I Wonder How Long Gulliver Will...
Politics0 min ago
Alan Turing
Currently it is being debated if Alan Turing , the Bletchley Park genius, should be pardoned for his alleged homosexuality. I don't think he should be pardoned; he should be exonerated, since a pardon implies forgiveness for wrongdoing.
Further, a posthumous knighthood is warranted to partially correct the blatant injustice he was shown. Agree ?
Further, a posthumous knighthood is warranted to partially correct the blatant injustice he was shown. Agree ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Scylax. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Scylax - Alan Turing will not be elligible for a posthumous kinighthood becuase he died a convicted criminal.
As the majority of people have confirmed on here - you cannot turn a blind eye to a crime on the basis of the perceived wonderfulness of the criminal - that is to make a mockery of the law.
The thread of civilisation that the law brings to modern society is the willingness of citizens to leave it untouched, and to start messing around with it on this basis leads to an endless list of similar pleas for other more or less deserving causes.
If we start, where do we stop? Do we pardon the Krays because they loved their mum and did their bit for charity?
The only fair way to apply the law is the way it applied now, without fear or favour, and regardless of the contribution of Mr Turing, he as convicted of a crime which he commited at the time when his 'crime' was against the law.
That does not change - nor should it change, because to do so weakens the pirnciples and practices of law, which is a dnagerous slippery slope.
I entirely agree with Jack's point - let the more enlightened times we live in enlighten people who think differently - that is the legacy which AT would probably have wanted to see in his name.
As the majority of people have confirmed on here - you cannot turn a blind eye to a crime on the basis of the perceived wonderfulness of the criminal - that is to make a mockery of the law.
The thread of civilisation that the law brings to modern society is the willingness of citizens to leave it untouched, and to start messing around with it on this basis leads to an endless list of similar pleas for other more or less deserving causes.
If we start, where do we stop? Do we pardon the Krays because they loved their mum and did their bit for charity?
The only fair way to apply the law is the way it applied now, without fear or favour, and regardless of the contribution of Mr Turing, he as convicted of a crime which he commited at the time when his 'crime' was against the law.
That does not change - nor should it change, because to do so weakens the pirnciples and practices of law, which is a dnagerous slippery slope.
I entirely agree with Jack's point - let the more enlightened times we live in enlighten people who think differently - that is the legacy which AT would probably have wanted to see in his name.
Andy - the Krays are a bad example here
Turing was treated very badly for something that would not be an offence now
I think the Kray's reign of terror is still illegal
That said he was still covicted under the laws of that time and you'd end up reprieving all sorts of people when laws changed.
Turing also did *not* help himself - he was notorious for not taking account of other people's opinions and feelings and frankly being pretty arrogant.
I dont think many of us who hold him in high regard would actuall have liked him very much
Turing was treated very badly for something that would not be an offence now
I think the Kray's reign of terror is still illegal
That said he was still covicted under the laws of that time and you'd end up reprieving all sorts of people when laws changed.
Turing also did *not* help himself - he was notorious for not taking account of other people's opinions and feelings and frankly being pretty arrogant.
I dont think many of us who hold him in high regard would actuall have liked him very much
jake - my example of the Krays was deliberatly extreme and facile, as an example of how far the concept of absolving people from a crime on the basis of their perceived personality and contributions could go.
Of course murder convictions stand, no matter how devoted a son is to his mother - and likewise, homsexuality convictions stand, because that was the law at the time - and my point remains that to undermine the principles of law opens a floodgate to all sorts of claims of perceived innocence or changes of heart based on time passed. The only way to maintain the law in the present is to ensure it is maintained in the past.
Of course murder convictions stand, no matter how devoted a son is to his mother - and likewise, homsexuality convictions stand, because that was the law at the time - and my point remains that to undermine the principles of law opens a floodgate to all sorts of claims of perceived innocence or changes of heart based on time passed. The only way to maintain the law in the present is to ensure it is maintained in the past.
-- answer removed --
