To think it's wrong to pardon Alan Turing and no one else?

[Sixweekstowait]

Just because he made a great contribution to the war effort? There are thousands of men alive living with the same conviction - it's elitist that he's singled out

Any man now living can apply for a pardon. This is a special gesture for one who is dead and cannot. Applaud it.

He sure did make a special effort towards the war.

I am amazed anyone could even think a negative thought towards this man's pardon.

I didn't know that he was to be pardoned.

Thanks for starting this thread, as it's really made my day! Alan Turing is one of my heroes!

Exactly. Either the law was wrong, in which case everyone should be pardoned, or it was right, in which case it doesn't matter how distinguished you are. Turing's conviction was outrageous, but so was that of a lot of other people.

Turing's contribution to Bletchley was no greater than several other people who were fairly badly treated as well. Gordon Welchman lost his clearance and his job in the mid-1980s because of the publication of the "The Hut Six Story", and his contribution has been overshadowed by Turing. Sean Wylie retired and ended up as a maths teacher in Cambridge (some lucky pupils!) and died pretty much uncredited. Bill Tutte ended up as an academic in Canada, unable to get much serious work here. Tommy Flowers died uncredited.

Turing's reputation in computing has little to do with his work at Bletchley; his post-war work at Manchester and the NPL was a dead end, but his pre-war work (specifically, the 1936 paper "On Computable Numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem") would ensure his stellar reputation as the father of computer science had he died in 1937. His treatment after the war was shameful, but so was that of many other gay men. Pardoning him because of his war-work (or his 1936 paper) is PR surface with a fairly nasty depth.

friday16 Because of his prominence, pardoning him posthumously sends the message that what was done to gay men over so many decades was wrong, wrong, wrong. The law passed last year for the benefit of those still living did what can be done for them - the lost jobs and opportunities cannot be replaced retrospectively - and this speaks on behalf of those who have died. It's the best that can be done.

Incidentally it's a curious thought that he could probably not have written the paper in 1936 or have contributed to Bletchley without a good knowledge of German!

I think we should see this pardon as a first step. I was listening to Peter Tatchell on Radio 4 this morning and he said he was going to carry on campaigning for all men convicted under these foul laws to be pardoned. There is precedent for mass pardon, there is now also precedent for pardoning gay men convicted under unjust laws. It will just take more campaigning, but it will happen so I'm seeing this as a positive development.

Sorry, I didn't see this thread and started one too. I think it is a great thing but I do also think that there are several thousand other people who should also be recognised as not having committed a crime because if their sexuality.

You have start somewhere.

While Russia, and more particularly India, as a Commonwealth nation, seek to vilify and criminalise homosexuals, this is a step in the right direction.

I believe all people educated during 30's and few decades before had to learn German as it was considered the language of great philosophers and scientists.
I think all of those who would be university graduates in various European countries then would speak German and perhaps even all A level students.
It was a norm for a graduate to be fluent in 2-3 languages with grounding in Latin and Greek. I think English was least spoken amongst those from the Continent. French and German being their first choice.

The difficulty with a mass pardon is that the surviving paperwork does not always make clear whether there was an element of acting in public involved or a person under age. (Please don't get me wrong: I am not suggesting that gay men are more likely to target under-age boys then straight men are to target under-age girls; but in both cases it happens and there should be no pardon in such cases).

As an obvious example; one of the boys in the Oscar Wilde case was fifteen or possibly fourteen and no question of a pardon should arise there.

Churlish, OP.

Hubby and I had the same discussion yesterday, about how time can change who is a terrorist or a law breaker.

I'm glad he was pardoned but agree with the sentiments of the OP, what about everyone else?

For me though, I don't think anyone would look at anybody in history convicted for being homosexual and see them as criminals. I can understand that going for a pardon makes a statement, but not an important one to those of us who didn't think that just because it was a crime back then, that these people are criminals.

Of course, my default position as always remains that it is better to achieve something small, than not to try to achieve anything because you can't do it all. Something, is better than nothing.

I don't think it's fair to call my position churlish. I think there are really important principles at stake here. One is about equality before the law and another is about whether we can rewrite the law retrospectively when the laws in question, no matter how wrong they seem in retrospect, were enacted within a functioning democracy. After another think ( whilst queuing for my order in M&S) I think an apology to everyone is as far as we should have gone. That plus the fact that the law has now changed. Now AT has been singled out, the only fair thing is to pardon everyone.

Joysmum - I understand your basic point about achieving something small rather than nothing but don't think it's right to do that in a way that is manifestly unfair to many others based just on your perceived contribution to the war effort.

I was going to start a thread celebrating the pardon of this great man, I wish I had now.

What this man went through was horrendous, and what his contributions to the war and science is huge.

His pardon is a thing to be celebrated.

Sorry that was a garbled up sentence!

'Perceived war efforts'??

The difficulty with a mass pardon is that the surviving paperwork does not always make clear whether there was an element of acting in public involved or a person under age.

Define "under age". Turing's partner would still have been underage after the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, and the relationship wouldn't have been legal until the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Which is the whole tarpit you get into with applying the laws of today to yesterday. Up until 1994, Turing's behaviour would have still been straightforwardly illegal: Arnold Murray was 19 at the time. If we're going to go back in time and not only retrospectively apply the Sexual Offences Act 1967 to past behaviour, but also (presumably) the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which takes the age of consent down to 16, then figuring out who's in and who's out is going to be rather complicated.

I agree that the best is the enemy of the good, and that the injustice done to Turing is symbolic of wider injustices. But there's no serious doubt that he was guilty under the legislation of the time. This isn't like, say, Timothy Evans or Derek Bentley, where the legislation hasn't changed but it's entirely clear they were the victims of miscarriages of justice. What's being argued is that neither he nor anyone else should have been charged, because the law itself was wrong. Fine: I agree with that. So why's he the only person to be pardoned?

Thanks friday for putting things so eruditely and for including the fact that his sexual partner was only 19 and it was not a relationship of equals. I'm a bit disappointed to be honest at the level of some of the arguments - I also find it a bit rich that this pardon has come from a government, many of whose MPs enthusiastically supported Section 28. We simply shouldn't treat 'great' people differently when it comes to the law ( although I know we do)

Because Alan Turing died by cyanide - that is why Apple have a brand icon that shows an apple with one bite out of it..........in his memory.

It's a gesture, a good choice i thought.

I'm seeing it as a test case in all honesty, a great one and I'm glad it went through but a test to try out how the law can be applied. It will be very interesting to see what happens with other cases.
As an aside, I always thought that he committed suicide but DH told me this morning that it was in doubt because an experiment he had running used Potassium Cyanide, so it could have been accidental?

I think he was a good choice to start with.

As friday said, either the law was right and no one should be pardoned, or it was wrong and everyone should.

Berry unfortunately that's not true - it had a bite in so as not to be confused with a cherry. interview with designer