Hacker News Reader

Comment by MereInterest | Hacker News Reader

If I remember correctly, the last time this came up, they gave a good reason for not pardoning him. They knew that he was innocent, and that the government of the time had wronged him. Still, they refused to give a pardon. Not because they agreed with the actions against Turing, but because they felt that pardoning him would be an attempt to cover up their mistreatment of him.

They refused to pardon him, because it was their shame to know how wrongly they had acted, and they would not hide that shame.

View on HN

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16919012

The explanation given was that the law was wrong, not that he hadn't broken it so as to have a pardon, and you can't posthumously commute a sentence

I agree to some extent - it's not for the Lords to pardon Turing, but the other way around - but that's really a matter of semantics in a sense.

Perhaps there ought to be an equivalent "pardon" set up called "beg forgiveness".

> not that he hadn't broken it so as to have a pardon

Reasoning I find confusing. A pardon is by definition something given to people convicted of breaking the law. It can be and is sometimes used as a relief for people who have been -wrongly- convicted if there is no other mechanism (or just because it's easier), but that's not implied or required.

Is this some difference between US and UK law?

The argument would be that he wasn't wrongly convicted.

By modern standards it's obviously a stupid, unjust and immoral law that he was convicted under; but if he was correctly found guilty under the laws of the time, then it was a sound conviction.

Pardons are a general tool to forgive (in several senses) a crime. If you look at the history of pardons in the US for example, you'll find examples ranging from people who were wrongly convicted, to people who got one as a reward for cooperating in investigations, to people who simply had powerful friends.

Which is why I find that reasoning confusing - when you pardon someone, you just do it... and if you care to give a reason you can.

Perhaps it's different in the UK? Is this some limitation on the powers of the House of Lords?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon#United_Kingdom

Pardons are extraordinarily rare in the UK and normally only granted for misapplication of the law

The article seems to say the opposite:

'It is the standard policy of the Government to only grant pardons to those who are considered "morally" innocent of the offence, as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by a misapplication of the law.'

It also mentions that in 1996 there was a pardon given as a "reward for information".

It seems to say both that it is and it isn't at different points

This "good reason" makes no sense whatsoever. It's somebody's poor attempt at doublespeak. Pardons are not a coverup.

It seems like a good reason to me. They couldn't pardon him when it mattered, and now they want to puff themselves up with how magnanimous and tolerant they are, just when it doesn't matter? Screw that!

The pardon doesn't serve anybody's interests but their own, it simply uses what was done to Turing to enhance their own political reputation.

Reminds me of the mormons baptising dead jews - it is actually offensive.

It no longer matters to Turing, but it still sends a message to the country that how he and others were treated was wrong, which is a good thing.

Whether a pardon is needed after an official apology was already issued is debatable, as they both send the same message, personally I'd like to see it passed but won't really care much if it doesn't.

It's very different to "converting" dead people to your religion, as this act would have been offensive to them if done when they were alive. However Turing would not have been offended if pardoned while alive.

Those two things are in no way related. There is nothing offensive about admitting to previous mistakes and making a gesture to an important figure that you wronged. There is something offensive about radical the religious attempting gain attention by performing baptisms on dead bodies that have nothing to do with them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com