Alan Turing's pardon is wrong

[Jesus Malverde]

To single out Turing is to say all the other persecuted gay men are not so deserving of justice because they were less exceptional

The Queen's announcement of a posthumous pardon, under a Royal Prerogative of Mercy, to Alan Turing follows a long campaign and a petition signed by more than 37,000 people. The pardon will be welcomed by many, and it is undoubtedly a gesture of humanity, compassion and progressive values. It is also entirely, profoundly wrong.

Turing was an intellectual legend of the 20th century. His breakthroughs in applied mathematics have led him to be described as the father of modern computing. His work on the Enigma codebreaking machine made him more responsible than almost any other British individual for the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany. Biographers recall him as a gentle, modest, reserved man. He was also gay, and in 1952 he was convicted of gross indecency - the catch-all legal term used to prosecute any consenting sexual acts between two men. The judge at his trial, acknowledging the importance of Turing's work, laid down what seemed at the time to be a lenient sentence. The mathematician was spared jail and ordered to undergo an experimental hormone therapy for homosexual urges, often dubbed "chemical castration". We know now the treatment will not have affected his orientation or desires, but it did cause physical changes including breast enlargement and erectile dysfunction.

Turing described the experience as horrible and humiliating and less than two years later, he died of cyanide poisoning. An inquest recorded a verdict of suicide. It is a tragic, shameful episode in our recent history, but while the tragedy was Turing's, the shame was entirely the nation's.

In announcing the pardon today, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, said: "A pardon from the Queen is a fitting tribute to an exceptional man." Turing was certainly an exceptional man but the tribute could not be less fitting. It says that the British state is prepared to forgive historical homosexual acts providing they were performed by a national hero, academic giant or world-changing innovator. This is the polar opposite of the correct message. Turing should be forgiven not because he was a modern legend, but because he did absolutely nothing wrong. The only wrong was the venality of the law. It was wrong when it was used against Oscar Wilde, it was wrong when it was used against Turing and it was wrong when it was used against an estimated 75,000 other men, whether they were famous playwrights and scientists or squaddies, plumbers or office clerks. Each of those men was just as unfairly persecuted, and many suffered similarly awful fates. To single out Turing is to say these men are less deserving of justice because they were somehow less exceptional. That cannot be right.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/24/alan-turing-pardon-wrong-gay-men

[uriel1972]

1. A pardon...

How about admitting they were wrong and quash the sentences of the 75k+ people who were tortured under this law.

[Jesus Malverde]

2. Yep. It's half measures.

It's good they've recognize the injustice. They should be held to renounce this...

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Stupid!

There are some who are always looking for the negative.

[Deep13]

4. true. they were all innocent.

which brings us to the next objection. Pardon = guilty, but we'll overlook it. In the case of anti-sodomy laws, the only guilt belonged to the state.

[closeupready]

5. While in principle this is correct, in practice, I'm not sure

what kind of modern mechanism would allow for pardoning en masse?

To be honest, the UK is light years now past where the US is on civil equality for gay people, so to the extent that the Guardian is a UK media voice, I suppose the negative spin here on Turing's pardon ('yeah, but what about everyone else?!') is a familial criticism, thus, not really subject to the same standards as it would be if the UK were criticizing the US, vice versa, or relatedly, other states.

[Eleanors38]

6. I don't see a pardon as a "fitting tribute." At a minimum,

it is a recognition of gross injustice to this man, and stands alone for that reason.

A tribute? Bestowing the highest honors on Turing. Thousands of merchant mariners and sailors benefited from his work.

[dickthegrouch]

7. I agree, the fitting tribute would be a posthumous Knighthood

I think Turing deserves at least that.

I'm sure an act of Parliament could be crafted to vacate the convictions of all under gross indecency laws. I'm astonished that there are only 75,000 or so such convictions.

[Jesus Malverde]

8. Parliamentarians decided they could not pardon someone for a crime that person had knowingly committ

Last year, on Turing’s centenary, members of parliament introduced legislation to formally pardon him. It did not pass: Parliamentarians decided they could not pardon someone for a crime that person had knowingly committed, even if the government no longer considered the offending act criminal. As Brown wrote in 2009, Turing “was dealt with under the law of the time, and we can't put the clock back.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/alan-turings-body/282641/

[closeupready]

9. Parliament should be lecturing the Vatican about Gallileo, then.

[Fearless]

10. It is NOT wrong.

They should continue and pardon the rest as well. And pay reparations to the living people whom it has affected.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. + fucking 1!