Alan Turing Pardon

Ev0 · 15 Dec 2012 at 16:24

genan said:
Well read the thread again, some people still call him a criminal, that was my issue.

People here are only saying it out as the thread is largely about his criminal activities, I was talking more about the wider picture and people's thoughts on him in general.

I don't know anyone here whose first and only thought about Turing would be his criminal past.

And read your comment again, calling someone a criminal and treating them like one are different in my eyes, but maybe that's just me.

Meaker · 15 Dec 2012 at 16:26

Turing hit up a 19 year old for sex, that 19 year old turned around and robbed him.

It was stupid thing to do but he was treated badly.

RetiredGreyFox · 15 Dec 2012 at 17:18

Meaker said:
Turing hit up a 19 year old for sex, that 19 year old turned around and robbed him.

It was stupid thing to do but he was treated badly.

But he wasn't treated badly for that period of time which some people aren't grasping.
The stupid thing he did was basically go to the police and admit to gay sex at a time when it was illegal.
I think Oscar Wilde and Quentin Crisp also did time for being gay so can we pardon those as well?

Orion21 · 15 Dec 2012 at 18:02

Certain things just shouldn't be illegal, it's frankly stupid, two that come to mind that were illegal in the past are homosexuality and suicide.

Just who are those things hurting? If everything is consensual for the first what's the problem? People don't have to like it or want to do it themselves but 'live and let live', other people can do what they want with their lives if it hurts no one. As for the second thing, once again suicide is a personal thing, an act carried out on themselves, and since when was criminalising it going to help suicidal people in the first place.

If anything the criminal offence should be for those people making offences that hurt no one or only the individual themselves a criminal offence.

Gilly · 15 Dec 2012 at 18:20

Orion21 said:
Certain things just shouldn't be illegal, it's frankly stupid, two that come to mind that were illegal in the past are homosexuality and suicide.

Just who are those things hurting? If everything is consensual for the first what's the problem? People don't have to like it or want to do it themselves but 'live and let live', other people can do what they want with their lives if it hurts no one. As for the second thing, once again suicide is a personal thing, an act carried out on themselves, and since when was criminalising it going to help suicidal people in the first place.

If anything the criminal offence should be for those people making offences that hurt no one or only the individual themselves a criminal offence.

Those laws have been changed. I don't understand your point.

Orion21 · 15 Dec 2012 at 20:16

My point is too many laws are about imposing some peoples views on others when there is no need to do so as there is no injured party.

It is also that laws such as these, and in reference to Turing, are so silly that they should just blanket pardon anyone that was found 'guilty' of these. It's a bit different to the changing of sentencing of something obviously wrong and with a victim, because of the way something is viewed in society, i.e. reducing the severity of certain offences in law, as these acts would still be wrong e.g. assaulting someone is always going to be wrong.

do_ron_ron · 15 Dec 2012 at 20:56

Angilion said:
No, he wasn't. There was no relationship. It might have been prostitution. It might have been a pickup for sex. But it wasn't a relationship.

Even less reason rosecute.

Nitefly · 15 Dec 2012 at 21:19

Gilly said:
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.

Gilly said:
He is a war hero.

He's also a criminal.

He was oppressed for no decent reason over something trivial. Just because something is a law doesn't mean that oppression under that law is justified.

PMKeates said:
I find the Alan Turing case a great example of why the law and what's fair and moral are two completely different things.

Surely it's the other way round - criminality and morality are intrinsically linked.

platinum87 · 15 Dec 2012 at 21:25

Apologizing for the actions of people out of your control or in the past is ridiculous.

It should not be done ever in any context, People in power that would pander to popular opinions of stupidity should be removed by force.

Angilion · 16 Dec 2012 at 23:35

I've read some interesting speculation that his death was an accident and not suicide. If the points stated are true (and I haven't been able to check them, so I don't know), then accidental death is a possibility.

The points given in support of the argument that his death was accidental are as follows:

1) His death was a considerable amount of time after his punishment had finished.

2) People who knew him said he was in good humour even during the punishment, let alone afterwards.

3) He had ongoing plans for the future, which implies he expected to have a future.

4) He was conducting experiments in his home which involved cyanide and which could have released toxic gas. It was in a small room without safety ventilation equipment.

5) Toxicology tests were not carried out on the apple that was given as the cause of death, i.e. there's no evidence that it was poisoned.

If those things are true then accidental death does look possible.

Angilion · 16 Dec 2012 at 23:39

platinum87 said:
Apologizing for the actions of people out of your control or in the past is ridiculous.

It should not be done ever in any context, People in power that would pander to popular opinions of stupidity should be removed by force.

I agree. An expression of regret, yes. A condemnation of injustice, yes. An apology, no.

Gilly · 17 Dec 2012 at 09:47

Nitefly said:
He was oppressed for no decent reason over something trivial. Just because something is a law doesn't mean that oppression under that law is justified.

In what way was he oppressed? How was he treated differently to anyone else behaving in the same way at the same time?

apeksdiver · 17 Dec 2012 at 09:51

He wasn't it was the law at the time. I doubt he was treated differently.

DRZ · 17 Dec 2012 at 11:23

Gilly said:
In what way was he oppressed? How was he treated differently to anyone else behaving in the same way at the same time?

Without making specific comment on the Turing case, I'd like to ask if you believe that everything legal is right solely because it was legal when it was done?

Slavery was legal, are you saying that those slaves were not oppressed solely because of the fact it was legal and all the slaves were treated the same?

Vilification of homosexuality was as much an oppressive practice then as it is now - the difference being that the opinion of society towards it has changed.

Gilly · 17 Dec 2012 at 11:59

DRZ said:
Without making specific comment on the Turing case, I'd like to ask if you believe that everything legal is right solely because it was legal when it was done?

Slavery was legal, are you saying that those slaves were not oppressed solely because of the fact it was legal and all the slaves were treated the same?

Vilification of homosexuality was as much an oppressive practice then as it is now - the difference being that the opinion of society towards it has changed.

What I'm saying is enough has been done already. There has been a formal apology made by the PM and nothing that can be done now will improve his lot.

If he was still alive then I can kinda see what the argument for an official pardon would be, but he's not.

Waste of time.

platypus · 17 Dec 2012 at 13:33

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?

I am largely inclined to agree with this, however it's not necessarily about just pardoning the famous people. The stature of Alun Turing helps highlight the injustice because he's so well known, rather than simply pardoning joe bloggs. That way they don't have to pardon everyone, just him to get their point across.

That said, I don't think a pardon is the way forward.

Nitefly · 17 Dec 2012 at 18:43

Gilly said:
In what way was he oppressed? How was he treated differently to anyone else behaving in the same way at the same time?

This has already been addressed by somebody else, but in that sense do you think that a Jew could not oppressed in Nazi Germany because he was one of many?

I just think that if someone carries out an act that is clearly not immoral it hardly warrants condemnation, regardless whether that activity is deemed to be criminal or not. As such I think your comments of 'but he was a criminal' are somewhat irrelevant *shrug*

Whether a pardon is otherwise warranted or not, that I am not contesting.