Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I think the conviction should stand because it's pretty ridiculous to go around pardoning dead people convicted under laws we now view as having been wrong. Where should it end? Should the UK start hunting down and posthumously pardoning some of the convicts it shipped off to other continents for petty crimes during the Victorian era?

Unless you go and systematically posthumously pardon people how are you serving justice by only pardoning historical persons famous enough to have enough of a modern following to petition the modern-era government on their behalf?




I agree, but there has in the UK been at least one posthumous mass pardon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Act_2006#Pardon


Whilst these were, by that link, not really "pardons" in the legal sense there is another important difference. These represent a change in the material facts considered in the convictions (hence presumably if anything happened the convictions should really have been overturned; doing it the way they did probably avoided getting sued though?) - these people were shot for cowardice/desertion but it is now understood that they were suffering a mental health condition, ie shell-shock.

So as far as precedent goes this doesn't appear relevant [to me] as in Turing's case it is a revisionist attitude to the moral underpinning of the law at the time that has changed things and not the material facts.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: