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 545388
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 13:04 UTC 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[3]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 14:36 in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


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

Did you even read my post? I wasn't saying we shouldn't honour Turing. I was saying we shouldn't pardon him because doing so would set a very dangerous legal precedence. There's a huge gulf of difference between the two.

I'm all for the government donating to related charities, opening up museums honouring his life or even having a Turing national holiday to remember him. Or any other way of remembering and honouring the guy that seems fit. However we should not undermine our legal system in the process, and that's a real risk if we pardon him.

Given how much law-related content you post on here, I thought you of all people would have grasped the implications of such a ruling.



...Anne Frank...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[edit]

Also, I'm loving how you don't seem to give a rats arse about any of the other British homosexuals who were persecuted over that dumb law. To single Turing out like Anne Frank and say we should honour them specifically is just impassionate against the thousands of others who fell foul to unjust laws like this.

But who cares about the 'little' people just so long as your personal heroes are celebrated?

Edited 2012-12-16 14:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by allanregistos on Tue 18th Dec 2012 04:18 in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10


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


Thom, you are talking as though the morality of Sexual indecency is equivalent to a crime committed by the Nazis in the 40s. Its different, homosexuals' behaviors are not accepted generally in conservative countries like ours, and so we behave as much as the Nazis? And WHO ARE YOU to dictate that it is morally acceptable to just have same sex relationships in a society? Do you really have that evidence(by experimenting it yourself) that society remains healthy even if homosexuals practices are rampant?
It is still open to debate, while murder is murder from the very beginning.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2012 06:14 in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So, we shouldn't honour Anne Frank?


I'm sure you're aware that honoring and pardoning are two very different things.
No-one has said we shouldn't honor Turing.

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[3]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 14:55 in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Tell you what, when America compensates each and every persecuted coloured, homosexual and non-Christian citizen, then I'll consider taking your opinions seriously.

Until then, I think you have little place to tell me how my country should be run.



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

I agree. But the issue is now bigger than whether the law was just. Which is my whole point and an issue you just ignored.

This is like the "think of the children" arguments where dangerously generalised laws are set.

Edited 2012-12-16 15:04 UTC

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

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Mon 17th Dec 2012 09:35 in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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

This really isn't the time nor place for mindless trolling, and I resent the personal accusations.

I'm not going into details of my personal life, because quite frankly, I'd rather not discuss them so openly on here. However I assure you I'm anything but closed minded nor homophobic. And if you bothered to read the point's I've raised, you'd see that I'm actually pushing for changes that will have a real effect for gay and bi, men and women, living and dead, rather than moves which are essentially just gestures to one specific individual (albeit one who I do have a great deal of respect for).

This is the problem with discussions like these, a small minority like yourself are too immature / insecure to hold an intelligent debate and thus resort to childish accusations.

Edited 2012-12-17 09:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2012 06:15 in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

On the internet "open minded" commonly seem to mean "people I agree with".

Reply Parent Score: 3