It's not clear to me that (3) was an option that would have helped him avoid (1) or (2): he was found guilty of a previous "crime," and (1) and (2) were his two options for punishment/"rehabilitation".

You're arguing with ESR, not with me. ESR implies that there was another alternative. My role in this is to explain ESR's position and to defend its correctness assuming his premises are true. My role is not to defend his premises, which in fact I am unqualified to do.

Not sure I understand the point of that. Is ESR somehow less wrong for saying Turing wasn't a victim of oppression if he says this because he's mistaken about what Turing was faced with?