Ok Brits, and maybe you Scotts...

[Tyr]

Saw this over on the Bendbo

Could one of you brits or scotts explain this to me?

Why can't he be pardoned? I mean really it's great that they apologized and all, but still It just doesn't feel right to deny him a pardon...

[Impulse]

I'll reply more fully in the morning - it's 3am here - but basically, the minister responsible said it was regrettable but since it was a crime when Turing was arrested, it can't be pardoned now.

[sunbird]

Saw this over on the Bendbo

Could one of you brits or scotts explain this to me?

Spinning off that (badly spelled) bit, it is worth noting that the Scots have a distinct justice system independent of that of the rest of Britain. Scottish juries can, for example, find people guilty, not guilty, or not proven (where they can't convict but aren't convinced the defendant is innocent either).

[JBK405]

I'll reply more fully in the morning - it's 3am here - but basically, the minister responsible said it was regrettable but since it was a crime when Turing was arrested, it can't be pardoned now.

But isn't that the essence of what a pardon is? It is not a verdict of not guilty, it's a granting a reprieve and absolution, termed either as forgiveness or a recognition that the original situation was unfair. To deny somebody a pardon because they actually committed the "crime" is sort of like saying "Yeah, I've got this 'get out of jail free' card, but I can't use it because I'm in jail."

[zemo]

I think it's brilliant and awesome. Not that anybody involved in this thought that way, but I don't think stains on a nation's past like this should be waved away that easily. They should sit there, in all their ugliness, to always get people down when they start acting high and mighty, telling other countries they should be more like themselves. This goes doubly so in a country like Britain where, probably due to teh imperialist past, national stereotypes run rampant and a tendancy to put oneself at a higher value based on nothing but prejudice is widespread not only in parts of the population, but even of the press.

[sunbird]

But isn't that the essence of what a pardon is? It is not a verdict of not guilty, it's a granting a reprieve and absolution, termed either as forgiveness or a recognition that the original situation was unfair. To deny somebody a pardon because they actually committed the "crime" is sort of like saying "Yeah, I've got this 'get out of jail free' card, but I can't use it because I'm in jail."

Pardons are much rarer in Britain that the US - where presidential pardons are perk of the job. Moreover a pardon is not "considered to remove the conviction itself, but only removes the penalty which was imposed". So a pardon in this instance would be meaningless, there is no penalty left to remove.

[Weeto]

While it was totally unfair to have hounded such an important figure, homosexuality was a crime at that time and was punishable. In the eyes of the law, he was a criminal, even if he wouldn't be under current legislation.

It isn't really the done thing in the UK to pardon people for a crime they were guilty of, even if that 'crime' is no longer seen as such unless innocence or special circumstances or evidence become apparent.

It was wrong to punish people harshly for being homosexual but it was the law at the time and things have changed. The legal system hasn't pardoned everyone who was executed for theft or other relatively minor offences either because under the legal system of the period, the punishment was considered correct.

Edit: I should point out that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all parts of the UK and have British nationality, although Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is technically an additional area and not part of Great Britain itself but only of the UK. The correct term for a Scottish person is a Scot with one t.

[Karen El]

Seems to me the article linked is pretty clear. Pardoning Turing would just be something to make us feel better about the situation. As it is, we are left with the knowledge that the law was bad and a good man was damaged by it. We don't deserve to be let off the hook.

[Tyr]

Pardons are much rarer in Britain that the US - where presidential pardons are perk of the job. Moreover a pardon is not "considered to remove the conviction itself, but only removes the penalty which was imposed". So a pardon in this instance would be meaningless, there is no penalty left to remove.

While it was totally unfair to have hounded such an important figure, homosexuality was a crime at that time and was punishable. In the eyes of the law, he was a criminal, even if he wouldn't be under current legislation.

It isn't really the done thing in the UK to pardon people for a crime they were guilty of, even if that 'crime' is no longer seen as such unless innocence or special circumstances or evidence become apparent.

It was wrong to punish people harshly for being homosexual but it was the law at the time and things have changed. The legal system hasn't pardoned everyone who was executed for theft or other relatively minor offences either because under the legal system of the period, the punishment was considered correct.

Ok that seems perfectly sensible, btw they still have a house of lords? Are they like actual lords, cause I thought Britain had separated their monarchy from parliamentary decisions years ago. But then admittedly, I'm not all that familiar with how British parliament runs. That was a bit above my grade level when I was living there.

[zemo]

Ok that seems perfectly sensible, btw they still have a house of lords? Are they like actual lords, cause I thought Britain had separated their monarchy from parliamentary decisions years ago. But then admittedly, I'm not all that familiar with how British parliament runs. That was a bit above my grade level when I was living there.

The house of lords doesn't have any meaningful amount of power. I do believe, however, that the seats are still hereditary.