Alan Turing Granted Royal Pardon

dowie said:
That is what a pardon usually is though... He wasn't pardoned purely because we recognise the 'crime' is now acceptable and not a crime but also because of who he was... Plenty of pardons are like that including where the crime is still a crime etc... The pardons dished out by US Presidents when they leave office don't necessarily have much merit to them... some of them are simply given because the individual concerned was high profile, well connected or even in one case simply donated lots of money.
Click to expand...

I understand this, however this pardon was issued because of the nature of the crime and societies changing attitudes to such sentences. The legislation was deemed unjust and so a pardon was granted, but that same legislation was also used to convict 49,000 other gay men including Oscar Wilde, should they not all be pardoned....or is that simply reserved for Turin.

If so, where is the justice in that?
 
The age of consent could easily drop in the future and a moralistic shift over what is and isn't cricket could easily become an issue in the future. Historic laws might be seen as antiquated and prudish.

There were calls last month for it to drop to 15. In 50 years it could be lower.

The Muslims are already ahead of us on this one and were unaffected by Victoria prudity.
 
Castiel said:
I understand this, however this pardon was issued because of the nature of the crime and societies changing attitudes to such sentences. The legislation was deemed unjust and so a pardon was granted, but that same legislation was also used to convict 49,000 other gay men including Oscar Wilde, should they not all be pardoned....or is that simply reserved for Turin.

If so, where is the justice in that?
Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle but that wasn't the whole reason for the pardon - I believe the justice secretary has already stated it was also due to who he was.

Then again the whole 'pardon' system - granting some people special treatment in our justice system at the whim of a politician when we already have an appeals procedure is itself seemingly farcical - though used rather sparingly in the UK.
 
The Running Man said:
The age of consent could easily drop in the future and a moralistic shift over what is and isn't cricket could easily become an issue in the future. Historic laws might be seen as antiquated and prudish.

There were calls last month for it to drop to 15. In 50 years it could be lower.

The Muslims are already ahead of us on this one and were unaffected by Victoria prudity.
Click to expand...

Do you not think that there is an ever so slight difference between asking people to wait a year and banning an entire sexual orientation?

This isn't a pardon for every law that has or could ever change, these things are done on a case by case basis.
 
Woden said:
Do you not think that there is an ever so slight difference between asking people to wait a year and banning an entire sexual orientation?

This isn't a pardon for every law that has or could ever change, these things are done on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...

Depends on your moral stance doesn't it? To some people (read the entire state if Christianity is our state religion) should all consider being gay as totally abhorrent and wrong and therefore this should not be turned around.

Muslims wont be too happy, don't think the jewish sect will be too happy either. Given that he committed suicide which is again totally against this religious doctrine, then.. hm..not sure who is supporters would be except for the vocal gay community looking for a high profile target?
 
The Running Man said:
Depends on your moral stance doesn't it? To some people (read the entire state if Christianity is our state religion) should all consider being gay as totally abhorrent and wrong and therefore this should not be turned around.

Muslims wont be too happy, don't think the jewish sect will be too happy either. Given that he committed suicide which is again totally against this religious doctrine, then.. hm..not sure who is supporters would be except for the vocal gay community looking for a high profile target?
Click to expand...
What religions think frankly is irrelevant regarding the law.

As a society we have embraced a secular outlook, with freedom from & of religion - allowed each person on an individual basis to believe as they will - while denying them to the right to impose those beliefs on others.

It's not comparable, neither is the other aspect regarding paedophilia - in which the criteria is based upon the ability to give consent (which is very unlikely to change) - even if children become significantly more mature in 100 years, then the situation isn't the same as today (in which children are not mature) - homosexuality wasn't morally wrong then & isn't now (regardless of cultural changes).

Homosexual relations between two consenting adults cause no objective human suffering (which personally, I believe is one of the key factors to base our legal system on - along with freedom from abuse).

The Running Man said:
Polanski? Teachers convicted of romancing students who can tell?
Click to expand...
Teachers romancing children is also the breach of trust, by being in a position of authority over a child & due to the ability to take advantage of that power, again a flawed comparison.
 
Last edited:
jamesblade said:
Wasn't he pardoned because of his contribution to the war, code breaking, using early computers that he helped develop etc ?
Click to expand...

But it still comes down that because he was famous he got a pardon where 49,000 other men haven't.
It's all or nothing unless somebody can give me a reason why only he should get it.
 
Dimple said:
But it still comes down that because he was famous he got a pardon where 49,000 other men haven't.
It's all or nothing unless somebody can give me a reason why only he should get it.
Click to expand...

It was politically useful to pardon him, due to the publicity and lobbying.

Is that a fair reason? No. But it is the reason.

The pardon is meaningless anyway. A pardon is meaningful if it affects the pardoned person's life, which is impossible when they're already dead. I doubt if there would be any meaning in pardoning those ~49,000 people (which is impossible anyway, as a pardon is for an individual). Even for those who are still alive, what effect would a pardon have on their life now?
 
To make a comparison that doesn't involve pedophiles or violent criminals; the Japanese US citizens that were interned in WWII just because they had Japanese lineage eventually received reperations. In the UK, people found to be falsely imprisoned can be compensated. Anyone alive today who has been punished by the state for being homosexual deserves a slice of my income tax as compensation. That what they did, or more accurately who they were, was illegal at the time is not a good excuse for them receiving such disgraceful treatment.
 
Angilion said:
I doubt if there would be any meaning in pardoning those ~49,000 people (which is impossible anyway, as a pardon is for an individual).
Click to expand...

Not true....a general pardon is within the power of The State. For example this happened for all WW1 soldiers executed for cowardice by an Act of Parliament in 2006. It certainly isn't impossible, the Government simply refused.
 
Woden said:
No, he was pardoned because the law was deemed to be unjust, and his treatment led to his suicide.

My only issue with this is that the he was pardoned and not all gay men/women found guilty at the time. It makes it look like you have to be a celebrity, or something for it to be acceptable to be gay, which is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

especially as some of those people are still alive right now.


iirc an elderly man who had been charged with something relating to homosexual activities when he was in the army a long time ago got dragged in with all the sex offenders in the area for DNA testing after a rape, because it was on his record that hes a sex offender.
 
homosexuality wasn't morally wrong then & isn't now (regardless of cultural changes).
Click to expand...

wait, what? It has always been morally wrong. But morals are subjective. At that time it was morally wrong to be publicly gay and illegal.

And with regards to positions of trust, you probably know some friends who have married their friends younger sister, or a supervisor who dated the new6 girl at work. These are also positions of trust.

If you lower the age of what is a consenting adult then they aren't children any more so wouldn't fall into that gap.
 
The Running Man said:
wait, what? It has always been morally wrong. But morals are subjective. At that time it was morally wrong to be publicly gay and illegal.

And with regards to positions of trust, you probably know some friends who have married their friends younger sister, or a supervisor who dated the new6 girl at work. These are also positions of trust.

If you lower the age of what is a consenting adult then they aren't children any more so wouldn't fall into that gap.
Click to expand...
Which is why when I talk about morality it has to reference to actual human suffering or the abuse of an individual.

I really don't care for subjective morality (as it's meaningless) - I'm failing to see what point are you attempting to make.

Positions of trust is a matter of degree & the ability of the person in question to make choices as an adult - a supervisor at work may indeed be in a position of power over another, but they are not in a position of trust with a vulnerable person (such as a child).

As much as you may try, this frankly quite offensive attempt to make consenting homosexual relationships in any way comparable to paedophilia highlights either ignorance of the issues involved or an underline agenda.

The specific age limit is a method of capturing a majority of children who are too young to give informed consent, by simply reducing the limit you legalise abuse of minors who are unable to give informed consent - the label of 'child' isn't what makes it wrong, is the fact somebody unequipped to deal with the motivations & manipulations of adults is being potentially coerced into actions they may later regret.

Tefal said:
especially as some of those people are still alive right now.

iirc an elderly man who had been charged with something relating to homosexual activities when he was in the army a long time ago got dragged in with all the sex offenders in the area for DNA testing after a rape, because it was on his record that hes a sex offender.
Click to expand...
Indeed, a perfect example - which is why I think it should be extended to all.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Not true....a general pardon is within the power of The State. For example this happened for all WW1 soldiers executed for cowardice by an Act of Parliament in 2006. It certainly isn't impossible, the Government simply refused.
Click to expand...

:mad:
 
You'd also have to pardon all the soldiers who were shot for cowardice, when we now know most of them were simply suffering from shell shock.

It would make more sense to just state that the previous law was wrong and that anyone convicted a the time was therefore wrongly convicted, rather than worry about 49K cases.
A general apology was given over slavery and acknowledged that such a law was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom