Alan Turing given royal pardon.

[JimC]

I wish they didn't "pardon" him, because then they'd have to live with their own evil ignorance and wouldn't get to claim some sort of forgiveness for themselves.

Yes, "pardon" has an aura of patronising benevolence in this context; contrition would be more appropriate...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I wish they didn't "pardon" him, because then they'd have to live with their own evil ignorance and wouldn't get to claim some sort of forgiveness for themselves.

Yes, "pardon" has an aura of patronising benevolence in this context; contrition would be more appropriate...

That was sort of my point earlier. If anything, the Queen (in her capacity as head of state and government) should be ASKING for a pardon!

[JimC]

I'm actually in the middle of reading a book called "Turing's Cathedral" by George Dyson, a history of the early days of computing. Turing is only one of many people discussed; John von Neumann is one of the major characters. It's an odd book, it is very non-chronological, and zooms backwards and forwards across the 30s to 50s. It is very much about the people, but the maths and early ideas of digital computing get a pretty good look in. I'm enjoying it, anyway...

[Hermit]

...the maths and early ideas of digital computing get a pretty good look in.

I hope Charles Babbage and Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace are not forgotten in that book.

Back on topic, Xamonas Chegwé is spot-on with this comment: "A royal apology for the fact that his sexual preference was punishable under law in the first place and for the dreadful acts carried out upon those convicted of this "crime" would be a far more fitting statement.

A pardon implies that he was incorrectly found guilty when, in fact, he was correctly found guilty - it's just that there never should have been such a crime to be guilty of!"

In a somewhat different - yet in some ways similar - context, the Vatican turned out to be rather more tardy in seeing one error of its ways. Galileo's Dialogues were not omitted from the the Index of Prohibited Books until 1835, and the Vatican did not concede that Galileo was not wrong after all until the late 1960s. Another 25 years later (1992, through Pope John Paul II) it finally went so far as to say that not only was Galileo not wrong, but the Vatican was: "Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture..." Almost four centuries passed between showing Galileo the implements of torture (and no, they did not include the comfy chair) and formally admitting that the catholic church was wrong in regard to heliocentrism.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know that a pardon does mean that. Doesn't it just remove a guilty verdict from the records and if necessary implies that you were wronged in some way? I don't think it represents anything more than that.

[Hermit]

I don't know that a pardon does mean that. Doesn't it just remove a guilty verdict from the records and if necessary implies that you were wronged in some way? I don't think it represents anything more than that.

A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the cancellation of the relevant penalty. Xamonas Chegwé's point is that pardoning Turing is an empty gesture in so far as homosexuality ought never have been regarded as a crime in the first place; no crime, no need to pardon. A meaningful act would have been to apologise for instituting laws that turned homosexual practices into crimes.

[pErvinalia]

Which isn't what you originally said. A pardon isn't a statement about the state of the particular law. It's only a statement about the record of the person being pardoned. Regarding apologising for certain laws, there's all sorts of fucked laws that have repealed over time. I don't see the need to apologise for laws. That's just part of the evolution of society. The pardon is the actual meaningful act, and I think it is certainly appropriate.

[Hermit]

Which isn't what you originally said.

It's what Xamonas Chegwé said. I quoted him, agreed with him and expanded on the topic.

[klr]

Late to the thread, which is quite ironic in the circumstances,

I recall a discussion about this on BBC Newsnight a couple of months ago, The gist of the "no pardon" argument was about how far back in time we should apply current morals. I can see the point in that, but nonetheless I applaud the actual pardon in this case. But will the UK government follow this up by putting as much pressure as it can on the likes of Uganda, Russia, Iran, etc.?

[HomerJay]

Repost from RatSep, should explain a lot.

A recent statute - the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - provides a scheme where those who had been convicted [like Turing] of the section 11 offence (and similar offences) can apply for their entire criminal records to be removed if the facts of the case would no longer count as a crime. It would be as if the offence had not been committed at all. These are not pardons – they go much further: the 2012 scheme removes the taint of criminality altogether, and with no fussing about not affecting the conviction or the sentence.

But the 2012 scheme is only for those still alive. However, there is no good reason why it cannot be applied retrospectively. It would have the merit of consistency. And if the concern is that some convicted under section 11 (for example those being grossly indecent in a public place) would be wrongly exonerated, then perhaps a similar requirement for an application could be put in place.

This from a very decent article by David Allen Green a few months ago when it looked likely that a pardon would be issued.

The circumstances of the arrest, somewhat farcical.

http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen ... lan-turing

[mistermack]

While I have the utmost respect for Alan Turing, he didn't use his formidable intellect, when it came to his own circumstances. I can't help but think that most of his woes were self-inflicted.
There were thousands of gay men keeping their sex-lives secret, at the time. Probably hundreds of thousands. They all knew the score, what would happen if they attracted the attention of the law.

It wasn't like the situation had suddenly arisen. It had always been that way.
But Turing seems to have gone out of his way to be a victim. He was living with a young guy, they made no attempt to hide the relationship. He called the police round, about a robbery, and pretty much flaunted his domestic arrangements. He was FAR too intelligent not to know what he was doing.

He wasn't prosecuted for being homosexual, he was done for gross indecency. He made no attempt to lie about it. Reading between the lines, it looks like he wanted to get caught.

And when he was sentenced, he was offered a choice, of time in prison, or chemical castration, and he CHOSE chemical castration. There's no record of his boyfriend getting that treatment.

That's not to excuse the attitudes or the laws of the day. But that's what it was like at the time, pretty well all over the world. The UK was no different to anywhere else.

I think Turing could have had a perfectly normal life if he'd been prepared to keep his head down.
Most other gays of the day managed that perfectly well. Something drove Turing not to do that.
God knows why.

But it was a sad and shameful episode. Viewed from today's perspective.

[NineBerry]

While I have the utmost respect for Alan Turing

[censored]

[Hermit]

Excellent article. Well researched and points well made.

[jaydot]

this is not about turing as it can't affect him in any way. it's a way of sending a message to any bigots left on the scene that government endorses the rights of people to love whom they may of whatever sex.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So, they pardoned Oscar Wilde yet, or what?