Alan Turing

[poliphilo]

Quite right too.

Retrospective pardons should only be issued where there has been a miscarriage of justice- where new evidence proves that a person was innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. This isn't the case with Turing. As the law stood then he was guilty as charged. As the law stands now there is nothing to pardon. How can the Law pardon a person for doing something that is no longer a crime? By changing the law we have already exonerated him- just as we have exonerated all the witches we hung and all the kids we transported for stealing loaves of bread. 

Turing's conviction is an historical fact. Nothing we do now can change what happened. It cannot make Turing any less of a victim or the Law that pursued him any less cruel.  If the people who harrassed him were to say they were sorry it might mean something, but they're all as dead as he is. A very bad thing was done to a man who was both a scientific genius and a hero of the Second World War. We should have been feteing him; instead we drove him to an early grave. It's a blot on our history- and we're going to have to live with it. 

Comments

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

By "everyone" I meant Turing's family, the homosexual community, those interested in social justice - and not literally "everyone."

I didn't mean that an apology would whitewash things or should erase guilt, rather that a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing is always a good thing. It is a validation to those wronged to hear the words "This was wrong, it was bad, and we're sorry."

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

One problem I have with public apologies is that there are just so many things we could be apologising for on behalf of our ancestors. Where do we draw the line? When do we stop?

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

It's a good question. For me, I think, it's a question of magnitude. If a crime affects the well-being of many people or caused (and still causes) anguish and pain for a lot of people, then I think some sort of "What happened here was a bad thing" is good. If for nothing else than making it clear that we know it was bad and that we don't want anything similar to ever happen again.

We are not responsible for what our ancestors did - but being able to admit and acknowledge that something they did was reprehensible does send a message, I think, as to our dedication to ensuring we don't do it again.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The Queen of England recently laid a wreath at a Republican memorial in Ireland. It wasn't exactly an apology- more like a gesture of reconciliation. That, I'm prepared to believe, did some good.

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

I think acknowledging that past deeds were reprehensible is good and necessary. Making efforts to ensure it doesn't happen again, as well as trying to mitigate any present-day damage that may have been a result of those actions, is also a good thing.

I just don't like when people make actual apologies for things they didn't do. You can't apologize on someone else's behalf. And you shouldn't apologize for things you had nothing to do with.