Alan Turing: Scientists call for pardon for codebreaker
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Most importantly I find the following line from the letter disturbing: "To those who seek to block attempts to secure a pardon with the argument that this would set a precedent, we would answer that Turing's achievements are sui generis." They are arguing that Turing uniquely deserves a pardon because of his genius. That itself would set a terrible precedent because it would appear that the eminent Lords believe that being a great man puts you above the law.
I have very little faith in the government to do the right thing.
This is one of those instances where I think the government are in a no-win situation. Either option is crappy.
> "Not least of all because -as great a man as Turing was- every other victim of this law would them equally deserve a pardon too (and you know what's going to happen next; some of the less reputable descendants of the aforementioned will no doubt sue the government for an absurd amount of damages)."
IMO, pardoning everyone who was victimized by a bad law sounds like exactly the right thing to do.
That's not exactly how pardons work. There is no reason to suggest additional people should then be pardoned. When Presidents pardon people, they don't pardon every single person in the country who committed the same crime.
I equate pardoning him to trying to pretend that the holocaust didn't occur. It is better in both cases to remember the mistakes so we won't repeat them in the future to others rather than putting our heads in the sand and pretending they never occurred at all.
I'm all for gay rights in 2012, that's why we shouldn't hide/bury our mistakes in 1954.
Pardons do not set precedent.
I mean, half the great men in the history of the last century have had the honour of being jailed by the British. Imagine the Queen issuing a posthumous "pardon" to Gandhi. I can scarcely imagine a worse insult to his memory.
Then again, I agree with your analogy of pardoning Gandhi.
(Then again, I don't understand the idea of the President 'pardoning' a turkey either. What's the turkey done? Headed a Wall Street investment bank?)
For that matter, you're going to have some serious problems as a programmer, too. There's hardly any term that two programming communities have the exact same definition for.
Pardons are usually an executive power to to absolve someone (clear their record). Commutation is similar, where you do not negate the guilt but reduce or eliminate the punishment. Both are tools used for various reasons.
In Canada, many minor crimes are pardoned years after a criminal has been reformed to clear their record. IMO this is in general a good thing, but then there are cases like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_James_(ice_hockey)#Pardo...
Pardons and commutes are also used to balance out a flawed justice system or one that has its hands tied (e.g. with mandatory minimums). This can include people being sent to prison for years for minor drug crimes, etc.
If there is a pardon, and there should be one, it should be granted to everyone who was convicted under that law.
No.
An unjust law is no law at all
Agreed. So, in this case, a "pardon", now that I think about it, isn't exactly the right thing, in a sense. I mean, it's a nice token gesture, but it still implies that a law was actually broken. An apology for being victimized by a non-law would be more appropriate.
That the only time a pardon is needed.
It's a weird bill because it actually forbids the state church from performing homosexual marriages, not even leaving it open for the church itself to decide, but it does allow other churches to make their own decisions and civil ceremonies to take place.
This is a major step (IMHO) but it has had the usual backlash of small minded folks spouting on about family values and how their rights are being eroded (?!) so politically a blanket, retroactive pardon seems very unlikely.
Baby steps...
Now, obviously, he could have been masked this whole thing by playing a game, and the experiments was purely a cover for killing himself. But that doesn't make sense to me; why didn't he leave a note? Why would Alan Turing kill himself without letting the whole world know what happened?
The lack of clearcut evidence (and what seems like a strange way to kill one self; there are plenty of easier choices) leaves me to believe that his death was accidental and not a suicide.
Re note: Not everyone leaves a note. None of the people I've known who killed (or attempted) themselves left notes, though most of us could guess at why. What would he have said in a note? A quick google search suggests that only about a quarter of suicides leave a note.
EDIT:
Re method: People kill themselves with all sorts of methods. A poisoned apple could've struck him as ironic, poetic, or perhaps easier to use than pills or a gun.
Overall though, suicide is a messy business. Method, motive, behaviour of people who commit or attempt it is all over the map. Sometimes you can (in retrospect) say that it was obvious, many times you can't. Some people are good at acting happy or at least not sad. Others pass it off as just being tired. Some will plan out their methods in detail (like a poisoned apple may have been), others will see a bottle or a gun and use it that instant before they can reconsider.
However, since some evidence wasn't examined at the time it's impossible to rule out an accident. On the other hand, nothing in the narrative easily dismisses the notion of suicide. This was 60 years ago, any attempt at this point to rewrite it is based on speculation from second hand accounts and has no ability to examine physical evidence to prove the theory.
You mean cutting him off from all of his research and shaming him to all of his peers is assuming too much??