - that is the "us".

time to soundly rebuke homophobia?

[sribe]

A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense.

Don't let bigots hide behind this kind of sophistry; forget a pardon; let's have parliament declare that the law was inhumane, unjust, invalid, and that all convictions are vacated.

Nope, I don't live in the U.K. and don't know the legal process enough to fill in the details. However, the U.S. and British system share deep roots, so I expect that our concept of vacating a conviction has some parallel there. Here, it is normally done for egregious legal error during the trial, but I am sure that it could also be legislated...

Fine, we don't care if he was gay now...

[argStyopa]

OK in 2012, everyone's cool with Turing being gay today...but honestly, when does this shit stop? Retroactive pardons? Retroactive suspension of the conviction and expunging of the record?

I agree in principle, but what's the Statute of Limitations on historical grievances? Can we just settle on one generation or 50 years, whichever is greater?

Or are we going to go through history and insist on apologies for everything everyone ever did wrong or had wrong done to them? Go back far enough and everyone's a victim of something at SOME point.

Because frankly, the very idea is colossally stupid.

Re:Fine, we don't care if he was gay now...

[Kittenman]

OK in 2012, everyone's cool with Turing being gay today...but honestly, when does this shit stop? Retroactive pardons? Retroactive suspension of the conviction and expunging of the record?

I agree in principle, but what's the Statute of Limitations on historical grievances? Can we just settle on one generation or 50 years, whichever is greater?

Or are we going to go through history and insist on apologies for everything everyone ever did wrong or had wrong done to them? Go back far enough and everyone's a victim of something at SOME point.

Because frankly, the very idea is colossally stupid.

Didn't one of the popes apologize for the crusades? Useful.

He probably won't get one anyway

[Kergan]

However controversial, the Justice Minister's point seems to make sense from a legal standpoint: issuing a pardon could be interpreted as the UK government accepting liability for these past events, in a similar way that issuing apologies to African countries for the triangular trade might.

Reason why Turing cannot be pardoned

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe because Law is not a Turing-complete Language?

Changing legal precedent

[sjbe]

'A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense.'"

Lots of things are criminal offenses that should not be. The fact that it may have been the law at the time does not make it in any way justifiable. A pardon would hurt nothing, cost (almost) nothing, and show that we've evolved. While I think that apologizing to a dead person is a ridiculous idea, the idea of overturning a terrible legal precedent is not silly at all. In theory this verdict could be used to support future government sponsored lynchings if it is not overturned.

Re:Changing legal precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

'A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense.'"

Lots of things are criminal offenses that should not be. The fact that it may have been the law at the time does not make it in any way justifiable. A pardon would hurt nothing, cost (almost) nothing, and show that we've evolved. While I think that apologizing to a dead person is a ridiculous idea, the idea of overturning a terrible legal precedent is not silly at all. In theory this verdict could be used to support future government sponsored lynchings if it is not overturned.

I don't think you understand the concept of precedent in English law. This is nothing to do with legal precedents. For one thing, he was convicted in a court that can't set precedents (only Appeals Courts and higher can). The fact that a criminal is pardoned for a crime doesn't cancel out any precedents set. A third factor is that he was only one of many, many men prosecuted for this crime, before and after his case, and his case involved no novel points of law or evidence. The law was morally unjust, but there have never been any suggestions that his particular case was unjust in the sense that he wasn't actually a homosexual, or hadn't done the acts he was accused of.

Turing was convicted under a Victorian-era statute law, passed by Parliament, that unequivocally criminalised various male homosexual acts. This statute law was repealed a few decades after his death by another statute law. Explicit statutes over-ride precedents. There is no question that homosexual acts were undeniably illegal in the 1950s, and no question that they certainly aren't now.

Re:Changing legal precedent

[misexistentialist]

A pardon doesn't affect legal precedent at all, since it's a special exception. Pardoning Turing could just mean he did important work unlike the typical gay who deserved to be punished; or it could mean that Turning was framed, and wasn't actually gay. Even the symbolic meaning is ambiguous, since while it draws attention to past injustice, it sort of nullifies it at the same time.

It's not about the pardoning of a dead person

[sjbe]

OK in 2012, everyone's cool with Turing being gay today...but honestly, when does this shit stop? Retroactive pardons? Retroactive suspension of the conviction and expunging of the record?

The problem is that the legal precedent stands and can be used to support future cases. I agree that apologizing to the dead is quite silly but changing bad legal precedent is an extremely good idea. The point is to prevent future acts of malice by the government. If we honor the contributions of the victim in the process then that is just a bonus.

Re:It's not about the pardoning of a dead person

[argStyopa]

But hasn't the law been changed?

Homosexual acts were in fact illegal at the time. Setting aside the reasonability of the law itself, on a binary "did he or didn't he" basis he WAS guilty of breaking that law.

To suggest that we're overturning some sort of precedent is sort of moot if the law no longer exists, certainly, or am I misunderstanding?

On the other hand, and taking YOUR argument further, if we proceed along this course and (as seems quite likely, for example) marijuana is legalized generally, are we in fact setting a precedent that we have to retroactively pardon the 000's (if not 00's of 000's) of people cited/convicted/imprisoned for marijuana distribution/use? Worse, would such a precedent logically lead into some sort of claim for retroactive damages?

Re:It's not about the pardoning of a dead person

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people still alive who have standing convictions for this; at very least we should declare that they did nothing wrong other than love each other in spite of a climate of hatred against them.

Re:It's not about the pardoning of a dead person

[sjbe]

But hasn't the law been changed?

Case law matters. Common law legal systems consider precedent when making decisions. While it is not always binding, it does shape decisions and there is a strong reluctance to deviate from prior decisions without good cause. If the law changed once it could change again and if the case law supports acts of institutional hatred, then it will matter. I realize it is unlikely to be a problem but there is the possibility that it could matter someday.

Setting aside the reasonability of the law itself, on a binary "did he or didn't he" basis he WAS guilty of breaking that law.

Even when true that does not require the judgement to remain standing. Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong - sometimes logically and sometimes morally. Seems appropriate to try to right the wrongs and ensure they never happen again if possible.

How about a general pardon?

[davidwr]

How about a general policy of offering general clemency to anyone at any time in history who was convicted or punished for a crime which would not be an offense today or if it was, its maximum sentence or "severity" would be less today than what the person received?

In other words, don't give Turing special treatment, extend the pardon to everyone who faced similar charges in similar circumstances.

Tell that to black people.

[lewscroo]

Yeah, that's why I think runaway slaves should be and forever will be looked upon poorly. I mean, they knew what they were doing was against the law. Harriet Tubman was just a lawbreaker and enabler for those criminals, plain and simple. And Rosa Parks was just a troublemaker who deserved to go to jail. And those stupid interracial couples daring to love each other when the laws clearly stated that wasn't allowed. Don't you know two consenting adults can't just go around having sex with whomever they want and think that the government shouldn't be punishing you for it. (sorry I don't know British equivalents though I am sure there are plenty)

Re:Tell that to black people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you realize it or not, your strawman argument makes you a shill for the law that Turing was convicted of violating.

Either argue againt the flaws in the government's actual position, or just come right out and admit that you really do hate gays. Either way, stop lying.

Re:Tell that to black people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it better to say "we're sorry about Rosa Parks, but not about the law in general, and everyone else who suffered under it was justly served"? Or possibly "we're sorry about Rosa Parks, we now realize she wasn't really black after all", Which of these would be less offensive? Because that's what pardoning Turing would mean.

Nobody is saying that Turing deserved to go to jail, and nobody is saying that they 'look upon him poorly' for any reason. Lawbreakers in their own time are often treated as heroes or saints by later generations. Nelson Mandela, Tom Paine, Joan of Arc, Robin Hood, Jesus of Nazareth... do you think these people are "stigmatized" by the fact that they were all acknowledged criminals?

Baroness Trumpington

[aleatorictelevision]

If it's good enough for Baroness Trumpington, then it's good enough for me!

Goodness Gracious

[Anonymous Coward]

I am deeply saddened to hear the news that Justice Minister Lord McNally is an asshat. I humbly propose a petition in which it is requested of the British Government to formally rescind the title of "Lord" from this individual. A title of such distinction should not be accorded to asshats.

"Who Wants To Be A Felon"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're on! I go several days each week without committing any felonies and I can prove it!

I just have to add two more rules: My lawyer reviews the camera before he turns it over to you and I get to say "sorry, not today, maybe tomorrow?"

Within a week you'll owe me a grand or two.

It's also why you should never, under any circumstances, talk to the police.

AMEN brother!

Non-speak

[GuldKalle]

"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense."

That's what pardons are for!

Re:Non-speak

[Anonymous Coward]

no they're not. pardons are for when you want someone already convicted of a crime under the law to not be punished for it. it doesn't have anything to do with the law being just or even necessarily the guilt of the person convicted.

This is England

[davidwr]

Turning was not a smoke-able form of tobacco.

Will God pardon him?

[davidwr]

Will God pardon him? If your a Christian, perhaps.

I certainly hope God's decision to pardon Turing is not based on my being a Christian.

Why Turing, and where do we stop?

[timmyf2371]

What makes Turing any different from any other person who was convicted of this offence back when it was illegal?

I'm aware of his work on the Enigma machines and he is quite rightly recognised for this, but a person's achievements should have no bearing on how they are treated in the eyes of the law. If we go ahead and pardon Turing, we must go ahead and pardon everyone else who was convicted under the same legislation.

Similarly, what makes the law against homosexuality any different or any worse than other laws which have changed over the years?

If you follow this idea to its logical conclusion, then we must surely go ahead and pardon anyone whoever lived, who was ever convicted of something which is no longer a crime. And of course, a formal process would need to be created to ensure that pardons are issued in the future if and when we change other laws.

So I've nothing against pardoning Turing and would probably consider it a good idea. I just feel it's important that we act in a consistent manner and understand the consequences which would come with such a solution.

Re:Why Turing, and where do we stop?

[Hatta]

Why not issue blanket pardons to anyone convicted of a law that has been repealed?

invalid argument

[roc97007]

> 'A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense.'

...but that's exactly what a pardon is for -- forgiveness of a crime. It's acknowledgement that a crime was committed, and that the crime is forgiven. How does "properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense" have any bearing at all?

Let it go

[Jetra]

People need to leave the past in, well, the past. This is what ticks me off. Blacks keep saying that they want reparations for slavery. I won't give them dime one. The grandparents maybe, but the newer generation need to shut up. What might have been wrong yesterday does not apply today when the law changed overnight.

Re:Let it go

[admiralh]

Apparently you don't realize the massive advantage that accrued to whites as a whole due to slavery, Jim Crow, and other forms of wage theft that blacks suffered through history.

The average white person receives gets significantly more wealth from his/her parents, and the reason for that is because their parents were able to pass down more wealth, and so on.

When a class (or race) systematically have their entire wealth stolen, they cannot pass wealth they do not have on to their children. That disparity is not solved in a single generation.

Oh, and telling people to "shut up" because you disagree with them, how very Limbaugh-ian of you.

Re:Let it go

[operagost]

You're still punishing people who were not at fault for those who came before them. The blood money you're calling for comes from the blood of those who are living, not those who are dead. We have a social safety net to help those who might not have been born into opportunity. At various times in our history, Irish, Chinese, and Mexicans have faced challenges due to their origin at various times in our history, and as individuals they have risen above the admittedly unfair situation to succeed.

Re:Let it go

[Jetra]

Rush Limbaugh can jump a hole full of monkey feces. It was a different time. Tell me why I should have to pay for my great grandparents mistake? That's like having the kids go to jail because the parents are serial killers.

Re:Let it go

[Jetra]

Michael Jackson, Al Roker, Reverend Jesse Jackson, there are tons of blacks who are better off now than those came before them. Hell, look at Obama, if you tell me with a straight face that blacks today don't have the opportunity now than 200 years ago, you need a history lesson.

Re:Let it go

[mrjimorg]

The recipients of that stolen wealth were Southern plantation owners who saw their cities and homes burnt to the ground during the civil war. When you combine that with the fact that only about 10% of wealthy people acquired their wealth through inheritance and the many generations that have passed since those days, you will find that there are very few people today who can trace their wealth back to slave-owning days. Yet, everyone who shares their skincolor are assumed to be guilty of a horrible crime, despite that many of us can trace our ancestry to those who fought for the North against those slaveowners and who had brothers who died fighting. And yet, despite the sacrifices of my ancestors, I'm being told that I should be punished for the sins of those that they fought against!

Re:Let it go

[znanue]

It could be argued that you profited from their mistake.

Z

Re:Let it go

[admiralh]

I never said that blacks today don't have more opportunity now than 200 years ago. What I said was that the economics of the wage theft that occurred then is still evident in the relative wealth of blacks vs. whites.

You can always point out individuals that have done better (notice your examples made their money in the entertainment industry, so too Paul Robeson, Bill 'Bojangles' Robinson, Lena Horne, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods).

But taken in the aggregate, whites have benefited from the wage theft that occurred throughout history. It's becoming more class-based (more whites are getting wages stolen because of laws like Right To Work and such) but race is still a big component of it.

Ever wonder why "Right To Work" laws were first passed in the South in the 1950's, at the beginning of the Civil Rights era?

While I don't believe that direct-payment "reparations" are the answer, to dismiss proponents with "shut up" is to ignore the history of black/white disparity.

Re:Let it go

[khallow]

Apparently you don't realize the massive advantage that accrued to whites as a whole due to slavery, Jim Crow, and other forms of wage theft that blacks suffered through history.

And you don't "realize" it either. These sorts of racist myths need to die a hard death.

Re:Let it go

[Jetra]

I'm tired of Reverend Jesse Jackson spewing his "Racist" preaches. Every time he does, we have to give more reparations to blacks, thus giving them little incentive to work. Our economy can't handle the stress of supporting a massive unemployed populace.

I'm not saying ALL blacks are lazy, but I've seen a number that refuse to work because their being paid for the suffering of their forefathers. This is disgusting to me morally because I don't want to profit off my dad's corpse for years to come and it's sickening to see them do such a thing. If I were paid for doing nothing, I would sit and not work (well, not really because that's what I've been doing the past few years.I have tried hard to get a job/go back to school, but nobody hires me).

Yes, there was slavery. Yes, we should repay the blacks that were alive before 1990 and the family of the the Little Rock Shooting.. No, we shouldn't repay the blacks kids because they don't want to work. I'm not saying "ignore it," I'm saying that history is what it is and no amount of money can ever fix it or should fix it. If someone runs over your grandmother should money fix it? No, that guy should go to jail.

I suggest a role reversal for a decade.

Re:Let it go

[rochrist]

What fucking 'reparations' have we given to black people? Letting the ride up front in the bus?

Re:Let it go

[Jetra]

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Re:Let it go

[ireallyhateslashdot]

Yeah, because white people don't collect welfare. Only black people. (and, yeah, that's sarcasm)

Re:Let it go

[Jetra]

Yes because 39% is much lower than 38%

Re:Let it go

[bartoku]

It could be said that the modern African American population has profited from slavery as well; they could have been born in some African nation under a dictator instead of America.

Re:Let it go

[Khashishi]

The only conceivable fair way to have any reparation paid out is to take it from old estates, and not on any money earned in this lifetime. But, frankly, there is no practical way of assessing who owes what. Therefore, I think that a general inheritance tax is the most fair form of tax.

Re:Let it go

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said that blacks today don't have more opportunity now than 200 years ago. What I said was that the economics of the wage theft that occurred then is still evident in the relative wealth of blacks vs. whites.

When you say "Whites", what exactly do you mean- English, Irish, French, German, Russian, Italian, etc.? There is no such thing as a "white" race, and most ethnic groups have faced some pretty serious prejudice at times. The northern chapters of the KKK spent most of their time hating on the Irish and the Catholics, just as one example. The Asians have all had the short end of the stick, the Jews have had plenty of rough times, and while we're bringing up past wrongs how about we talk about Women in general?
For most of us "white" people, our ancestors didn't see any benefits from slavery either directly or indirectly. My ancestors got fucked over in the coal mines for generations before finally digging their asses out of poverty following WWII by using the GI programs. Some of them died fighting in the Civil War. And you have the balls to come to me and tell me that the blood of my ancestors, who NEVER saw any gains from their skin color, and literally had to claw their way out of the dirt, was not enough and that I ought to give you more money now? Fuck off.

Re:Let it go

[ireallyhateslashdot]

No, it's about the same; the difference is 1%.

Re:Let it go

[Jetra]

1% is a few thousand people.

Re:Let it go

[ireallyhateslashdot]

You're right. And those people make up a very small percentage of the 350,000,000 people we have here in the US.

I don't want to call you racist, but you're making it very hard to not come to that conclusion.

Turing broke the rules

[GuB-42]

Turing doesn't deserve pardon.
He knew the rules, he broke them anyways, he got what he deserved.
Homosexuality at the time was a major social taboo and a criminal offense. The fact that it shouldn't have been the case is not the question. And of course, pardoning him and him alone would mean that the law doesn't apply to great scientists, a terrible message IMHO.

It is the shame that Turing had to die for this reason but wherever we do, it won't change the past.

There is an objective "wrong"...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is an action done to someone who does not consent. It does not matter what society thinks about it. Slavery was never "right". It might have been considered "moral" at one point.

Re:There is an objective "wrong"...

[somersault]

Okay. So whenever an animal eats another animal - or a plant for that matter, that's "wrong"?

Most humans would agree that your standard is a good one to live by as far as treating other people goes. I do. Some don't. There is no objective truth to it. The natural world certainly doesn't comply to those rules. It's just something that we humans have made up because it results in a more productive society.

Pardon Turing, convict us?

[DorkFish]

It sounds like a lot of people are saying, "It was unlawful back then, but it is legal now, so he should receive a pardon!" If that is the case, shouldn't the converse also apply? Should people be prosecuted now for participating in an activity that was legal at the time, but is no longer? I know that it used to be legal to drive 70 miles per hour on a highway near my home, and the speed limit is now 55mph. Should I now be issued a citation for each time I drove at the previously higher rate of speed? Should most of us be prosecuted for taking tax deductions that were legal at the time, but have now been eliminated? If you are convicted of a committing a crime while it is a crime, you are a criminal. Just because it is now legal to smoke marijuana in Washington state doesn't invalidate your 6 month old conviction for drug possession.

Re:Pardon Turing, convict us?

[JSBiff]

Honestly, it depends on how the laws are written that legalize a former crime. It's perfectly possible (and I suspect this may be part of the Washington and Colorado initiatives, though I haven't checked) for a new law to state that a former law is repealed, and also that any prior convictions under the previous law shall be vacated.

I'm against these ex post facto pardons

[GodfatherofSoul]

IMO they seem to be an attempt to wipe history from the books and give everyone their kumbaya moment to hold hands and pretend everything is hunky dory. Unless the offended party is still alive, leave them on the books as a lesson to our children of what can happen when government exceeds its bounds.

Pardon has wrong logic

[Roger W Moore]

Following this logic, if he were still alive and in prison, there would be no reason to release him once his "crime" ceased to be labeled as a "crime."

If he were still in prison when the law was repealed he would automatically have been released but would not get a pardon. Indeed I really don't think that a pardon is appropriate but perhaps for slightly different reasons: pardoning a crime implies you are forgiving the individual who committed the crime. This is the wrong way around. By our modern standards, he committed no crime and so has no need to ask for a pardon. Indeed by petitioning that Turing be pardoning you have to implicitly assume that he did something that needs to be pardoned!

Under English law...

[lingu1st]

It's an offence, with a `c'.

What about Oscar Wilde?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't that more or less the same sort of heinous governmental malfeasance?

" New Call" from same old faggots

[Anonymous Coward]

Go clean the shit off of your lips and get help.

They were just following lawful orders

[Dr. Evil]

...when they castrated Turing.

the altar of the double standard

[epine]

Would any other war hero have received the same treatment? The question here is double standards, surrounding the secrecy of Turing's work, the eternal nature of Turing's crime (does this remind anyone else of the war on drugs?), and the severity of his sentence.

Take Brian Carbury for example, an "ace in a day" New Zealand fighter pilot.

After leaving the RAF, he lived in England until his death in July 1962. In 1949, he along with three others, in a trial at Princes Risborough Magistrates' Court, was found guilty of two offences relating to the illegal export of Bristol Beaufighters to Palestine. Each man was fined a total of £100. [slashcode sucks]

My emphasis. In modern parlance, that sounds like an ITAR transgression, for which the current maximum sentence is detainment without charge. Let's see here. Door #1: a £100 fine. Door #2: chemical castration. Cue the game show music for the tense decision making. Tick tock tick tock, what will he choose?

Because of the upper crust attitude toward secrecy, Turing was positioned as an ordinary sex offender in the mind of the public instead of a flawed hero--no let me fix that--an outcast hero whose only flaw was being born into a culture of soft vegetables and spittle-spewing homophobes.

His chemical castration makes one wonder what the proportionate punishment might be (far, far worse than chemical castration) for a white-collared repeat pedophile, or for the white haired goats or moral opprobrium who vainly sheltered this behaviour so as not to publicly besmirch their high moral ground.

It was a crime at the time. Yes, the whole social structure was a crime at the time, and then some.

Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that what was done to Turing was grossly immoral. I don't need the government to tell me it was wrong and, more to the point, I don't care what the government thinks. I'm only interested in reducing punishments and probabilities of being caught for the crimes I, my family, and my friends commit most frequently and if Turing's persecution can be used to this effect I support the effort.

Getting a Government to apologise or admit to a wrong doing is utterly pointless. It is not a person and itself has no emotion nor compassion.

this is a bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

you dont know what people will say in 100 years. and they could reverse the pardon.
he knew he did something wrong.
he got caught.
its over. move on.

So the Catholic Church is forward-thinking here?

[Rollgunner]

They did, after all, pardon Galileo in 1992 after having sentenced him to life in prison for his heretical beliefs in a non-heliocentric cosmology.

Meaning of pardon

[gay358]

It seems that you nor the justice minister Lord McNally don't seem to understand the meaning of pardon. Pardon is forgiveness of a crime and the cancellation of the relevant penalty. It doesn't mean that law wasn't broken at the time. If a person is proven to be innocent after first being convicted, the more proper way of dealing with it, is overturning the conviction/retrial etc, instead of just pardoning.

Obligatory car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

If the speed limit on a particular stretch of road is 60, and they decide to lower it to 50, do they retrospectively give tickets to everyone who was doing 55 in the past?

If the speed limit is 60 and they raise it to 70, do they annul all the tickets for people who were doing 65 in the past?

The answer to both of these is NO.

There are good reasons why (most!) laws are not retrospective - we are expected to obey the law as it is at the moment. If I do something which is legal today, I (usually) can't be prosecuted under a law which is enacted tomorrow.

He was convicted under the law of the day, and no one has claimed that he didn't do what he was convicted of doing. The legal machinery did what it was supposed to do. The law under which he was convicted was repealed, and no one could be prosecuted, let alone convicted, of that crime today.

The legal machinery is not about what is right. It is not about what is moral. It's about what is legal. One might hope that there is some correlation between what is moral and what is legal, but that's not always the case.

Turing's death

[also aswell]

I still believe someone left the poisoned apple for Mr. Turing. I believe he was murdered by cia types and that he was framed on the suicide issue. This tagline is one I use on many online forums i use...