Thou shalt not question the wisdom of Stephen Fry

[venta]

A while ago, I saw someone on my friends list posting something which basically said "here's what I think about this issue, and I'm a little confused by it, what are your thoughts?"

It's a very disconcerting thing to find yourself thinking something, but not to be sure whether you're entirely comfortable with your own opinions, or whether someone could easily shoot them down in flames.

Recently the sainted Stephen Fry brought to my attention the following petition:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to apologize for the prosecution of Alan Turing that led to his untimely death."

(Which is here, if you wish to sign it/read it/etc.)

Now, I think Alan Turing is someone to whom much more general accolade is due. I also think that his prosecution for gross indecency (read: being gay) and subsequent "treatment" were disgusting and shouldn't happen to anyone. But I don't think asking one G Brown to apologise for it makes any sense at all.

Firstly, I don't think[*] that the conviction itself is unreasonable. Turing was convicted of something which was, at the time, illegal - and would remain so for another fifteen years[**]. That later generations judge the law to have been unreasonable, immoral and wrong is neither here nor there. Appeals for - say - a posthumous pardon of Ruth Ellis have been denied on the grounds that although she might not now be convicted of murder; she was fairly convicted under the law of the time. You simply can't apply today's laws to history.

Secondly, I don't really understand the function of these post-dated apologies. When people called for Tony Blair to apologise to the French for Waterloo, I was just as nonplussed by that. (And, for the record, had the French won that particular round I'd have been as underwhelmed by the idea that M. Sarcozy should apologise to the English.)

Yes, Gordon Brown is the representative of the system that hounded Turing to his death. And yes, I presume there may be friends or relatives of Turing who might find comfort in the idea that that system admits it was wrong to do so. But isn't the changing of the law forty years ago just that admission ?

I think Turing was a genius; more people should (as the petition says) "recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany". He should be more widely known, and his life and work should be celebrated. But if the PM is to make a public statement and draw people's attention, isn't it better to leave them thinking "Turing, father of computer science" rather than "Turing, bloke who was prosecuted for being gay" ?

That someone so brilliant could lose their job, reputation and, ultimately, life over their choice of sexual partners makes me very sad. I wish I could shuffle time forty years so Turing could live in a world that didn't mind what he did in between inventing universal machines. I wish I could reach back and tell him that he'd be remembered as a great man, not as a humiliated one. I wish that things had not happened as they did, and an apology written by an underling and read out by Gordon Brown will not change that at all.

[*] This is one of the bits I'm confused about. I can respect people who resist an unfair law, but I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to demonise people who obey it.
[**] I had to look up when homosexuality was legalised in the UK, and realised that although it was in 1967 in England and Wales, it wasn't til 1980 in Scotland. 1980! And 1982 in N Ireland. Maybe you're all smart people who knew that. I didn't.

Comments

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I agree that apologising for one's ancestors and so on doesn't make sense. I suppose one could argue that apologising on behalf of the British Government is comparable to other occasions where an organisation has done something (e.g., we still generally consider companies to be responsible for past deeds, even if the people that form the company have changed over the years).

I think it's fair to criticise bad laws and other actions of the past. True, we can't criticise the police back then for just doing their jobs, but the Government was the one that makes the rules.

But yes, I see the point that there's nothing special about Turing here - one could just as much argue that everyone convicted under homosexuality laws should be pardoned, or indeed for any law that's overturned. (Although then again, perhaps raising publicity over Turing's case helps raise awareness for all such cases.)

But this now makes me wonder - whilst posthumous pardons are pretty much just symbolic, what happens if a law is repealed, and someone is still in prison at the time? I suppose there's some argument that they should have obeyed the law whilst the law existed - on the other hand, if it's agreed that a law was wrong, it seems wrong to me to continue to keep those people in prison (also consider an extreme case where one Government manages to pass some draconian law and locks up a load of people for life - should they not be released even when a future Government changes the law?)

But yes, in summary I share confusion over this issue (I signed it anyway, as I agree with the general spirit of raising awareness over the issues, but I won't lose any sleep if Gordon Brown doesn't give the apology).

[venta.livejournal.com]

what happens if a law is repealed, and someone is still in prison at the time

Interesting question; I have no idea.

I speculate wildly that it doesn't often happen. A criminal act rarely suddenly ceases to be a criminal act - on the whole there will have been years previously where people were being uneasy about it, and prosecutions carried lighter sentences, then no sentences, then didn't really happen.

I don't know whether this actually happened in the case of legalising homosexuality; must look it up later.