Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgrahamc | Hacker News Reader

As people on HN probably know I'm opposed to this: http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-f...

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.

View on HN

I'm inclined to agree. I really wish that things could have turned out different for Turing and think the law was -at best- completely idiotic. But pardoning someone for a law in force at the time sets such a dangerous precedence. 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).

This is one of those instances where I think the government are in a no-win situation. Either option is crappy.

There is a third option, and that is to extend the same privilege to all on record who ever violated the unjust law.

That was already covered in my post:

> "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)."

If their claim to damages is not legitimate, surely the courts will decide that. Should they not be permitted to try?

I don't think you need to allow damages to descendants just because you pardon past "crimes". There may be some living people who were prosecuted and they deserve compensation.

So, the government can always just pass a law saying "no damages for retroactively pardoned victims of $FOO". Suing the State is basically always a dodgy proposition, since the trial is run by agents of said State, operating under the whims of the law of said State.

IMO, pardoning everyone who was victimized by a bad law sounds like exactly the right thing to do.

> every other victim of this law would them equally deserve a pardon too

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.

In that blog post you point out that there was a legislation in the British parliament that would roll back convictions of gays, and that it was close to becoming a law. Whatever happened to it?

I think they got bored and continued to roll out more draconian surveillance laws instead which are obviously of more interest to the political elite...

I have very little faith in the government to do the right thing.

It became law on May 1, 2012 when it received Royal Assent. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/protectionoffree...

So isn't this new petition kinda irrelevant?

Turing should be pardoned as a human victim of an unjust law, and his genius should have nothing to do with it. That said, there are more important fights for equality that affect living people right now than whether the British government officially pardons a dead man.

He shouldn't be pardoned. To pardon him is to just try and sweep the whole business under the rug and to pretend like all the bad stuff that happened to him and others (who incidentally won't get the pardon) didn't occur.

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.

> That itself would set a terrible precedent

Pardons do not set precedent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com