Alan Turing Granted Royal Pardon

Destination · 28 Dec 2013 at 08:50

I find it strange they pardon someone for a crime that was a crime at the time, but is no longer a crime.
How can you pardon that does not now exist?
If he was guilty of the crime at the time he was guilty.

The crime is the issue here, it should never have been a crime, and anyone found guilty of such, now that the law has changed to remove its crime status, should automatically by implication be pardoned.

No individual pardon should be required, as he was guilty, he doesn't become less guilty now, the crime itself is removed.

Castiel · 28 Dec 2013 at 09:02

RDM said:
As this is still within living memory I don't think it is too far in the past.

Which is where the occasional symbolic pardon comes in handy. It is basically a statement saying "We were wrong in the past to criminalise homosexuality". It is about building that better society by making a gesture towards the past. As the guy is dead it isn't like it will make any difference at all to him.

However, as there are still thousands of people still alive today who were affected by this legislation such a symbolic pardon could be construed as an insult to them. They are not good enough to warrant such a pardon despite the crime being wrong, this implies that it was Turin's fame that was the motivating factor in issuing the pardon, not his homosexuality...it is not difficult or without precedent to blanket pardon everyone, the Government simply refused to do it.

SexyGreyFox · 28 Dec 2013 at 10:53

RDM said:
As this is still within living memory I don't think it is too far in the past.

So now you've put a time limit on it, every crime that is now not a crime within living memory should be pardoned (?)

That is both a question and what I think.

Or we just learn from the past and move on.

Muban · 28 Dec 2013 at 10:57

Apologies if this has already been covered. Surely though if you agree with a pardon in this instance then you should think that if any law is fully repealed without re-enactment, then all of the people who have previously been convicted should automatically be pardoned?

Incidentally I think what happened to him was terrible. I'm just not sure why he should receive a pardon and not anyone convicted of any other crime which has now been repealed. I'm also not entirely sure what the point of the pardon is when it is for a repealed law, isn't that why it's not a crime anymore? Perhaps it is too simplistic a view and I'd have a different view if it was a friend/relative of mine.

Sliver · 28 Dec 2013 at 11:29

estebanrey said:
I think RunningMan is a taxi driver in London...

I think you might be onto something there.

Angilion · 28 Dec 2013 at 21:52

I have another question:

If it is a good thing to formally retroactively unconvict someone because a crime they were guilty of later ceases to be a crime, is it also a good thing to formally retroactively convict someone because something they did which was not a crime later becomes a crime?

If not, why not?

Should we, for example, issue formal convictions for people who owned a gun in the 1920s in a way that was legal then but which would be illegal now? Even those who are dead?

Or should we just be honest and say that all that really matters regarding these issues is how much lobbying is done and how famous a person is, since it's entirely about politics and has absolutely nothing to do with what's right and what's wrong?

BigglesPiP · 28 Dec 2013 at 22:16

Angilion said:
I have another question:

If it is a good thing to formally retroactively unconvict someone because a crime they were guilty of later ceases to be a crime, is it also a good thing to formally retroactively convict someone because something they did which was not a crime later becomes a crime?

If not, why not?

Should we, for example, issue formal convictions for people who owned a gun in the 1920s in a way that was legal then but which would be illegal now? Even those who are dead?

Or should we just be honest and say that all that really matters regarding these issues is how much lobbying is done and how famous a person is, since it's entirely about politics and has absolutely nothing to do with what's right and what's wrong?

Another flawed analogy, it's not just that something becomes illegal or legal, it's a matter of ethics. Owning a handgun is now illegal but has never been ethically questionable, some uses of a handgun certainly are though.

If there is such an awful act that is legal today that was made illegal tomorrow, then it would be desirable to convict previous would be offenders, it's just not allowed by our current legal system. This is something I'm ok with though, we've got reasonably good laws in the UK now (my opinion).

Angilion · 28 Dec 2013 at 22:45

BigglesPiP said:
Another flawed analogy, it's not just that something becomes illegal or legal, it's a matter of ethics. Owning a handgun is now illegal but has never been ethically questionable, some uses of a handgun certainly are though. [..]

Ethics change as well as laws (laws generally follow the ethics of the time and place in which they are passed), so the distinction you're making isn't relevant to this point.

The difference between applying present laws retroactively and applying present ethics retroactively (which is generally just a matter of a slight difference in how much time you go back) does not negate the issue of whether or not present standards should be applied to the past, nor does it explain why it should only happen for unconvicting people convicted of something that had been a crime but which no longer is and not for convicting people for doing something which wasn't a crime when they did it but is now.