Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 15th Dec 2012 19:11 UTC
In the News "Peers and scientists including Professor Stephen Hawking are once again pushing for an official pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing. Turing's death from cyanide poisoning in 1954 was ruled a suicide, coming after his conviction for gross indecency at a time when homosexuality was illegal." The fact that he still hasn't been pardoned is an utter disgrace.
Thread beginning with comment 545327
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
fat lot of good
by TechGeek on Sat 15th Dec 2012 21:26 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

A fat lot of good a pardon will do at this point. The man is dead. Even if pardoned, it doesn't change the fact that he was persecuted for being gay.

Reply Score: 6

RE: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 13:04 in reply to "fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

A fat lot of good a pardon will do at this point. The man is dead. Even if pardoned, it doesn't change the fact that he was persecuted for being gay.


It's just people in the scientific and IT industries wanting to stick of for their peers. And while the intentions are honourable, most people on here seem to have missed the side effects of such an action.

These are my views; I'm British and very open minded about peoples sexuality and yet against this proposal.

Regardless of whether the law was unjust, it was the law and Turing was guilty. I genuinely wish the circumstances were different, but they weren't. So if we set a precedence that historic figures are now considered innocent then where the hell do you draw the line? It would make current laws infinitely more difficult to maintain because any future change to the law could potentially see guilty people freed from jail on technicalities, or even innocent people sent to jail because of actions they did in their past.

What's more, you open up scope for countless liable cases. People descended from those that are now pardoned will have a genuine case to sue the government. And given the huge numbers of people involved, it could be massively expensive (which would do the us much more damage given we're trying to fight off a recession).

The problem is, as noble as this gesture might be, it's such a dangerous presidence to set. The only positive outcome is entirely perceived as we can't change the past. But such a gesture would have massively unpredictable repercussions in the future.

So while I really do have the greatest sympathy for Turing and everyone else affected by that retarded piece of legislation, a pardon is the wrong way to offer up an apology. (and quite honestly, I'm surprised Hawkins backed this idea; I would have thought a British genius like himself would have realised the dangers of such a proposal).

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: fat lot of good
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 16th Dec 2012 13:09 in reply to "RE: fat lot of good"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Regardless of whether the law was unjust, it was the law and Turing was guilty. I genuinely wish the circumstances were different, but they weren't. So if we set a precedence that historic figures are now considered innocent then where the hell do you draw the line? It would make current laws infinitely more difficult to maintain because any future change to the law could potentially see guilty people freed from jail on technicalities, or even innocent people sent to jail because of actions they did in their past.


So, we shouldn't honour Anne Frank? I mean, she clearly violated the laws of the time so, fcuk her, right?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: fat lot of good
by BluenoseJake on Sun 16th Dec 2012 14:38 in reply to "RE: fat lot of good"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Your logic is horribly, horribly wrong. Those types of laws are bad, and people suffered under them. Those cases must be heard, and people must be compensated. If the British government can't handle the cost of repairing the damage, then too bad for them, they were oppressing their own people, for no good reason.

Your logic belittles the struggles that marginalized groups have been fighting for hundreds of years, be it homosexuals, or blacks, or women's rights(or countless others). All of those groups had to break bad laws as part of the fight for equality. Christ, the US wouldn't even exist if it was not for people breaking bad laws.

People persecuted under oppressive laws should be compensated and recognized for their struggle, no matter how hard it is on the governments of today. At the very least, it might show them that institutionalized oppression is too costly to maintain in the long run.

Turing was just being himself, and that should never be against any law.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: fat lot of good
by tylerdurden on Mon 17th Dec 2012 00:54 in reply to "RE: fat lot of good"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

So basically, that term "open minded" does not mean what you want it to mean.

Reply Parent Score: 0