Too Little, Too Late? Pardon of Alan Turing

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/12/the-mistake-behind-the-posthumous-pardon-of-alan-...

My take on this is; what's the point? The man is dead, so it doesn't benefit him in the slightest. I don't think he had any heirs, so there's no validation for them. (And even if there ARE heirs, it was Alan's problem, not theirs.) It's a nice, safe, uncontroversial act that makes certain policy makers feel good about themselves; an act that costs little and does nothing.

It represents an admission that legal systems are not infallible and that accountability is possible, even if deferred. It has nothing to do with making "certain policy makers" (btw, in this case, the Queen) feel better about themselves.

>2 theoria: Why not pardon all who were charged with that crap, then? Why just the famous name?

Because there's an upcoming movie about Turing?

Which just makes the point that it's just trying to put a little positive spin on those "certain policy makers" rather than actually owning the responsibility for the terrible plight of many for the same "crime."

#2

How is there 'accountability'? The people who made the initial decision aren't being penalized; in fact, they can't be, because they were following the law. The system worked correctly; Alan Turing was guilty of a crime, found guilty, and sentenced. So, although certainly legal systems are fallible (like everything else man-made) that isn't the problem here.

And deferred accountability falls into the same problem as justice; deferring it too long is equivalent to denial.

#3-5 point out the other issue; if Britain truly feels that an injustice was done to Turing, then why not issue a blanket pardon to ALL of those convicted under the same law? Surely, if it was unjust (if legal) to convict Turing, then the same should apply to all those other convicts.

Which makes this decision look more like a (poor) PR stunt; pardon someone famous (and safely dead) so that you can look magnimous and just, admitting to an error without any real consequences.

Regarding the many others who were similarly convicted, the high profile of this case could be the fulcrum for getting similar recognition.

From this BBC report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315 :

Dr Sue Black, a computer scientist, was one of the key figures in the campaign.

She told the BBC that she hoped all the men convicted under the anti-homosexuality law would now be pardoned.

"This is one small step on the way to making some real positive change happen to all the people that were convicted," she said.

"It's a disgrace that so many people were treated so disrespectfully."

Homosexuality is no longer "the love which dares not say its name"; it is becoming a part of the life of the "above ground."

If UTAH of all places is issuing licenses to marry for gay folk then the "inevitable" has arrived!...

> 8

We liberated children first. Then women. Then blacks. And now gays. It will soon be atheists' turn.

I still have a chance of one day being elected POTUS.

Can't atheists marry? Or they can't marry each other?...

10> If you thought that list was about marriage, then what did you make of the first item on it ("We liberated children first")?

I was just being a "wise guy"; no "harm" meant...

On the Internet, no one can hear you being sarcastic.

Apparently not but it wasn't exactly sarcasm; more a milder sort, say being uh "playful"...

Can't I be playful too?

Well of course...

For what it's worth, MW's comment was clear to me, even though I didn't actually hear it.

It's a valid question though. Atheists are free to marry in most countries but for example not in Israel. So an atheist's right to marry is not universally acknowledged. However I suspect that gay people have it worse than atheists in all countries.

Atheists may not marry in Israel?! Really! I assume that means "public" atheists rather than uh "closeted" ones?

If no one knows what one REALLY "thinks" or "feels" I suppose one can endure anywhere, as in Stalinist Russia say or even nazi Germany -- as long as one's private parts weren't "examined"?...

Yeah... If I understand correctly, only religiously ordained marriages are accepted, so you have to belong to one of the official religions. I suppose atheists may get into some of them, it'll depend on the specific rules of each religion. The alternative is some kind of civil-union arrangement but that's of course the same thing that's being rejected in the marriage equality movement.

I'm not sure how narrowly to define the difference between public or closeted atheists :) If the marriage requires an affirmation of belief, then the atheist would have to be willing to lie about that. Simply maintaining privacy won't be enough.

Well a Jew could just say "I'm a Jew sure" and even nonbelieving Jews (like say Doc Freud) will affirm their "Jewishness." What is ASSUMED by the "authorities" might be something else but then the "orthodox" in Israel are a real pain in the arse for everybody else which is why the USA is the REAL "promised land"...