Alan Turing - Given Royal Pardon

Shame it's sixty odd years too late.
 
Given what he achieved the treatment dished out to him was appalling.

Are there not some unresolved issues over his death. Put down to suicide with cyanide, but with doubts about that remaining. That was mentioned on BBC news this morning.
 
Interesting question why he was pardoned.....

Most people seem to be saying he was pardoned because he was a brilliant mathematician who helped the war effort immensely. That's a bit like pardoning Wernher Von Braun for all the things he did because he helped Nasa out with a cool space thing.

Really he should be pardoned because it was a ridiculous law that has no place in a decent society. And if you agree with that then you start to ask why the estimated 5,000 people who were "guilty' of the same offence who are still alive now have heard nothing from the government.

He was appalling treated and it's good news that he's been pardoned. But I don't understand why you make a special case of forgiving crimes because somebody was famous.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Interesting question why he was pardoned.....

Really he should be pardoned because it was a ridiculous law that has no place in a decent society. And if you agree with that then you start to ask why the estimated 5,000 people who were "guilty' of the same offence who are still alive now have heard nothing from the government.

He was appalling treated and it's good news that he's been pardoned. But I don't understand why you make a special case of forgiving crimes because somebody was famous.
Click to expand...

First thing I thought when I heard the news. Yes he should have been pardoned but surely that should be extended to the other thousands who were also prosecuted, alive & dead.

Steve
 
I'm sure he'll appreciate the gesture:rolleyes:
 
jakeblu said:
First thing I thought when I heard the news. Yes he should have been pardoned but surely that should be extended to the other thousands who were also prosecuted, alive & dead.
Click to expand...


Pathetic reasoning right down near the bottom of the article...

"The problem is, of course, if there was a general pardon for men who had been prosecuted for homosexuality, many of them are still alive and they could get compensation."
Click to expand...
 
His treatment compared to today's standards and values was appalling but those times were different. A the time such acts were against the law. Unfortunately we need to stand by the laws of the land or we pay the penalty if caught. There are plenty of laws I don't like but have to abide by them. We need to stop looking back and apologising for actions that were considered normal 50, 100 or 200 years ago. Its not like anyone around today was part of that process. At that time if the police stopped you driving over the limit they would most likely escort you home safe and sound rather than ban you!

What if we adopted the age of consent that other countries have and lower to 14 or 15, does that mean the people jailed for that would get pardoned. It can set a dangerous precedent.

I am sure this is great news for his family, and although he was an amazing man, what about the other 5000, seems a bit harsh to single out one and not the others.
 
cambsno said:
His treatment compared to today's standards and values was appalling but those times were different. A the time such acts were against the law. Unfortunately we need to stand by the laws of the land or we pay the penalty if caught. There are plenty of laws I don't like but have to abide by them. We need to stop looking back and apologising for actions that were considered normal 50, 100 or 200 years ago. Its not like anyone around today was part of that process. At that time if the police stopped you driving over the limit they would most likely escort you home safe and sound rather than ban you!

What if we adopted the age of consent that other countries have and lower to 14 or 15, does that mean the people jailed for that would get pardoned. It can set a dangerous precedent.

I am sure this is great news for his family, and although he was an amazing man, what about the other 5000, seems a bit harsh to single out one and not the others.
Click to expand...


This^^^^
 
cambsno said:
His treatment compared to today's standards and values was appalling but those times were different. A the time such acts were against the law. Unfortunately we need to stand by the laws of the land or we pay the penalty if caught. There are plenty of laws I don't like but have to abide by them. We need to stop looking back and apologising for actions that were considered normal 50, 100 or 200 years ago. Its not like anyone around today was part of that process.
Click to expand...

The gross indecency law was taken off the statute books in 2003 (though it had been dormant for a few years by then). In 1997, the government attempted to put everybody convicted of gross indecency on the sex offenders register. In 1989 there were 3,500 prosecutions and far more convictions than there were in 1955.

It's not really ancient history yet.

BTW I just looked it up and there's sadly no truth that the Apple Logo is a tribute to Alan Turing. As Steve Jobs said to the BBC

It isn't true, but God, we wish it were!
Click to expand...
 
Whilst it was sad that Turing was essentially vilified for being gay, as others have said, it was current law at the time. Let's fastforward to the future and say the age of consent was lowered to 5. Would we then pardon Jimmy saville?

In some ways, if you pardon Turing, then he died for nothing. IMO it would be better not to pardon him as it means he died for something.
 
As Simon says, the conviction was in accordance with legislation that existed at the time. Why did it exist? A number of reasons, one being the influance of the Church in the Executive, and that thorny line, "Man shall not lay with man" in the Bible. Like a lot of criminal law it's basis is way back in the words of religion, theft, murder adultery (yes, that was once a criminal offence!) being examples. OK, I accept that line is subject to numerous re writing and could well be a case of "Send three and Four Pence we are going to a dance" syndrome. But you can see the reasons for the obvious interpretation.

What makes his case different from many Gross Indecency offences is that he committed it in private, ie in his own home. It only came to light when his house was burgled, and while that was being investigated it became apparent he was living with, in the accepted sense today, another man.

He was charged under the law as it stood, and pleaded guilty. That makes a pardon very unusual. He has put himself in the position of guilt, no one has then had to prove anything against him, he's done it himself.

However, his plea isn't what is different here from other Gross charges. Not long after his conviction, the legislation allowed for a defence where the Gross Indecency happened in private between consenting adults over 21. But the majority of people convicted since then, and this is the vast majority of the '50,000' that Tatchell was jibbering on about on the news yesterday were convicted of Gross Indecency in a public place, so Gents loos, and Clapham common being examples.

I can see no reason for a pardon for those convicted of that, as a heterosexual couple doing the same thing would also be prosecuted, although for Outraging public decency. Public loos are for, well doing the obvious in, and does anyone want to go in and find a couple of blokes going at it? No! Same for Clapham Common, its there for a reason, not for people to have a shag on.

As for him loosing his vetting, again, it was of the time. Being Homosexual made people venerable to blackmail from other states. It wasn't the only reason for Positive Vetting being declined, debt, and excessive wandering willy issues with women would lead to the same result.

His death was the result of poisoning. His family claim that it was an accident. As far as I can tell there's no evidence supporting that, and the Coroner went for Suicide.
 
Last edited:
omens said:
Whilst it was sad that Turing was essentially vilified for being gay, as others have said, it was current law at the time. Let's fastforward to the future and say the age of consent was lowered to 5. Would we then pardon Jimmy saville?

In some ways, if you pardon Turing, then he died for nothing. IMO it would be better not to pardon him as it means he died for something.
Click to expand...

I agree with your last two sentences, I think he would be turning in his grave at this. There is a precedent though, shell shocked soldiers shot for cowardice in WWI have been pardoned though by the laws of the time they were guilty.
 
Last edited:
Actually, there is no precedent. The pardon for soldiers from WW1 was a blanket pardon, not an individual one.
You can have no blanket pardon for the offence Turin pleaded Guilty to, simply because the circumstances of most of these convictions are entirely different.

The issue isn't that he was Gay, it was that he committed an act which was illegal, that is the Gross Indecency, not a prefereance. That act remained illegal with a woman for many years after there was a defence for it in certain circumstances in Gay relationships.
 
Unfortunately we need to stand by the laws of the land or we pay the penalty if caught.
Click to expand...


I suppose it's a bit hard if you are born gay.
In some places black folk couldn't go where white folk went, but it was OK if all abided the law of the land.:meh: :indifferent:???????
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top