
Alan Turing: Scientists call for pardon for codebreaker - jgrahamc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20722581
======
jgrahamc
As people on HN probably know I'm opposed to this:
[http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-
campaign-f...](http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-
for.html)

Most importantly I find the following line from the letter disturbing: "To
those who seek to block attempts to secure a pardon with the argument that
this would set a precedent, we would answer that Turing's achievements are sui
generis." They are arguing that Turing uniquely deserves a pardon because of
his genius. That itself would set a terrible precedent because it would appear
that the eminent Lords believe that being a great man puts you above the law.

~~~
laumars
I'm inclined to agree. I really wish that things could have turned out
different for Turing and think the law was -at best- completely idiotic. But
pardoning someone for a law in force at the time sets such a dangerous
precedence. Not least of all because -as great a man as Turing was- every
other victim of this law would them equally deserve a pardon too (and you know
what's going to happen next; some of the less reputable descendants of the
aforementioned will no doubt sue the government for an absurd amount of
damages).

This is one of those instances where I think the government are in a no-win
situation. Either option is crappy.

~~~
yock
There is a third option, and that is to extend the same privilege to all on
record who ever violated the unjust law.

~~~
laumars
That was already covered in my post:

> "Not least of all because -as great a man as Turing was- every other victim
> of this law would them equally deserve a pardon too (and you know what's
> going to happen next; some of the less reputable descendants of the
> aforementioned will no doubt sue the government for an absurd amount of
> damages)."

~~~
justincormack
I don't think you need to allow damages to descendants just because you pardon
past "crimes". There may be some living people who were prosecuted and they
deserve compensation.

------
tubelite
Pardon? Pardon, a pardon?! An apology is what he deserves and what he got. To
use words like 'pardon' and 'forgive' carries the very strong connotation that
what he did was wrong, and we're being nice by forgiving his mistakes.

I mean, half the great men in the history of the last century have had the
honour of being jailed by the British. Imagine the Queen issuing a posthumous
"pardon" to Gandhi. I can scarcely imagine a worse insult to his memory.

~~~
Svip
I thought pardons - even posthumous ones - were about undoing a false
conviction based on later evidence (or good connections). Of course, the
pardon of Nixon does not fall into this category.

Then again, I agree with your analogy of pardoning Gandhi.

~~~
tubelite
Undoing a false conviction is fine, but they really ought to use a better
word. Exonerate. Vindicate. Absolve.

(Then again, I don't understand the idea of the President 'pardoning' a turkey
either. What's the turkey done? Headed a Wall Street investment bank?)

~~~
jerf
A pardon is a legal term. It is related to, but not equal to, its plain
English meaning. Law will forever confuse you if you insist on trying to use
plain English meanings.

For that matter, you're going to have some serious problems as a programmer,
too. There's hardly any term that two programming communities have the exact
same definition for.

------
EiZei
How about a blanket pardon for anyone ever convicted of consentual homosexual
relationships?

~~~
_stephan
Or better: retroactively declare the old law null and void and pay
compensation to all victims that were prosecuted under it.

~~~
meaty
This is exactly what they should be doing, but they will downplay it as all
the publicity will actually detract from the current ruling elite's appearance
(even if it wasn't them who made the law up).

------
Svip
Led to his suicide? I think that is assuming too much. I've read plenty of
material suggesting his suicide was an accident, considering his new
experiments with drugs, while generally appearing content to the people around
him.

Now, obviously, he could have been masked this whole thing by playing a game,
and the experiments was purely a cover for killing himself. But that doesn't
make sense to me; why didn't he leave a note? Why would Alan Turing kill
himself without letting the whole world know what happened?

The lack of clearcut evidence (and what seems like a strange way to kill one
self; there are plenty of easier choices) leaves me to believe that his death
was accidental and not a suicide.

~~~
Jtsummers
Re contentedness: I said this last time this topic came up. It is not uncommon
for suicidal people to seem happy or at peace once they've committed
themselves to the act. The stress that causes the desire has been in some
sense resolved, they know it will be over soon.

Re note: Not everyone leaves a note. None of the people I've known who killed
(or attempted) themselves left notes, though most of us could guess at why.
What would he have said in a note? A quick google search suggests that only
about a quarter of suicides leave a note.

EDIT:

Re method: People kill themselves with all sorts of methods. A poisoned apple
could've struck him as ironic, poetic, or perhaps easier to use than pills or
a gun.

Overall though, suicide is a messy business. Method, motive, behaviour of
people who commit or attempt it is all over the map. Sometimes you can (in
retrospect) say that it was obvious, many times you can't. Some people are
good at acting happy or at least not sad. Others pass it off as just being
tired. Some will plan out their methods in detail (like a poisoned apple may
have been), others will see a bottle or a gun and use it that instant before
they can reconsider.

However, since some evidence wasn't examined at the time it's impossible to
rule out an accident. On the other hand, nothing in the narrative easily
dismisses the notion of suicide. This was 60 years ago, any attempt at this
point to rewrite it is based on speculation from second hand accounts and has
no ability to examine physical evidence to prove the theory.

