http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8226509.stm





I'd support what they're asking for here.

Not sure what the point is:
A) because he's long dead
B) because at that point in history, that sort of thing was considered wrong. We can't use modern standards to judge people from a different era.

For the same reasons we pardon a lot of soldiers I guess - we know better now and it costs nothing to do in the grand scheme of things, while helping to remove some of the questions about the past.

So slavery was OK then?

I don't agree with the posthumous knighthood, but I'd definitely go for having the conviction quashed.

At the time, yes. We don't generally speaking expect people from history to act to the standard we would today because it's an utterly bizarre expectation. This is simply a more recent example. It doesn't condone what happened in the past but being revisionist about it doesn't actually accomplish anything at all.


To what end? Alan Turing is dead and he doesn't care. His relatives may still be alive but pardoning him wouldn't really make any difference to them. In a slightly odd way, I'm actually more in favour of some sort of posthumous recognition than I am posthumous pardon. The latter doesn't actually say anything about him because his conviction will still be a matter of recorded history. It doesn't make him a better or worse person or change the facts of his life at all, it's just an illustration of how controlling and needy society has become that we can't bear to be reminded that at one point we did things that we currently find distasteful so we have to 'fix' it in a way that's completely pointless. Seems more sensible to me that we leave history as it is but say 'Alan Turing was a exceptional contributor to the scientific culture of the UK and for this should be officially recognised'.

By concentrating on the pardon not the work he did, we're making his sexuality a bigger emblem for his life than his intellect or his achievements. I don't think he's want that, do you?

Jon

I don't think pardoning is a good idea, as stated for the difference in standards. Let's take an extreme and silly example: In 100 years' time, there is no 'age of consent'; four-year-olds can have sex if they want. Are you then going to posthumously pardon Gary Glitter?

If, in your hypothetical society a century hence, it's no longer an issue for people, why not?
That nicely illustrates the difference between morals of the time - in Turing's day, it was a criminal offence to be gay. Which I'd hope, today, we'd be amazed at the notion.

There's movements to get women who suffered due to accusations of witchcraft to be pardoned - at the time, much of what they were accused of was abhorrent by the standards of the time, and frequently fantastical.

Anyway, yes, a pardon should be forthcoming, as it made as much sense as accusing him of being unreasonably ginger and left handed.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

+1

Someone's sexuality should never be a criminal offence.

No, but rape should be. Turing wasn't persecuted for his sexuality; he was prosecuted for indecent acts.

There is a difference between Gary Glitter having some porn, and what he did after his life was pretty much destroyed and he actually went and (allegedly) acted it out.

I do not agree with prosecuting "thought crime", but actually breaking the law with physical deeds is wrong - no matter how stupid the law might be. There are many laws I don't agree with, but I accept the fact that by living in this country I have to abide by them.

If a law is wrong, you protest it. You don't just ignore it.

That said, this is a fantastic example of just how obscenely wrong the law often is. Clearly, the law makers should be vilified and made to account for their sins - but it doesn't work that way.

Disobeying a crap law is a legitimate form of protest. Just ask the people who refused to pay the poll tax/community charge, or the people who will refuse to get an ID card, or the people who refused to get drafted to go to Vietnam.

And of course rape should be illegal, who said otherwise? Sexual acts between consenting adults should never be illegal.

You need to carefully define three things there:

1. Consent
2. Sexual acts
3. Adults

These have not been constants throughout history, or indeed throughout the world. I'm sure you have a very clear idea of what they mean, but other people may not agree. Are they wrong, or are you?

I think the current limits/definitions given to each by English law are fine TBH.

And yet they're different to those in practically every other country, including America, Germany, Spain, India...

They're also different to those in England 50 years ago.

But since I'm only concerned with the law in this Country, since this is the one I live in, then that's OK.