ChatterBank0 min ago
Alan Turing
Currently it is being debated if Alan Turing , the Bletchley Park genius, should be pardoned for his alleged homosexuality. I don't think he should be pardoned; he should be exonerated, since a pardon implies forgiveness for wrongdoing.
Further, a posthumous knighthood is warranted to partially correct the blatant injustice he was shown. Agree ?
Further, a posthumous knighthood is warranted to partially correct the blatant injustice he was shown. Agree ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Scylax. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's a tough one, Scylax. I can understand pardoning someone who's still alive, but I can't see what useful purpose it serves to pardon a dead one. Also, you're surely not denying that he broke the law as it was, however unjust we consider that law in more enlightened times.
Far better, I think, would be to find some other way of making sure he is given the recognition he so richly deserves. In my opinion, he was one of the greatest Britons who ever lived and contributed as much to our freedom as Churchill, Montgomery or Nelson.
Far better, I think, would be to find some other way of making sure he is given the recognition he so richly deserves. In my opinion, he was one of the greatest Britons who ever lived and contributed as much to our freedom as Churchill, Montgomery or Nelson.
I said this 12 months ago.......and haven't changed my opinion;
If we 'pardon' Alan Turing then every single other man who suffered under these pernicious laws *must* be similarly pardoned, and that simply isn't going to happen.
If well-meaning folks really are offended by what he went through and are wanting to restore his character, 'rehabilitate' his image and *really* want to honour the man, then you could ensure that you do you bit to make this a more welcoming and accepting place for gay people - that would be a more fitting legacy than a posthumous pardon.
If we 'pardon' Alan Turing then every single other man who suffered under these pernicious laws *must* be similarly pardoned, and that simply isn't going to happen.
If well-meaning folks really are offended by what he went through and are wanting to restore his character, 'rehabilitate' his image and *really* want to honour the man, then you could ensure that you do you bit to make this a more welcoming and accepting place for gay people - that would be a more fitting legacy than a posthumous pardon.
You get a pardon when it comes to light that you didn't commit the crime after all. He did commit the crime though.
The fact that it's a crime that quite rightly doesn't exist these days doesn't really have a bearing on it. Are we supposed to go back through history pardoning everyone who committed a crime under a law that's since been changed?
It would make as much sense to posthumously give the vote to all the women that didn't have the right to vote when they were alive but would do if they were alive now.
The fact that it's a crime that quite rightly doesn't exist these days doesn't really have a bearing on it. Are we supposed to go back through history pardoning everyone who committed a crime under a law that's since been changed?
It would make as much sense to posthumously give the vote to all the women that didn't have the right to vote when they were alive but would do if they were alive now.
Exonerating him would be nonsensical. By the laws of his time, he was guilty. Are you suggesting that we should pardon everybody who was convicted under a law which has since been repealed? We don't retrospectively convict people who did things which were legal at the time, but have now become illegal. No more should we pardon or exonerate people in the reverse case. Where's your justification for it?
By the way, I've got enormous respect and admiration for Turing, and I agree that the establishment treated him absolutely horribly. But that's just what happened in those days.
By the way, I've got enormous respect and admiration for Turing, and I agree that the establishment treated him absolutely horribly. But that's just what happened in those days.
// Whether they would still use it to pardon someone who was guilty is open to question. //
Or indeed someone who's dead. It's a silly gesture. They should put him on the currency or put his statue on the empty plinth in Trafalgar square.
These would do more to educate people about who he was and honour what he did.
Or indeed someone who's dead. It's a silly gesture. They should put him on the currency or put his statue on the empty plinth in Trafalgar square.
These would do more to educate people about who he was and honour what he did.
I'm more interested in the question surrounding his suicide and would feel taxpayers' money would be better spent establishing how he met his end. His mother who he lived with never accepted that he was suicidal and I'd have thought a clever chap like him could have sourced many ways to off himself without resorting to a poisoned apple.
agree, but it won't happen, in the eyes of the law he did do wrong, no to the posthumous knighthood that just won't work. He was as you and others have said, a genius, shame on the establishment at the time for making his life hell. Thank heavens we have moved on from those dark days, at least in law.
I'm with the majority here.
It is not feasible to pardon someone from a crime of which they were convicted under the laws of the time - simply because they were a wonderful human being and contributed a lot to society.
Hitler loved dogs, but I don't imagine the RSPCA are looking to give him a posthumous mdal for it!
The crime was wrong, as more enlightened times have proved, but a crime it was, and if this man is pardoned, then every soldier shot for desertion should be shot, and every suffragette who went to prison should be pardoned, and so the whole illogical bandwaggon rolls on.
A statue in memory of Turing's contribution to the war effort would be appropriate, not pretending he was not a criminal which he patently was.
I entirely agree with Jack's sentiments, let's take our progression with regard to homoesexuality further forward, that would be a fitting tribute.
It is not feasible to pardon someone from a crime of which they were convicted under the laws of the time - simply because they were a wonderful human being and contributed a lot to society.
Hitler loved dogs, but I don't imagine the RSPCA are looking to give him a posthumous mdal for it!
The crime was wrong, as more enlightened times have proved, but a crime it was, and if this man is pardoned, then every soldier shot for desertion should be shot, and every suffragette who went to prison should be pardoned, and so the whole illogical bandwaggon rolls on.
A statue in memory of Turing's contribution to the war effort would be appropriate, not pretending he was not a criminal which he patently was.
I entirely agree with Jack's sentiments, let's take our progression with regard to homoesexuality further forward, that would be a fitting tribute.
If we're doing statues perhaps one to Marian Rejewski who was breaking Enigma 7 years before Turing took over his work and is hardly known.
http://
Not to denigrate Turing's immense importance but sometimes people make it sound as if he did it all on his own!
http://
Not to denigrate Turing's immense importance but sometimes people make it sound as if he did it all on his own!
At Nuremberg, people and organisations were convicted of deeds which were
legal under Nazi law. The international community recognized that their legality
was nonetheless a profound injustice, and sentenced many of the perpetrators to be hanged, because natural justice prevailed over foul law. It was Charles Dickens who first said that 'the law is an ass'.
I would also argue that if posthumous knighthoods do not exist, they should,
and I have a long list of deserving clients. Sir Alan Turing heads that list.
legal under Nazi law. The international community recognized that their legality
was nonetheless a profound injustice, and sentenced many of the perpetrators to be hanged, because natural justice prevailed over foul law. It was Charles Dickens who first said that 'the law is an ass'.
I would also argue that if posthumous knighthoods do not exist, they should,
and I have a long list of deserving clients. Sir Alan Turing heads that list.
