Alan Turing Pardoned 415
First time accepted submitter a.ferrier writes "Today's computing would be unthinkable without the contributions of the British mathematician Alan Turing, who laid down the foundations of computer science, broke Nazi codes that helped win World War II at the famous Bletchley Park, created a secure speech encryption system, made major contributions to logic and philosophy, and even invented the concept of Artificial Intelligence. But he was also an eccentric and troubled man who was persecuted (and prosecuted) for being gay, a tragedy that contributed to his suicide just short of the age of 42 when he died of cyanide poisoning, possibly from a half-eaten apple found by his side. He is hailed today as one of the great originators of our computing age. Today he received a royal pardon."
Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not the same. Getting a Pardon won't allow someone to work in sensitive jobs or Law Enforcement as the criminal record is only removed from public records, not erased. Try crossing into the US with only your Canadian pardon. you won't be able to.
But I agree it doesn't change anything as he's been dead for long...
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Ummmm ... hate to bring up Pesky Facts but he was guilty.
They can't come out and say he wasn't guilty, because he was. That was the law at the time. A very injust law, but very real.
There's still many countries where it's illegal to be gay, and many others who still don't give full legal rights to homosexuals.
It's idiocy, but religion isn't logical (and let's face it, it's religion that drives this...)
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Informative)
In 2017 we can expect the next PM to retroactively drop charges and build a statue in his honor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_Memorial [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One question we could have now, with the advent of same sex marriage, is why incest laws should be followed with same sex marriages. There's no logical reason why I should not be able to marry my son, brother, or father, except for people thinking it's weird.
Note : I do _not_ want to marry my father (I don't have a son or brother, and doubt I would want to marry them if I did, besides, he's still married to my mother).
It's people like you that remind me that the Lend-Lease program was a huge mistake.
Kudos belongs to John Graham-Cumming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gordon Brown apologized already.
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they did. Three or four years ago.
The response on /. then was pretty much "fuck the apology, where's the pardon?"
Like it does HIM any good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Charges should have been dropped. A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .
The poor bastard had to deal with the horseshit while he was alive. This pardoning and whatever long after he's dead accomplished nothing.
It's just PR for little political people that want to pander to the Gay and Lesbian community.
Re:Like it does HIM any good. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just PR for little political people that want to pander to the Gay and Lesbian community.
And it works.
And why not? Any time you can do a little thing that makes people happy, why not? Even if it's a silly thing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just PR for little political people that want to pander to the Gay and Lesbian community.
It's symbolic, sure, but that doesn't warrant your cynicism.
The question is whether it's a worthwhile symbolism. Personally I'm all for government apologies and pardons. If anything I'd like them to go further, and not just apologise and pardon only Turing himself.
It would also be good if they'd cut out this kind of shit [tommorris.org] (one could blame the ISP, but the whole bullshit censorship initiative was the UK government's idea).
Re:Like it does HIM any good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Charges should have been dropped. A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .
The poor bastard had to deal with the horseshit while he was alive. This pardoning and whatever long after he's dead accomplished nothing.
It's just PR for little political people that want to pander to the Gay and Lesbian community.
Of course it's accomplished something. It's sent two powerful signals. One, that the government admits it fucked up; nobody likes to admit they were wrong ESPECIALLY governments so lets give credit where credit is due. Second and more importantly, it signals that the government is serious about supporting LGBT rights. Thirdly it vindicates Turing's important legacy, his family, friends, supporters, and those like me who have always looked up to him. It would have been nice if it came 61 years ago, but better late than never.
Re:Like it does HIM any good. (Score:5, Informative)
Charges should have been dropped. A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .
The poor bastard had to deal with the horseshit while he was alive. This pardoning and whatever long after he's dead accomplished nothing.
It's just PR for little political people that want to pander to the Gay and Lesbian community.
That's pretty harsh considering that's tantamount to accusing the members of the gay and lesbian community that advocated a pardon as merely seeking a little PR and pandering.
In any case, in the UK a pardon implies the person in question was technically guilty according to the letter of the law, but deserves to escape the legal consequences of the conviction because of a belief they are not "morally guilty." It says nothing about "worthy of criminalization." And the legal issue here seems to be that at one time the power of the pardon in the UK was reserved for people that were "morally and technically innocent" of the crime they were convicted of, but in modern times that distinction is split. The constitutional government has the power to pardon criminals under exceptional circumstances but almost never does because if a strong case can be made for "technical innocence" there's an appeals court designated to handle such cases. But the legal process is essentially to invoke an appeal of the case and a new trial which would be nonsensical for Turing. The alternative rests with the constitutional monarch who can pardon for "moral innocence" which doesn't involve being technically innocent under the law.
Its unclear if the government has the legal option to drop Turing's charges or vacate them because there exists no legal evidence he was innocent of the crime he freely confessed to commiting at the time of the conviction.
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
But... at the time it was illegal to be gay, so yeah, at the time he was guilty technically.
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean, technically? He committed a crime, there were witnesses, AND he confessed. You don't get any more guilty than that.
Sure the law was completely unjust by modern standards, but that doesn't change anything. You'd be similarly guilty in most of the world today if you decided to marry more than one person. Or consumed particular psychoactive plants. These are the problems you run into when you try to legislate morality rather than restricting your judicial system to making sure people don't hurt or cheat one another.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He pleaded that he "did have an intimate relationship with a man" (to paraphrase). Whether that is guilt and/or criminal is decided by others not him.
The fact that laws at that time defined this action as criminal does not make it criminal per se. Laws are supposed to be as just as possible and not necessarily always reflect current morals. If we accept current morals as the benchmark for laws, we are doomed to never develop as a species... we should aspire to have ethics as the basis for laws, not current
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, that's exactly what it does. Lawbreaking (and conviction) is what makes an act criminal.
Whether or not a law is just, morally right, or ethical (all different things, by the way) has no bearing on whether violation of the law makes you a criminal.
He was convicted of a crime. Ego, by definition, he was a criminal. He was unjustly convicted of an crime against the moral standards of the time as defined in law. Today we see that law as unethical, and pardoning him posthumously is the only just action we can take. However, we should extend the same pardon to anyone convicted under the same crime. His patriotism and contributions to computing shouldn't be the driving argument for his individual pardon.
Re: (Score:2)
In Oklahoma [anvari.org] it is illegal to get a fish drunk. Now, work on the morality aspect of that one if you will.
Re:Not enough, (Score:4, Interesting)
Usually these 'weird laws' turn out to be not so weird.
When you investigate them, generally the 'weird law' is an overly specific interpretation of a law that's perfectly sensible. For example, one list had a town in Montana where it's illegal to tie a whale to a fire hydrant. When you track down the law, it bans tying any animal to a fire hydrant - so yes, tying a whale to one WOULD be illegal, but the law wasn't written that way.
I'm willing to bet the Oklahoma issue is much the same - a ban on feeding animals alcohol. I bet it was done because of health issues with pigs being fed brewery leftovers, or something like that.
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
He was a faggot and he should have been executed for his crimes against humanity.
Before or after he saved your country's sorry ass?
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahh, but that's a different situation. The Church didn't condemn Galileo for violating a Law of Man, but for blaspheming against the Inviolable Law of God. Once they finally admitted that the Earth does in fact go around the sun it follows that in their ignorance it was *they* who were the blasphemers, and as such an apology to the man who they condemned for being a herald of truth is completely fitting.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is adultery cheating, aside from the common vernacular? I'll admit I haven't read the exact terminology of a marriage contract - if the parties explicitly promise not to have sex with anyone else then yes, it is a contract violation and should be punished as such, which is to say typically via reparations or dissolving the contract in favor of the aggrieved party. And hey, look at that, that tends to be exactly what happens! To the point that dishonorable people will try to drum up false adult
Re:Not enough, (Score:4, Insightful)
Hardly. There is definitely a segment of the population that would love to be free to do as they will with no restraints, sociopaths mostly, and businessmen (but I repeat myself). Most people though want to be protected from other people hurting or cheating them, and are willing to surrender their right to do so to others in exchange. Making that explicit will shut up almost anyone who claims they should have a right to do X, "So then we should all have the right to do X to you?".
I should be permitted to have unsupervised bonfires in national forests. So, the public should likewise have the right to have unsupervised bonfires in your yard?
I should be allowed to sell tap water as a magical healing elixir. So, every pharmacy in the country should be allowed to sell you tapwater and sugar pills instead of your needed medication?
I challenge you to present an example that doesn't break down under those considerations. Of course it only applies to laws about hurting/cheating/etc. and breaks down rapidly for more esoteric and moralistic laws, but then the value of those laws tends to be in much greater debate.
Personally I tend to be an honorable but extremely private person, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with you about a society with no privacy, provided we make sure we *completely* eliminate privacy. Because if *anyone* still has privacy in such a world they will possess an immense tactical advantage over the rest of us, and human nature being what it is it will only be a matter of time until that gets abused horribly. For example a government that can operate in secret while it's citizens have no privacy will be virtually impossible to overthrow - any potential rebellion can be crushed or subverted before it attracts more than a handful of people. And a government that can't be overthrown has very little reason to be concerned with the desires of it's citizens. So long as it moderates itself just enough to avoid spontaneous mass riots it can be as abusive as it likes.
I fear surveillance cameras and things like Google Glass primarily because without legislation to the contrary they have *huge* blind spots in which the authorities can operate. Even with such legislation there's the constant threat of groups within the government lobbying for special privacy privileges - after all you don't want the doomsday launch codes live streamed do you? Or the tactical war rooms discussions, how can you win a war if the enemy knows your every move beforehand? And once you have created a place where the elite can operate without oversight, exactly how long do you think it will be before they start plotting against the populace? There's a long and consistent trend that repeats throughout recorded history - a government grows tyrannical and abusive, rebels eventually overthrow it and establish a new more just and righteous government, and the new government almost immediately starts slipping back towards tyranny. Most every society on the planet performs that dance, only the pacing ever seems to change. The trend toward personal liberty and government accountability is almost entirely due to idealists shaping the outcome of the rebellions with lessons learned from the past, and as such they tend to be mostly concentrated in the formative period of the new government. As such I'm *extremely* wary of anything that will tend to render the rebellions toothless, especially since we still seem to have no idea how to effectively slow the slide towards tyranny.
Re: (Score:3)
But they're not criminalizing existing, they're criminalizing certain actions. A certain percentage of people are apparently born without the capacity for empathy, and often draw pleasure from harming others. Is it unjust to deny them that pleasure? It's as natural to them as being gay is to homosexuals. How exactly is criminalizing their pleasure any more or less just, by objective standards, than denying a homosexual the right to sleep with their preferred partner? Short of falling back on the old "ha
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Interesting)
A pardon removes a conviction.
A conviction defines guilt.
So the pardon removes guilt.
Guilt is not a fact. Guilt is simply a societal pronouncement.
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that that's out of the way, how about a knighthood. I can't think of many that have deserved it more.
Re:Not enough, (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the most insightful comment so far.
Elton John was granted knighthood and Alan Turing was sent to prison. Maybe societies should learn to think carefully about what they consider "eternal" truths about morality and human behavior. I'm pretty sure there were lots of people, even in the early part of the 20th century, who realized that persecuting gay people for what they do in private was wrong, just as there were people in 18th century America who knew that slavery was wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but she could have pardoned Turing a long time ago.
When was Elton John made a knight? Was it before or after Prince Charles wanted to be Camilla's tampon?
She's the bloody monarch. Who would have stopped her if she'd done the right thing?
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently a knighthood is a living title; Anyone holding a knighthood loses it on death so I don't think it can be awarded posthumously (according to the Cabinet Office [theguardian.com])
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, he is an OBE (Officer of the Order of Most Excellence of the British Empire - wow, what a title) - (or was it an MBE?)
As I understand, OBE is the fourth-level. The highest level is something like Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (GBE). According to Wikipedia, this is the order:
1. Knight Grand Cross or Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (GBE)
2. Knight Commander or Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE or DBE)
3. Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE)
4. Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE)
5. Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire [wikipedia.org]
Once he reaches Level 2 or 1, we can then finally call him "Sir Alan Turing", which he more than deserves...
Re: (Score:2)
You can call him Sir Alan Turing right now if you want.
Re: (Score:3)
I am a person making comments in English on a Computer.
Re:Not enough, (Score:4, Insightful)
Without Turing, it's very possible many of us would neither be speaking English nor using a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Well wrote.
But are you suggesting that such decisions are not necessary?
Re:Not enough, (Score:4, Funny)
>What she should do is pardon everyone who was ever convicted of being gay.
But how would that reinforce the important and long-standing tradition that VIPs should get special treatment? Next you'll tell me that celebrities and politicians should face the same sentences for criminal acts as the commoners.
Re:Not enough, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A pardon is within the Queen's power and less politically controversial. I am not sure offhand whether dropping the charges would be within the Queen's power and it would also be more likely to step on toes within the bar or bench.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because the UK Constitution controls Belgium. Your analogy falls entirely flat when comparing two countries based on one countries laws. And the King did not so much refuse to sign, he just abdicated the throne so he would not have to. The law was passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone mod parent up please.
I recall there was a push to get Allan Turing pardoned a few years back and it got shot down in the House of Commons. I believe the prime minister said something along the lines of "He was convicted of breaking the law of the land at the time. Laws change but we don't roll back time and reverse earlier convictions. We adhere to the laws that are in force at any given time."
So when this came out from the Queen, it appeared to me that one part of the government (the monarchy) w
Re: (Score:3)
Any refusal to sign something by the monarch would lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis, possibly resulting in the end of the monarchy
Or the dissolution of the government, with the monarchy's position prevailing -- depending on what exactly it was they refused to sign, or what proclamation they did choose to sign "without permission"
As long as the government administration in play at the time is corrupt, and the public is truly overwhelmingly in agreement with the monarchy's position.
It is an
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What point does a posthumous pardon have?
They can't exactly reverse the sentence or atone for it, now that he's already dead.
Or did I miss the part from the article, where they showed how the government is going to excavate his grave: bring him back to life, and reverse all effects of decay and aging, so he'll be as young and wily as the day before he was charged of a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
What point does a posthumous pardon have?
PR. What more did you expect?
Perhaps it's another attempt to persuade the public to forgive the tories for Section 28 (not that labour are blameless for not repealing it the minute they took power).
Re:Not enough, (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, it should apply to all those criminalized, and convicted under this awful law. Alan Turing was a great man, sure enough. But he was not the only victim of this sadistic state. The least the state can do is a blanket pardon, apology, and striking from the records of the "crime" of being gay and acting on it.
Re: (Score:2)
She should have posthumously censured all the legislators who voted for the act in the first place, as well as the person who lodged the complaint.
She should have posthumously... (Score:3, Funny)
She's still alive!
Re: (Score:3)
Charges should have been dropped. A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .
The government can charge you with being a turnip, but unless it can convict you of tuberousness, then you are not a turnip.
Even if it does, your are still not a turnip, but legally you must be, because a jury agreed. That's because legality and morality/righteousness are not closely related.
Re: (Score:2)
A pardon implies that he was actually guilty of something worthy of criminalization .
Quite. A pardon for Turing does nothing to condemn the law he was convicted under.
I wonder if the UK government would be so kind as to pardon *everybody* convicted under these laws going back as long as required? Not to dismiss Turing's contributions, but why should it just be for him?
Re: (Score:2)
He was convicted of laws on the books at the time. A Pardon is the best he can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The government should have pardoned itself and expunged his record. Or Pardon the Queen herself if you want to express the appropriate level of shame.
Re: (Score:2)
That's great! (Score:2, Interesting)
Now he can start enjoying life, oh wait, we're just trying to make people feel good. move along, there is nothing here
Alan Turing (Score:2, Interesting)
We as a species are very different when it comes to our mind, our culture, our background. People will
Who will pardon the ungrateful UK? (Score:2)
Who literally owe their current non-occupied existence to the work performed by heroes like Mr. Turing?
Symbolic (Score:2)
A gesture that the UK Govt did wrong at the time ...
We must never forget that sometimes, the laws are wrong and cause great people to suffer or die.
Long overdue (Score:2)
This should have happened decades ago. Since the 70s his contribution to winning the WWII are known and there are very, very few humans that can rival his impact.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's the peers that are terrible at life.
What about everyone else? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, every faggot should be beaten to death and we'd hear the end of their faggot fantasies.
And I don't give a fuck about whatever god or bullshit you're into. There's no mercy here. There's no "don't be judgmental and just get along."
Faggots have no place in modern society.
Tough luck. We're here. We exist. We aren't going anywhere. Oh and we've also been around for a long time and homosexuality also exists in nature. It doesn't impact you or your life. And with the ugliness of your attitude you wouldn't need to worry about any gays even hitting on you.
about damned time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There already was an apology, several years ago [telegraph.co.uk].
was this redacted by Yoda? (Score:3)
by the grace of god, of the united kindom, the queen, pardoned Alan Turing has, hmmm?
hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that bugs me about this is that all you fuckers on the band wagon saying he should be pardoned in 2013 would be the first to call for his castration if you had been living in the UK in 1950. Seriously people are just as prejudiced now as they were 50, 100, or 1000 years ago.
The boogey man just changes. Today it is (Nazi|pedophiles|Muslims) , before that it was homos, before that it was commies, before that it was Jews, a long time ago being a Canaanite could get you killed. I think the apology / pardon is utter bullshit, when people are treating others like shit and continue to treat each other like shit, and apology is just a way to make people feel better about themselves, and say hey 'We are better than those assholes living 50 years ago.' Well you aren't. Sure you would not castrate someone today for being a homo, but you would surely say that pedophiles need to be castrated. Yes that is right an 18 year old man having sex with, or even seeing a naked 17 year old girl has committed a sex crime and is considered by law to be a pedo. Most people would have no problem whatsoever killing / locking up pedos.
Human nature does not change. It cracks me up when every generation thinks they are better more tolerant than those racist thugs who polluted society 20 - 30 years in the past. Those racist thugs that you hate so much are yourselves.
So I guess now he's... (Score:4, Funny)
This Is The Most They'll Every Do (Score:3)
Turing was in violation of the law at the time. The law was definitely unjust, but he was in violation of it.
Dropping the charges or showing remorse would open up a can of worms regarding liability. Doing so would create precedent and a mechanism for descendants to air grievances over historical wrong doings - it will never end and may be costly.
Practically, this is the best they will ever dare do.
Entirely stupid (Score:3)
Regardless of what you think about homosexuality, he behaved against the law that was in place at the time.
It's a shame we lost a great man because of this, but law is arbitrary, and sometimes it destroys some people.
He wasn't wrongly accused or anything. This is only being done out of pressure to make a statement. It is legally entirely stupid.
Kill the Gay Nazis! (Score:2)
Truly officious and proclamational (Score:3)
Thanks for linking to the Royal Pardon - just the wording of that made my day.
ex post facto (Score:2)
If you can quash a conviction even though it was perfectly correct by the law at the time it happened then you can prosecute someone for something they do today if it's made illegal next year.
Retroactive law is a dangerous box to open.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can quash a conviction even though it was perfectly correct by the law at the time it happened then you can prosecute someone for something they do today if it's made illegal next year.
Retroactive law is a dangerous box to open.
It is a determination that the previous conviction was in fact NOT perfectly correct by the law.
There is no specific reason why humanity has to worship the stupid choices of past generations and pretend our ancestors knew everything. We can abolish old laws and declare that they were always unjust from the start. That isn't the same thing as punishing people for past technically legal actions.
Re: (Score:2)
The charges and conviction still stand. Conviction should be quashed and a full "royal" apology
That is what in effect the pardon amounts to.
There is no such thing as "quashing" a conviction that was valid and proper under the law.
Today we may feel the law is unjust -- but the courts and legislators aren't entitled to nullify convictions on laws that existed at the time they were violated. 1000 years from now; they may well say the same thing about Disorderly conduct felons, felony Curfew violators, Pub
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed! Other countries like America, Russia or Nigeria would never persecute people just for preferring to drive up chocolate lane.
Re: (Score:2)
If only "being retarded" wasn't a property that could be shared by more than one entity at a time, your post would have actual relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the British government of Christmas past for what they did to him. Here you have a genius, a war hero, one of the greatest people of the twentieth century, and your fucking idiocy runs him straight into the ground. Fuck you forever.
He was convicted for something that was a crime when he was convicted. The judge didn't know that he was a war hero, and nobody who knew could tell him because it was top secret at the time. What you are complaining about, nobody knew about that until it was thirty years too late to do anything about it.
Now some questions: If something becomes illegal after you do it, should you be convicted retroactively? And if something becomes legal after you do it, should you be "unconvicted" retroactively? And cons
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, laws can be declared "illegal" retroactively. I don't know what are the circumstances in each country, but in Germany during the last 10-20 years, a lot of laws were declared "illegal" retroactively, including e.g. some tax laws. The government had to pay compensation to the effected people retroactively.
And no, I'm not talking about laws from the time of 1933-1945. These were new laws (e.g. one from 2003 that was declared illegal in, if I remember correctly, 2008 or so).
Now, admittedly, this was
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck the British government of Christmas past for what they did to him. Here you have a genius, a war hero, one of the greatest people of the twentieth century, and your fucking idiocy runs him straight into the ground. Fuck you forever.
He isn't the first great person to have fallen, and he won't be the last. One thing to keep in mind is.... not everyone gets the message about such things. He may have been a genius, and a great war hero: but the legislators don't know about it; heros are often modest
Re:Pardon? A Pardon? (Score:5, Informative)
An abject apology would be a good start.
The then prime minister made one four years ago. [telegraph.co.uk] I remember at the time that people were complaining that it wasn't enough and a pardon should be issued.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, security officers were now extremely worried that someone with complete knowledge of the work going on at GCHQ was now labelled a security risk.
The irony is palpable. They treat him like shit and then they are worried he's going to be mad at them for it.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Government_apology_and_pardon [wikipedia.org] (and The Times of London), he will be pardoned tomorrow, Dec 24th, 2013, UK time...
An apology was expressed in 2009 by the British Government.
But, alas, that doesn't make a past wrong right - the only we can do now is to learn from the past mistakes and wrongs and do whatever we can that it doesn't happen again in the future...
Re: (Score:3)
What Mr Turing pled guilty to is not a crime.
No, it's not. But it was back then. Rightly or wrongly, it was a criminal act.
Come back in fifty years and see what's legal by then.
Anyone ever treated this way deserves a pardon and more, our most humble apologies.
It's all very well saying that, but morality is relative. You might well find our ancestors look back on us with much the same disgust.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he even plead guilty? The accounts I've looked at indicate he maintained he'd done nothing wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as "disobeying the law" has absolutely no place in your definition of what constitutes a crime, you are correct.
Unfortunately that's not how societies governed by the rule of law operate. So long as we have laws that try to legislate morality rather than just protecting people from each other we will continue to incarcerate such victimless "criminals". Be they polygamists, responsible users of illegal drugs, or just people who want to cross the Boston Common without carrying a shotgun in case of b
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. By only pardoning Turing, what the government is implying that they were not wrong about persecuting people - including Turing - for their sexual beliefs. Rather, they are saying that they were wrong to persecute Turing because he happened to be useful to the government.
I would have been more impressed if the government had issued a blanket pardon to any and all who were caught out by this miscarriage of justice and named the act after Turing. As it stands, it is just a bit of blatant PR intended t
Re: (Score:2)
It is like an old episod
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? You've never suffered from confusion, chest tightness, headache, shortness of breath, or nausea? Those are the classic symptoms of low-grade cyanide poisoning, and cyanide is one of those poisons where chronic low grade exposure can accumulate until it becomes lethal.
Of course as long as you don't chew the seeds you'll be fine, the outer shell is undigestible - that's the deal apple trees (and most other fruit-bearing plants) offer - they provide animals with a calorie-rich food source in or
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, but I do believe it has something to do with divers.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? How do you suppose you would feel if your God-given title was being besmirched by a bunch of transvestites?
Re: (Score:2)
You would think that someone referred to as “the queen” for more than 60 years would be more sympathetic to the gay population.
That was modded down to -1? Has anybody ever heard of a "joke"?
Re: (Score:2)
Alan Turing, like Oscar Wilde, had some sexual partners who were working class youth.
Back in those days, homosexuality was homosexuality, all homosexuality was illegal, and age wasn't much of an issue.
While the Gay Movement celebrates the unjust persecution of Alan Turing for "Homosexuality," they gloss over the fact that today, we would lock him up, throw away the key, and denounce him as a pedophile for consensual sex with teenagers.
It's lovely that he's been pardoned, but it's a bit hypocritical how today's Gay Activists grandfather in for Historical Gay Icons, behavior they would be the first to loudly condemn in their contemporaries.
I think at the time the age of consent was 14. Are you sure he was having with sex with anyone below the age of consent?
Re: (Score:2)
working class youth
The guy he was convicted of fooling around with was 19. The age of consent in the UK is 16. If you know of instances where his partner was below that age, please cite the evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what's *really* perverted? All those disgusting heterosexual couples having sex for reasons other than procreation. We should lock them all up, along with everyone involved in the birth-control industry who are responsible for promoting such perversions and undermining God's will.
That's the problem with attempting to legislate morality - who gets to decide *whose* morality makes the cut? Even in a democracy, who defends the morality of the minority who don't have enough votes to defend themselve
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, I believe the rules are very specific that it's your actions that condemn you - after all your desires were put there by God (or was it the Devil? Folks can never seem to agree). So by acting without lust you should get a free pass into Hell, without having to worry about any annoying last-minute reprieves due to supernatural influences.
Of course there are other paths as well, for example eating a nice shrimp dinner while wearing a wool suit and cotton undergarments. IIRC the Bible condemns b
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, everybody needs some random gratuitous celebrities mucking about in politics. Is royalty really any worse than pop stars?
Besides, if the royal family were stripped of their figurehead position then all their private holdings that are currently being managed by Parliament as part of an old negotiated concession would revert back to the family itself, and that would really hurt the UK government. IIRC the total income paid to the royal family by parliament is only a tiny percentage(like single digits or
Re: (Score:2)
It's an education degree. Not a real one.
Re: (Score:3)
The criminals in the case of Alan Turing were the various government minions who kidnapped, imprisoned, and poisoned him.
You can disagree as vehemently as you like with the way he was treated, but none of the authorities' actions were illegal at the time. It's all very well us looking back at the horrible things our ancestors did with repugnance, but our descendants will probably do exactly the same to us.