Alan Turing Pardon

What about all the others who faced the same fate but were less accomplished?
Do we then revisit all previous conviction and rejudge them using modern standards? Or perhaps only famous convicts are worthy? Where do you draw the line?
 
Luke said:
What about all the others who faced the same fate but were less accomplished?
Do we then revisit all previous conviction and rejudge them using modern standards? Or perhaps only famous convicts are worthy? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

This, exactly this. Let bygones be bygones.
 
Luke said:
What about all the others who faced the same fate but were less accomplished?
Do we then revisit all previous conviction and rejudge them using modern standards? Or perhaps only famous convicts are worthy? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The conviction was obviously totally wrong, but you can't pardon one person and leave the rest.

I would be all for a blanket pardon but then what about all the other crimes that are no longer crimes? As Ahleckz said, bygones.
 
PardonTheWait said:
I would be all for a blanket pardon but then what about all the other crimes that are no longer crimes? As Ahleckz said, bygones.
Click to expand...

Conversely should we start issuing retrospective convictions for people that did things years ago that were legal at the time but are are now illegal?

Time to issue fines to anyone who had a fag in a public place prior to the ban.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
Conversely should we start issuing posthumous convictions for people that did things years ago that were legal at the time but are are now illegal?

Time to issue fines to anyone who had a fag in a public place prior to the ban.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean - the conviction was wrong but you can't backdate everything, it's not practical.

I'd be for the pardon in principle but it's not realistic because where does it stop, your example being a good one.
 
I think the point of these decisions is to pardon individuals as a means of showing that similar decisions for all others were wrong. So yes it should be done.

Would you agree that those shot for desertion/cowardice suffering from shellshock should be pardoned or simply let bygones be bygones because we simply cannot prove individual cases?

If it can be done I don't see why you wouldn't.
 
I think it only matters now if either

a) the individual is alive

or

b) the pardon would help to ease family suffering, such as in the case of a wrongly convicted and executed murderer.

As society has largely moved on from the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuality, it is a largely pointless gesture.
 
Luke said:
What about all the others who faced the same fate but were less accomplished?
Do we then revisit all previous conviction and rejudge them using modern standards? Or perhaps only famous convicts are worthy? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
It's symbolic.

Pardoning him posthumously is a way of the state admitting it was wrong.

You don't need to pardon every single person to achieve this goal (which a blanket pardon could also achieve).
 
I don't understand. He was convicted of something that, at the time, was a crime. That it isn't now means nothing.

The PM has already issued an apology.
 
No, it was a different place back then. How many other things do we go back to? We move on and learn our mistakes from the past but we certainly don't apologise for other people's attitudes when we weren't even around.
 
Unfortunately, I suspect the answer will be no.

The reason makes plenty of sense as well, it's just in today's society the reason seems stupid. Doesn't mean the punishment wasn't correct at the time.

As others have said, if they do pardon him, they'd have to pardon the lot.

kd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom