Alan Turing Pardoned

First time accepted submitter a.ferrier writes "Today's computing would be unthinkable without the contributions of the British mathematician Alan Turing, who laid down the foundations of computer science, broke Nazi codes that helped win World War II at the famous Bletchley Park, created a secure speech encryption system, made major contributions to logic and philosophy, and even invented the concept of Artificial Intelligence. But he was also an eccentric and troubled man who was persecuted (and prosecuted) for being gay, a tragedy that contributed to his suicide just short of the age of 42 when he died of cyanide poisoning, possibly from a half-eaten apple found by his side. He is hailed today as one of the great originators of our computing age. Today he received a royal pardon."

Comments

Not enough,

[Kenja]

Charges should have been dropped. A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .

Re:Not enough,

[Highland Deck Box]

That is basically dropping the charges. You can't go back to 1952 and make the case disappear, but they can say that they regret what happened. It's entirely symbolic anyway since he's long since dead, and would be even if he had lived to old age.

Re:Not enough,

[Anonymous Coward]

But... at the time it was illegal to be gay, so yeah, at the time he was guilty technically.

Re:Not enough,

[makellan]

To be fair to the Queen, he was guilty of something that was illegal at the time so a pardon is appropriate. The fact that it should never have been an issue, much less a criminal one, is, technically, not her fault. What she should do is pardon everyone who was ever convicted of being gay.

Re:Not enough,

[MondoGordo]

No. A pardon implies nothing of the sort. He pleaded guilty to a criminal charge. The only way to reverse that under the law is a Pardon. Whether or not homosexuality actually constitutes Gross Indecency (it doesn't btw) or even if Gross Indecency should be a criminal act is another matter entirely.

Re:Not enough,

[magic maverick]

Moreover, it should apply to all those criminalized, and convicted under this awful law. Alan Turing was a great man, sure enough. But he was not the only victim of this sadistic state. The least the state can do is a blanket pardon, apology, and striking from the records of the "crime" of being gay and acting on it.

Re:Not enough,

[icebike]

A pardon removes a conviction.
A conviction defines guilt.
So the pardon removes guilt.

Guilt is not a fact. Guilt is simply a societal pronouncement.

Re:Not enough,

[Immerman]

What do you mean, technically? He committed a crime, there were witnesses, AND he confessed. You don't get any more guilty than that.

Sure the law was completely unjust by modern standards, but that doesn't change anything. You'd be similarly guilty in most of the world today if you decided to marry more than one person. Or consumed particular psychoactive plants. These are the problems you run into when you try to legislate morality rather than restricting your judicial system to making sure people don't hurt or cheat one another.

Re:Not enough,

[Immerman]

>What she should do is pardon everyone who was ever convicted of being gay.

But how would that reinforce the important and long-standing tradition that VIPs should get special treatment? Next you'll tell me that celebrities and politicians should face the same sentences for criminal acts as the commoners.

Re:Not enough,

[Nerdfest]

Now that that's out of the way, how about a knighthood. I can't think of many that have deserved it more.

Re:Not enough,

[PopeRatzo]

Now that that's out of the way, how about a knighthood.

That is the most insightful comment so far.

Elton John was granted knighthood and Alan Turing was sent to prison. Maybe societies should learn to think carefully about what they consider "eternal" truths about morality and human behavior. I'm pretty sure there were lots of people, even in the early part of the 20th century, who realized that persecuting gay people for what they do in private was wrong, just as there were people in 18th century America who knew that slavery was wrong.

Re:Not enough,

[hydrofix]

In 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown already apologised for the "inhumane" treatment of Alan Turing on the behalf of his government.

Re:Not enough,

[Dynedain]

The fact that laws at that time defined this action as criminal does not make it criminal per se.

Actually, that's exactly what it does. Lawbreaking (and conviction) is what makes an act criminal.

Whether or not a law is just, morally right, or ethical (all different things, by the way) has no bearing on whether violation of the law makes you a criminal.

He was convicted of a crime. Ego, by definition, he was a criminal. He was unjustly convicted of an crime against the moral standards of the time as defined in law. Today we see that law as unethical, and pardoning him posthumously is the only just action we can take. However, we should extend the same pardon to anyone convicted under the same crime. His patriotism and contributions to computing shouldn't be the driving argument for his individual pardon.

Re:Not enough,

[ImdatS]

Actually, he is an OBE (Officer of the Order of Most Excellence of the British Empire - wow, what a title) - (or was it an MBE?)

As I understand, OBE is the fourth-level. The highest level is something like Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (GBE). According to Wikipedia, this is the order:

1. Knight Grand Cross or Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (GBE)
2. Knight Commander or Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE or DBE)
3. Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE)
4. Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE)
5. Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire

Once he reaches Level 2 or 1, we can then finally call him "Sir Alan Turing", which he more than deserves...

Re:Not enough,

[Immerman]

Ahh, but that's a different situation. The Church didn't condemn Galileo for violating a Law of Man, but for blaspheming against the Inviolable Law of God. Once they finally admitted that the Earth does in fact go around the sun it follows that in their ignorance it was *they* who were the blasphemers, and as such an apology to the man who they condemned for being a herald of truth is completely fitting.

Re:Not enough,

[RDW]

In 2017 we can expect the next PM to retroactively drop charges and build a statue in his honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_Memorial

Re:Not enough,

[geminidomino]

Yes, they did. Three or four years ago.

The response on /. then was pretty much "fuck the apology, where's the pardon?"

Re:Not enough,

[damnbunni]

Usually these 'weird laws' turn out to be not so weird.

When you investigate them, generally the 'weird law' is an overly specific interpretation of a law that's perfectly sensible. For example, one list had a town in Montana where it's illegal to tie a whale to a fire hydrant. When you track down the law, it bans tying any animal to a fire hydrant - so yes, tying a whale to one WOULD be illegal, but the law wasn't written that way.

I'm willing to bet the Oklahoma issue is much the same - a ban on feeding animals alcohol. I bet it was done because of health issues with pigs being fed brewery leftovers, or something like that.

Re:Not enough,

[Ol Olsoc]

He was a faggot and he should have been executed for his crimes against humanity.

Before or after he saved your country's sorry ass?

Re:Not enough,

[Immerman]

Hardly. There is definitely a segment of the population that would love to be free to do as they will with no restraints, sociopaths mostly, and businessmen (but I repeat myself). Most people though want to be protected from other people hurting or cheating them, and are willing to surrender their right to do so to others in exchange. Making that explicit will shut up almost anyone who claims they should have a right to do X, "So then we should all have the right to do X to you?".

I should be permitted to have unsupervised bonfires in national forests. So, the public should likewise have the right to have unsupervised bonfires in your yard?
I should be allowed to sell tap water as a magical healing elixir. So, every pharmacy in the country should be allowed to sell you tapwater and sugar pills instead of your needed medication?

I challenge you to present an example that doesn't break down under those considerations. Of course it only applies to laws about hurting/cheating/etc. and breaks down rapidly for more esoteric and moralistic laws, but then the value of those laws tends to be in much greater debate.

Personally I tend to be an honorable but extremely private person, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with you about a society with no privacy, provided we make sure we *completely* eliminate privacy. Because if *anyone* still has privacy in such a world they will possess an immense tactical advantage over the rest of us, and human nature being what it is it will only be a matter of time until that gets abused horribly. For example a government that can operate in secret while it's citizens have no privacy will be virtually impossible to overthrow - any potential rebellion can be crushed or subverted before it attracts more than a handful of people. And a government that can't be overthrown has very little reason to be concerned with the desires of it's citizens. So long as it moderates itself just enough to avoid spontaneous mass riots it can be as abusive as it likes.

I fear surveillance cameras and things like Google Glass primarily because without legislation to the contrary they have *huge* blind spots in which the authorities can operate. Even with such legislation there's the constant threat of groups within the government lobbying for special privacy privileges - after all you don't want the doomsday launch codes live streamed do you? Or the tactical war rooms discussions, how can you win a war if the enemy knows your every move beforehand? And once you have created a place where the elite can operate without oversight, exactly how long do you think it will be before they start plotting against the populace? There's a long and consistent trend that repeats throughout recorded history - a government grows tyrannical and abusive, rebels eventually overthrow it and establish a new more just and righteous government, and the new government almost immediately starts slipping back towards tyranny. Most every society on the planet performs that dance, only the pacing ever seems to change. The trend toward personal liberty and government accountability is almost entirely due to idealists shaping the outcome of the rebellions with lessons learned from the past, and as such they tend to be mostly concentrated in the formative period of the new government. As such I'm *extremely* wary of anything that will tend to render the rebellions toothless, especially since we still seem to have no idea how to effectively slow the slide towards tyranny.

Re:Not enough,

[Nerdfest]

Without Turing, it's very possible many of us would neither be speaking English nor using a computer.

Re:Not enough,

[bongomanaic]

The problem with issuing a blanket pardon for anyone convicted of the same offence as Alan Turing is that 'indecency' was applied broadly to a range of sexual behaviours, some of which remain illegal (e.g. sex with a person under the age of 16). When the crimes of indecency between men and buggery were abolished a procedure was put in place to remove legal disadvantages from those with convictions for behaviour that was no longer illegal. Speaking as a gay man I don't think it would be a worthwhile use of government resources to re-examine all previous convictions to determine which are worthy of a pardon -- the apology and pardon for Alan Turing makes the point well enough.

Like it does HIM any good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Charges should have been dropped. A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .

The poor bastard had to deal with the horseshit while he was alive. This pardoning and whatever long after he's dead accomplished nothing.

It's just PR for little political people that want to pander to the Gay and Lesbian community.

Re:Like it does HIM any good.

[phantomfive]

It's just PR for little political people that want to pander to the Gay and Lesbian community.

And it works.

And why not? Any time you can do a little thing that makes people happy, why not? Even if it's a silly thing.

Re:Like it does HIM any good.

[n1ywb]

Charges should have been dropped. A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .

The poor bastard had to deal with the horseshit while he was alive. This pardoning and whatever long after he's dead accomplished nothing.

It's just PR for little political people that want to pander to the Gay and Lesbian community.

Of course it's accomplished something. It's sent two powerful signals. One, that the government admits it fucked up; nobody likes to admit they were wrong ESPECIALLY governments so lets give credit where credit is due. Second and more importantly, it signals that the government is serious about supporting LGBT rights. Thirdly it vindicates Turing's important legacy, his family, friends, supporters, and those like me who have always looked up to him. It would have been nice if it came 61 years ago, but better late than never.

Re:Like it does HIM any good.

[dnavid]

Charges should have been dropped. A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .

The poor bastard had to deal with the horseshit while he was alive. This pardoning and whatever long after he's dead accomplished nothing.

It's just PR for little political people that want to pander to the Gay and Lesbian community.

That's pretty harsh considering that's tantamount to accusing the members of the gay and lesbian community that advocated a pardon as merely seeking a little PR and pandering.

In any case, in the UK a pardon implies the person in question was technically guilty according to the letter of the law, but deserves to escape the legal consequences of the conviction because of a belief they are not "morally guilty." It says nothing about "worthy of criminalization." And the legal issue here seems to be that at one time the power of the pardon in the UK was reserved for people that were "morally and technically innocent" of the crime they were convicted of, but in modern times that distinction is split. The constitutional government has the power to pardon criminals under exceptional circumstances but almost never does because if a strong case can be made for "technical innocence" there's an appeals court designated to handle such cases. But the legal process is essentially to invoke an appeal of the case and a new trial which would be nonsensical for Turing. The alternative rests with the constitutional monarch who can pardon for "moral innocence" which doesn't involve being technically innocent under the law.

Its unclear if the government has the legal option to drop Turing's charges or vacate them because there exists no legal evidence he was innocent of the crime he freely confessed to commiting at the time of the conviction.

What about everyone else?

[hsmith]

Lots of men were charged with these insane laws. Why aren't they all pardoned? I see it as nothing more than a cute gesture. Everyone persecuted under these bullshit laws should be given full pardons.

Re:Pardon? A Pardon?

[newcastlejon]

An abject apology would be a good start.

The then prime minister made one four years ago. I remember at the time that people were complaining that it wasn't enough and a pardon should be issued.

She should have posthumously...

[UberDude]

She's still alive!

Re:Biography

[SternisheFan]

...Turing was arrested for violation of British homosexuality statutes in 1952 when he reported to the police details of a homosexual affair. He had gone to the police because he had been threatened with blackmail. He was tried as a homosexual on 31 March 1952, offering no defence other than that he saw nothing wrong in his actions. Found guilty he was given the alternatives of prison or oestrogen injections for a year. He accepted the latter and returned to a wide range of academic pursuits....

The decoding operation at Bletchley Park became the basis for the new decoding and intelligence work at GCHQ. With the cold war this became an important operation and Turing continued to work for GCHQ, although his Manchester colleagues were totally unaware of this. After his conviction, his security clearance was withdrawn. Worse than that, security officers were now extremely worried that someone with complete knowledge of the work going on at GCHQ was now labelled a security risk. He had many foreign colleagues, as any academic would, but the police began to investigate his foreign visitors. A holiday which Turing took in Greece in 1953 caused consternation among the security officers.

Turing died of potassium cyanide poisoning while conducting electrolysis experiments. The cyanide was found on a half eaten apple beside him. An inquest concluded that it was self-administered but his mother always maintained that it was an accident.

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Turing.html

http://www.turing.org.uk/bio/part1.html

hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that bugs me about this is that all you fuckers on the band wagon saying he should be pardoned in 2013 would be the first to call for his castration if you had been living in the UK in 1950. Seriously people are just as prejudiced now as they were 50, 100, or 1000 years ago.

The boogey man just changes. Today it is (Nazi|pedophiles|Muslims) , before that it was homos, before that it was commies, before that it was Jews, a long time ago being a Canaanite could get you killed. I think the apology / pardon is utter bullshit, when people are treating others like shit and continue to treat each other like shit, and apology is just a way to make people feel better about themselves, and say hey 'We are better than those assholes living 50 years ago.' Well you aren't. Sure you would not castrate someone today for being a homo, but you would surely say that pedophiles need to be castrated. Yes that is right an 18 year old man having sex with, or even seeing a naked 17 year old girl has committed a sex crime and is considered by law to be a pedo. Most people would have no problem whatsoever killing / locking up pedos.

Human nature does not change. It cracks me up when every generation thinks they are better more tolerant than those racist thugs who polluted society 20 - 30 years in the past. Those racist thugs that you hate so much are yourselves.

So I guess now he's...

[davidbrit2]

...Turing complete?