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 . . .

[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 . . .

[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 . . .

[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 . . .

[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]

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 . . .

[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 . . .

[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 . . .

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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!

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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...

[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.

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.

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...

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.

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: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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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!

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: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.