Alan Turing granted posthumous royal pardon

[farmerbarleymow]

isn't it a bit of an insult? surely an apology to his family would be better? a pardon is still implying what he did was a crime but it wasn't, he was just gay

I don't see it that way. An apology was given a few years back by Brown, and this is the next symbolic step. It's very unusual for pardons to be given in these circumstances so while purely symbolic, it's nonetheless still important as a point of principle.

Of course, the issue of the tens of thousands of other men convicted of the same offences has been and should be raised. But whether we like it or not, Turing happens to be by far the most well known of them - and has an important place in history.

As white rabbit says, this is a legalistic move and sets a helpful precedent.

 

[pogofish]

Does he have any surviving family?

He does - He was related to the Turings of Foveran nr Aberdeen. Uncle of the current Laird, who is based in London now but there are still some other family in the area.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-17256951

 

[Nine Bob Note]

Up the arse.

Would she have to say 'pardon me' afterwards?

 

[SpookyFrank]

...it's often assumed that illegality and immorality is the same.

This is the key point. Today's powers that be cannot simply declare that a law created and enforced by their predecessors was morally wrong, because in order to maintain their own authority they must stick to the idea that all laws are just and morally correct. This creates a paradox of course because governments are forever creating and amending laws, and nobody wants to draw more attention to that paradox by calling former rulers out for the brutal, bigoted fuckers they so clearly were.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

yet the tories can change the law retrospectively if their actions are declared illegal...

 

[SpookyFrank]

yet the tories can change the law retrospectively if their actions are declared illegal...

I've no idea why that was allowed to happen. I don't like to use the word 'fascist' lightly but rewriting history to suit your own purposes looks pretty fascist to me.

 

[Sasaferrato]

better late than never - will they be doing the same for the thousands of men who were also convicted of the same 'crime' ?

My very thought, brilliance does not enhance innocence, or shouldn't.

 

[SpookyFrank]

My very thought, brilliance does not enhance innocence, or shouldn't.

If anything Turing's genius just throws the callousness and stupidity of the state into sharper relief. Here is a man who could scarcely have done more to serve his country, and even that wasn't enough to redeem him because he broke a law based on fanaticism and bigotry, not on morality or reason. If he'd broken a law that existed for a reason, a law based in morality, he'd have been pardoned long ago.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I've no idea why that was allowed to happen. I don't like to use the word 'fascist' lightly but rewriting history to suit your own purposes looks pretty fascist to me.

Parliament is supreme so it do what it likes unfortunately, although retrospective legislation is unusual as I understand it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Parliament is supreme so it do what it likes unfortunately, although retrospective legislation is unusual as I understand it.

Would be nice if the queen refused to sign off on the new law on the grounds that retrospective legislation makes a mockery of the entire idea of democratic society. Imagine the shitstorm, it'd be hilarious.

 

[Sasaferrato]

If anything Turing's genius just throws the callousness and stupidity of the state into sharper relief. Here is a man who could scarcely have done more to serve his country, and even that wasn't enough to redeem him because he broke a law based on fanaticism and bigotry, not on morality or reason. If he'd broken a law that existed for a reason, a law based in morality, he'd have been pardoned long ago.

The law was based on the 'morality' at the time it was passed. Time passes, things change and so does the law.

The major problem I have with this, is that even a 'general pardon' does nothing whatsoever. These unfortunate people have been tried and imprisoned. Unless you are going to track down everyone involved, and make adequate financial compensation for the harm they have suffered, it is somewhat pointless.

 

[friendofdorothy]

The law was based on the 'morality' at the time it was passed. Time passes, things change and so does the law.

The major problem I have with this, is that even a 'general pardon' does nothing whatsoever. These unfortunate people have been tried and imprisoned. Unless you are going to track down everyone involved, and make adequate financial compensation for the harm they have suffered, it is somewhat pointless.

It may be the Queen is only making a symbolic gesture, but it says alot about unfair the treatment of Turing and about 50,000 men also convicted of gross indecency. I don't suppose too many of those men are still alive now - I hope this is some consolation to them.

I don't think you can retrospectively change the law, but this pardon shows what a stupid law was.