Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go about it.
[1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/t...
[2] I am not a lawyer, nor British, so give my understanding as much weight as it deserves...
Many of those shot were suffering from PTSD (then called shell shock).
It is painful to consider the unjust fate of many people in the past, and even those alive today (would you care to take a walk in the Congo or Rwanda and discuss justice with those you might meet? Or perhaps take a walk in Syria?).
I really don't wish to contradict the sentiment of your statement, but only to say that "justice" is sometimes a luxury, and one which we should try to provide for everyone.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/hundreds-o...
Sort of relevant; something about "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance (not unjustly through someone's actions.) On top of that we have a stronger emotional reaction to just imagining a single victim suffering, than being told "x number of people are suffering this fate".
Because injustice implies the unjust decision made by someone in charge, and having an unjust law or person in charge is much worse then having an accident. Not only that, but it's something we have more control over, so it's rational to get more emotional about it.
My issue is less with the intent of the pardon and more with how it's presented in the media and how people think about it.
Also his brilliance does come into it once you consider the wider implications. What else could he have achieved (both for his own intellectual satisfaction and our eventual benefit) had he been allowed to continue his work as he wished? How many other people are out there (or were out there) who could have done great things but were not permitted to by society? While I agree that is is bad that we need him to stand as an example to highlight these issues, it is good that he does stand as that example to shine that light on the problem.
Sixteen thousand of those men are still alive ... they can all now apply to have their convictions disregarded. I tried to amend it to extend this disregard posthumously to the 49,000 men similarly convicted but now dead...
The Government did not agree with us. They pointed out that, among other things, it would not always be possible in very old cases to know when sexual activity was non-consensual or under age. I think that the Government were wrong then and I think that they are wrong now.
Many of us—including the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I think—regard this Bill as in some sense a second- best or interim option, in that we would have preferred a measure that offered the same comfort and recompense to the families and admirers of any of the many thousands of other individuals, now deceased, who were convicted under the same law. Still, we are where we are, and in Turing’s case the facts and his character are well documented. I would hazard a guess that others whose family members were victims of the same obsolete law and cruel sentence would, albeit as second best, welcome a gesture towards an especially prominent but symbolically representative individual.
Though I think the fact we understand and appreciate the full magnitude of what he achieved in the time he had (even some of the general public with little technical interest are at least aware of his contribution to the war effort if not his contribution to information/computation/intelligence theory) is probably the best honour we can give him.
The fact of a pardon neither implies that the law was wrong nor that it was correct.
A posthumous pardon is naturally of largely symbolic import, in this particular case, the Royal Pardon is a kind of symbolic capstone to the earlier apology by the previous government in which -- while it was directed to Turing -- condemned the execution of the law more generally (the Prime Minister, when issuing the apology, stated "Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly."
Well that's easy to say when it isn't. It is my tax pound and I don't. I don't support the posthumous pardon at all, and those calling for the posthumous knighthood are getting ridiculous.
Everyone recognises the value of Turing's input to both the war effort and greater modern life, but sadly the man took his own life. Arguing over whose fault it was it pointless. Pardoning him now does nothing for him. It won't change the impact of his work and it won't produce the work that we lost because of this. Yes the law in the 1950 by todays standards was an ass, but that was the law at the time and the punishment was the punishment. Yes, through 21st century eyes it is abhorrent and I'm extremely glad that the law has changed and what happened to Turing doesn't happen any more, but... It's time that we move on.
To me, it's important for a society to explicitly acknowledge mistakes.
FWIW, I'm American, and I wish that our government would formally acknowledge people who have clearly been affected by less than fortuitous circumstances.
Suppose however that the Maori had a socioeconomically superior position. Would it still be the right thing to do to pay them for past misdeeds? Technically, I would say yes. Practically, probably not.
As an illustrative example, consider the way Chinese immigrants were treated during the gold rushes ~1850-1900. Though the situation is somewhat different; I'd contend that if Maori were being compensated only for past misdeeds, descendants of Chinese immigrants from that time should be also. (But of course Chinese people are in a higher socioeconomic group than Maori).
[Warning: speculation rife in the following paragraph] So, the NZ government pays Maori because it's a politically acceptable (politically beneficial, probably) way to provide Maori with some stimulus to increase their socioeconomic standing. I expect that had Maori been able to summon the socioeconomic standing (and corresponding political power) earlier they would've received compensation earlier. Had they never had a relatively lower socioeconomic standing they may never have felt aggrieved as a result of wrong-doings and not pursued payment at all.
An aside: Another complicating factor in the NZ situation is that the legal basis of Crown ownership of NZ is somewhat shaky. There appears to have been some "mistranslation" that occurred in the Treaty of Waitangi, meaning Maori believe they are the sovereign owners of NZ, while The Crown believes it is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22790037
I would also support compensation for anyone who was a victim of extraordinary rendition through the UK and criminal prosecution of anyone who aided this ghastly practice.
Is there a word which means a government acknowledges their laws were wrong and the people prosecuted under them were guiltless victims? If not, we could really use one.
There's a lot of that going around, and it'd be nice if governments had a word they should do more of.
It's called an apology, admission of guilt, and usually some reparations are involved.
Only a time machine can change what happened, but every gesture is something. It can't be made right, but acknowledgement of the wrong is still good.
They can apply to have their convictions disregarded, though. (It's also 16,000 of them.)
Yeah, not quite the same, but better than I expected honestly. :)
[1] <http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/02/home-office-gay-s...
The best pardon to someone who is dead would be to stop doing similar misdeeds to those who are living.
He was persecuted and prosecuted; publically humiliated; forced to receive hormonal injections that rendered him impotent; banned from traveling to the USA; essentially banned from any jobs involving cryptography or national security; and ultimately committed suicide in large part because of government sanctions.
World of difference between that and a porous filter.
A default information filter is currently being introduced by several ISPs in the UK, it starts by filtering sexual content.
This is similar in concept to the attitudes that cause immense suffering to Turing, i.e. controlling the public expression and liberty of the sexual life is being considered as more important that protecting civil liberties such as freedom of information.
He wasn't forced to receive hormone injections he chose it in preference to serving a one year imprisonment. As an expert chemist he was no doubt aware of the implications of that choice.
My reading of this has always been that his apparent predilection for picking up teenagers made him a massive security risk. Surely had he done the same with teenage girls he too would have been banned from jobs involving high level security clearance. It also strikes me that maybe Turing didn't like that element of his life?
[I have a pop-psych theory on this all being related to a fixation on Morcom, his childhood friend who died. But 40-something men lusting for teenagers is common enough that the theory lacks support.]
Copyright and patent laws, and laws used against Snowden's whistle blowing are some obvious ones that are due for changes, but what's more interesting is if history continues to repeat itself it seems likely that some things we consider wrong now will become acceptable in the near future and the reverse is also true. This is much harder to predict.
(Humans driving cars is a reverse example. I think in the next 50 years it will become illegal for humans to drive cars manually except on private racing circuits)
In 50 years time Chelsea Manning might get an apology because medication she needed wasn't given to her in prison.
We already have driving assistance systems like ABS and computers which will automatically apply brakes which can reduce the risk of accidents but we don't mandate that all vehicles on the road use them.
But yes, I do agree. Human driving may well just become unpopular rather than illegal.
It's also an interesting thought experiment to consider whether beliefs we deeply and routinely hold today will become as morally unacceptable as the belief that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and ought to be punished.
For example, what if it becomes wrong to believe in meritocracy? If in fifty years, everyone from scientists to politicians to the media blasts the message that it's wrong and hurtful to heap prestige, financial rewards, etc. on brilliant hackers and successful entrepreneurs?
Presumably many HN'ers strongly believe in meritocracy and point out historical examples of stagnation in non-meritocratic societies, mathematical/economic arguments why meritocracy is good, etc.
What if anyone who sincerely believes in meritocracy, and makes these kinds of logical and data-backed arguments in favor of meritocracy, is met the same way that today anyone is met who argues against the liberalization of our treatment of homosexuality?
Please, treat people who honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong the way you would want believers in meritocracy to be treated in the hypothetical world I've laid out. First, because you want a civilized precedent for dealing with distasteful beliefs, to reduce the downside if your own beliefs will one day be regarded as distasteful. Second, it simply makes the pro-gay argument look weak if the best way you can deal with opponents is call them names like "bigot," or threaten to blacklist them and destroy their livelihood.
Another fun thought experiment: s/bigot/heretic/
I suspect that some of the areas we will look back on in a similar way are drug laws and sex laws (we still have prostitution, child porn, and statutory rape, all of which seem immoral only in a cultural sense).
There are things today which if you say you might lose friends over, but I am certain it's a case of nation-wide groupthink. Evidence? In other parts of the world these ideas are widely accepted already.
And frankly, I find the whole thing problematic. Judging the past by todays standards is just wrong to my mind. He did break the law as it stood, right or wrong. Its not like we now have evidence he was innocent of the charges. What do we do, go over all the past laws that have been repealed, pardoning every one who was convicted along the way? That would be insane. What about the reverse? Surely if we are to pardon people who got convicted under laws that we have now repealed, we should go back and try any one in the past who has committed acts which are now crimes but were not then.
Yes, Turing is of huge historical significance. What happened to him was awful and tragic. If the notion that he wiped 2 years of WW2 is not over exaggerated, millions owe him their lives and freedoms. There for not just a great scientist, but a world figure of huge significance. But, this is not the right way to honour him. And from what I can see, is shameless political points scoring by a weak government concerned with its gay credentials.
If it were me, I would have left the conviction alone, let it stand as a reminders of our stupid homophobic past (1), and perhaps done something like having a national Turing Day, which could celebrate science and open humanity. Or something like that.
(1) Not so stupid. Problem back then was that the vast majority of people were disgusted by homosexuality. So, obviously they kept it quiet. If they got found out, they suffered. Problem for organisation concerned with secrecy, is that the social pressure placed on gay people made them easy and obvious targets for espionage. They were easily black mailed. Now a days, most people have no problem with homosexuality, so the threat of being outed is weak. The problem back then was not government, its was the social attitude in general to gay people. There for, to me it is wrong for the public to point fingers at the government. Had the public not been so prejudiced, the government could have kept their genius employed, and alive. Its our fault as a society. Government had to operate in that context. It had no choice really. And of course many people in that government would have had the same attitude as the public. But in the end, it was our fault, our shame, as a society. And that is what we should remember.
Tommy Flowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers), who arguably created the first electronic computer to decrypt the Lorenz cypher was just as important and his work was not acknowledged until the 1970s.
Flowers wanted to create a computer after the war but the Bank of England wouldn't lend him the money because they didn't believe it was possible and he couldn't disclose he'd already done it due to official secrets act.
It's insane to pardon a dead person in the first place but, for the currently convicted, why would that be insane? Seems like a massive reduction in sentencing should at least be considered. Sure, they broke a law, but most of us do that everyday. Maybe the reverse wouldn't be so bad either. Could stop a lot of stupid laws from passing in the first place.
I also find it useful to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because Turing deserves even more honors and everyone prosecuted by that evil law deserves to be pardoned doesn't mean that we can't celebrate this one step.
Also, it's kind of selfish (even though he's dead) to feel that the conviction should have stood. This corrects an injustice, and it must be done, regardless of the arguable societal benefits otherwise.
Cameron expended a great deal of political capital, which won't have won him any votes because "TORRIEESS", on same-sex marriage. Haters be hatin', and sure Cameron has done some stupid things, but don't let your class-war prejudices blind you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10200636/I-want-to-...
Does that actually work, though? I gave this some thought today, and I wondered what the ramifications were for having to unpick 100s of years of perhaps other law and cases and convictions, including those where maybe a prior conviction under the act led to X led to Y... and then there is all the conjoined case law. This naive guy suspects it is not as simple as it sounds.
No, an unjust law is unjust to everyone! This is not tragic because it was done to somebody special, but it was done to thousands of "boring" others who may not get a pardon. (To say nothing of the original injustice that can't be taken back, or the fact that a pardon is not an admission of injustice.)
"We pardon you of having forced us to persecute you."
Going further, I'd wager that any form of interpersonal contact, even non-sexual, is as likely to spread some form of disease. Why not enact a law which requires any person to don a hazmat suit before venturing into public space? Or better yet, a law which forbids any person from entering public space?
It's clear that HIV can spread via a wide range of sexual activities, but some are much higher risk than others. At the extremes, receptive anal intercourse has a transmission risk roughly 50 times higher than insertive vaginal intercourse, while the risk of oral sex is believed to be non-zero but too low to be accurately measurable.
What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.
What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.
Agreed.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-od...
the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million.
(Sorry for the crummy source, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this BS.) The original infections seen by doctors weren't just homosexuals, but those who had sometimes dozens of sexual encounters per week. It was clear from the beginning how this disease was spread--reciprocal anal sex.
So why the contrary propaganda? Well, if a disease primarily effects a small, ultra-promiscuous portion of two percent of the general population, research funding tends to lose popular support.
The unique thing about hiv is the high moortality rate (and cost of treatment). It makes perfect sense to reduce transmission before it becomes a true global epidemic.
> AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse
Yes it did. This is not remotely controversial. Aids and many other STDs are spread chiefly by buggery. This is why the red cross does not want blood donations from homosexuals.
You got something wrong with correlation and causation there in several ways.
FDA is pretty clear on why they don't want blood donations from men who had sex with other men.
I give blood every two months. As I recall the questionnaire, you can do almost anything imaginable (sex with prostitutes, accidental needle stick, receiving blood transfusion, etc.) and get a one year deferral. But if you are a man who had oral sex with a man one time twenty years ago, that's a permanent "deferral." No science behind this.
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an
increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain
infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes
AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent
approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the
population
most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at
least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an
estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were
attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.
(Especially) If a man has not had sex with another man for a year, and has tested clean during that time, the stats you cite do not support excluding him from donation. Again, this is considering that blood transfusions, sex with prostitutes (!!), and accidental needle sticks only earn a twelve-month deferral.
Do you see a stat that says a gay man is more likely to be HIV+ than an active prostitute? Because that seems to be a relevant comparison.
I donate blood to save lives. No blood transfusion is risk-free, but there is also a risk/cost to excluding healthy willing donors of clean blood.
Second, it is widely considered that the spread of HIV (which causes AIDS) was a result of (heterosexual) prostitution. If you look at [2], we see that it was spread extensively by African prostitutes from rural Congo, an almost uniquely heterosexual phenomenon.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Onofre [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#History
Watch "Midnight Cowboy" (1969) and "Cruising" (1980) to get a glimpse into how AIDS came to be.
I don't understand, I thought what was needed was "royal apologies". WTH.
However, as a journalistic device, describing the decision as "Royal" conveys the journalists and editors feelings as to the importance and sincerity of the pardon.
How does such an undeserving leftover of the middle ages even have a say in this?
What I mean is that even if it's done at the request of the government, that's only a description of the political backstage, but in public it is expressed as the monarchy's doing ("royal" pardon).
There are many problems. When you find a better system to replace it with, then let us know. Until then throwing away a millenia of history so we can have President Cameron sounds like hell to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to troll. It's just that I would have a really hard time living in a country where such privileges by birth exist.
Sounds good to me, but the Monarchy isn't a particularly big part of that. Once we've solved or made at least some progress on fixing social mobility we can bother to get rid of powerless figureheads that bring us only profit.
And by the way, if you think is undemocratic to have an unelected head of state, just think about the reasons that supreme court members are not elected. Democracy has its limits :-)
But they are not so by birth, that was my point.
>supreme court members are not elected
I assume you are talking about the US? In any case, they are not nominated by right of their birth, but they are chosen by elected people.
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2013/07/puttin...
> He said the research Turing carried out during the war at Bletchley Park undoubtedly shortened the conflict and saved thousands of lives.
Clear example of "history is written by the victors". The Allies were as guilty in the war as the other side. Neither side's goal was to "shorten the conflict and save lives" but to "defeat the other side" with no regards to human life.
All pardoning Turing does now is lead us to eventually forget the tragedy of his conviction.
May be the queen is who needs to be pardoned.
Reading back on what happened to Turing and countless other homosexuals gives me those same chills.
What a simple pleasure it is to live in the era we do now. No, not everything is perfect, but so much has improved, and it's up to all of us to improve things even further, and to keep the momentum going.
I don't think that's the case, but these days it's getting harder to be sure.
The government certainly didn't have to. It doesn't have to pardon everyone convicted of a crime that is no longer a crime.
It was a good thing to do for a good man, and I commend them.
Every single one of those people should be given a pardon, or none of them should.
This beast does not discriminate: weather a gathering of Sikhs in a park, tribes of Africans or a sole genius with an arguably significant contribution to the war effort - to the beast they are all one once the order has been given.
Always ensure you have some form of protection and a way out.
The British establishment should be ashamed of themselves. They have tolerated homosexuality for centuries among the upper classes up to and including the royals. To grind down a man on the level of Turing with for such an absurd reason is an act of criminal stupidity. All the more so after his efforts during the war.
The computer science community all the world over should reject this "pardon" and ask the queen to stuff it up her posterior.