Something in what you wrote reminds me of the many men shot for "cowardice" during WWI, some of whom were pardoned[1].

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...

That's only a fraction of the number of people killed in WWI just from being forced to fight, or stupidly run at enemy trenches.

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".

> "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance

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.

So much this. It drives me nuts that the narrative on this issue always seems to boil down to the idea that Turing somehow earned not being persecuted for being gay through his efforts in the war and the injustice was that the government didn't live up to its end of the bargain, not the fact that he and many others were driven to suicide or horrible lives by this terrible law.

This tweet pretty much sums up the whole problem with this pardon: "So remember children-homosexuality is acceptable, but only if you also invent the computer & single-handedly defeat the Nazis" https://twitter.com/bristolpaul/status/415467991414083584

It's symbolic. The pardon does absolutely zero for Turing himself - he's long gone. It's symbolic that society is progressing and saying "we don't agree with this thing we used to do".

I agree that this is the intent, but it doesn't take much reading (on this comment page or nearly any press article about it) to see that it's extremely common for people to think that the injustice was particularly strong in Turing's case because he was brilliant.

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.

To give it a more positive spin: Turing's case highlights how not only unjust but simply stupid such prejudice is. His case provides a very public and undeniable example that keeps the issue in people's minds, essentially a form of martyrdom, highlighting how far we've come and (when you consider how much prejudice and related bad thinking is still common) how far we still need to go before we can truly consider ourselves civilised as a whole.

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.

It's mostly because human beings feel more sympathy for a single victim who they know a lot about. I think the term is "Identifiable Victim Effect".

It doesn't even do that, pardon is more like forgiveness: "We forgive you for what you've done". And I don't think that's the same as admitting that law was bad.

The Queen can't make or break law; she can only pardon.

Except that's not what a pardon is.

I think what's interesting here is that socially conservative forces were able to get a man chemically castrated despite having done such a service to his country.

The House (and I) agree with you. I believe the hope is that this pardon of a well-known & loved figure in the UK will raise awareness in order to force the government to nullify all convictions resulting from this law.

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.

All good; but curious: in Britain when cases are found to be tainted by prejudice, it isn't routine to throw them all out? Instead they are preserved in case the 'offender' had done something else too? Like maybe robbed a bank or cheated on taxes I guess (sarcasm).

Pardon everyone convicted under similar statues and knight Turing posthumously for his efforts during the war and his contributions to computer science.

I do not think it is possible to knight posthumously.

You are right, not only that but also the title of Knight ceases when one dies.

There are honours that do not expire, I'm sure something relevant can be found.

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.

Give him an Oscar then.

A posthumous... wait for it... Turing Award.

I am saddened none of the media used the headline, "Turing Complete!"

An Oscar hardly seems like a fitting British commendation for someone that isn't an actor or director.

> My understanding is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it.

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."

I think you may have hit on the crux of it. If any stronger repudiation were offered, would that be the government opening itself up to 25000 expensive lawsuits?

I hope so, it should pay, and heavily. If it was my tax pound I'd support this. The minimum amount of harm this discrimination caused is pretty high, and there is little than can be done to correct this. Financial compensation is about the best thing actually possible, so do it while the victims are still alive. The lame option of waiting until 99% of the victims are dead, then offering some kind of pardon is vastly more likely however.

"If it was my tax pound I'd support this."

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.

I agree that the goal is moving on. However, I don't think the best way to bridge is to fail to acknowledge our history.

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.

Are there abused or disenfranchised groups you do support payments being made to as a form of compensation? Paying out clearly does nothing for Turing, I mean that payment to those still alive could be helpful. For example, the New Zealand government has paid out groups that suffered due to government action like land unfairly taken. I fully support this.

The NZ government continues to make payments to Maori (an indigenous people lostlogin refers to). Maori are in a socioeconomically inferior position overall, partly (largely?) as a consequence of European misdeeds less than two centuries ago. I think most people who know of the similar (but much worse) socioeconomic positions of the Australian Aborigines and native American people will probably agree making compensation is the right thing to do.

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.

Sorry, I don't, because where does it end? IMHO, it's nothing more than a token gesture. Financial compensation won't change the wrong that has been done. It's superficial and ever so slightly patronising. It's symptomatic of the vile litigious happy culture that we find ourselves in.

It presumably includes us getting compensation from the modern day descendants of the Normans, Vikings and Romans.

Many people persecuted under the anti-homosexuality law are still living today.

A recent example of where the UK was, in my opinion, quite right in paying out to victims was to people who had been tortured by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s:

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.

How far back would you be willing to go? The UK has been around a long time. Witch burnings in the middle ages? Land confiscation in Ireland in the 17th Century? Abuses of The East India Company in India? The Harrowing of the North by William the Conqueror in the 11th century?

We haven't finished figuring out how to sort out the mess that was the colonizing of New Zealand yet, but once we have worked through that, it might be useful to refer to when sorting out the earlier messes that the Empire (and earlier rulers) created!

I don't know what the legal definition is, but the popular usage definitely implies guilt. EG, when the President pardons a crony, everyone knows he's totally guilt of whatever he was convicted of and more.

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.

> Is there a word which means a government acknowledges their laws were wrong and the people prosecuted under them were guiltless victims?

It's called an apology, admission of guilt, and usually some reparations are involved.

The pardon does not imply the law (the Labouchere Amendment, 1885) was wrong, but the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which repealed it certainly does (or did).

It's a step. A few years ago, they apologized for it, and people responded by demanding a pardon. Now there's a pardon. Maybe in a few years they'll pardon and apologize to everybody else who was convicted under that law.

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.

> 75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive. [1]

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. :)

The British government has taken steps to address teh 26,000 that are still alive [1]. While this should be automatic it is still a step towards progress.

[1] <http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/02/home-office-gay-s...

Is there some LGBT organization in the UK who could pull off publicly granting a pardon to the government for its' treatment of Alan Turing?

Yes it is a terrible word to use, but these pardons have been issued to innocent people in the past and I suppose it has just stuck over time.

The royals still referred to him as a faggot though.