New Call For Turing Pardon

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by samzenpus on Monday December 17, 2012 @05:40AM from the give-him-a-break dept.

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.'"

23 of 231 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

He doesn't need a pardon . . . by StefanJ · 2012-12-17 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

. . . he needs an official declaration that he was never guilty in the first place, and should never have been prosecuted.
1. Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . . by Peter+Simpson · 2012-12-17 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  . . . 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)
2. Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . . by somersault · 2012-12-17 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
3. Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . . by girlintraining · 2012-12-17 06:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  . . . 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.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
4. Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 06:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well, that makes the posthumous part a bit easier. It would be a shame to have to kill him prior to pardoning him.
5. Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . . by Kittenman · 2012-12-17 06:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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 greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
6. Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . . by Rob+the+Bold · 2012-12-17 07:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
Better idea by Feefers · 2012-12-17 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Better idea by serviscope_minor · 2012-12-17 06:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Agree complete by neminem · 2012-12-17 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Agree complete by davidwr · 2012-12-17 06:44 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
2. Re:Agree complete by neminem · 2012-12-17 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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?
3. Re:Agree complete by VValdo · 2012-12-17 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  -------------------
  This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Properly convicted by swm · 2012-12-17 05:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

... 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 by Jeng · 2012-12-17 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
1. Re:Godwining it here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-17 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Godwining it here by Desler · 2012-12-17 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
3. Re:Godwining it here by lewscroo · 2012-12-17 06:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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'?
Outrageous by MyLongNickName · 2012-12-17 06:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Oh for crying out loud... by Ga_101 · 2012-12-17 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Oh for crying out loud... by MozeeToby · 2012-12-17 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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:Absolution by SuricouRaven · 2012-12-17 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:LOL fags by SuricouRaven · 2012-12-17 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.