LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBBC News - Government rejects pardon request for Alan Turing
Unbelievable. What a ridiculous decision.
BBC News - Government rejects pardon request for Alan Turing
Unbelievable. What a ridiculous decision.
Nice to know the Government supports the conviction.
I think that just about covers it."A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence," he said.
It has nothing to do with the government, and everything to do with the law!
That really should be the end of it.In 2009 former Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an official apology to Mr Turing, labelling the treatment he had received as "utterly unfair" and "appalling".
I am not saying that I believe his conviction is correct because I don't, but if they overturned this they'll soon be up to their necks in petitions for eveyone who was convicted of homosexuality, being a witch etc.
This is true.Originally Posted by Jawloms
The conviction was CORRECT, in law, at the time. We cannot go back and pardon people who have been convicted of a law that has been repealed.
Hmmmm….can see and certainly understand what you are saying here. Guessing that I just find it so unbelievably stupid that homosexuality was once deemed illegal. As for me, I certainly think that he should have been pardoned, but yes, do know and understand the points that you both have made.
In many places, that is still the case!
It is a very sorry tale, as without the conviction he may have gone on to do even more brilliant work. Sadly, it seems as if it was the catalyst for his suicide. Now THAT is probably why the former PM apologised.
Yes you can. Theres hundreds of examples of posthumous pardons, soldiers being shot for cowardice the most numerous.
The correct thing to do would be admit the law and the punishment of chemical castration was wrong.
Last edited by Theblacksheep; 7th February 2012 at 02:14 PM.
These would have been judged and convicted under military law, during operations, and doesn't really bear comparison.
http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ww1.htm
It has since been accepted that PTSD would have played a big part in those "cowardice" claims. Homosexuality is not an illness.
The pardon from Gordon Brown was an admittance that the punishment WAS wrong.
Last edited by aerospacemango; 7th February 2012 at 02:24 PM.
PTSD is not in 100% of all cases of cowardice, not all cowardice executions were illness related. Many a man has been forced to fight against his will and had to face death.
It is my opinion that just because it was 'correct' (in law) at the time to imprison and dehumanise, doesn't mean it should stand now.
Posthumous pardons for cowardice / desertion / refusal to soldier are generally where there was insufficient evidence for the conviction and sentence to have been correct in the first place, was where military law was used and the pardon is under civil law or where a change in law is then applied retrospectively at the time when the change is enacted.
Unfortunately, in this case there is little chance of a pardon and the most that could be applied is a formal apology. There are possibly some loopholes which had been spoken about due to military services, etc ... but I can't remember where these got to.
Were it so easy to roll back the years and change laws....
However, those WERE the laws of the time and, as unjust as it now appears to us, those were the criteria against which he was convicted.
The posthumous pardons for "cowardice" are better explained elsewhere, than I can do justice here!
I respect your opinion, and your right to have that opinion, and hope you are enjoying this discussion as much as I. (Still think you're wrong though....nar, nar, ne, nar, nar!!!!!)
All 306 WW1 soldiers shot for cowardice, regardless of evidence, medical reason or other factors have been pardoned.
Pardoned: the 306 soldiers shot at dawn for 'cowardice' - Telegraph
Derek Bentley. :PWere it so easy to roll back the years and change laws....
However, those WERE the laws of the time and, as unjust as it now appears to us, those were the criteria against which he was convicted.
I respect your opinion, and your right to have that opinion, and hope you are enjoying this discussion as much as I. (Still think you're wrong though....nar, nar, ne, nar, nar!!!!!
Last edited by Theblacksheep; 7th February 2012 at 03:23 PM.
Ahhhh...The old "Let Him Ave It" argument! This is, as I explained in my earlier post, a miscarriage of justice.
Source: Derek Bentley case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThough Bentley had never been accused of attacking any of the police officers, who were shot at by Craig, for him to be convicted of murder as an accessory in a joint enterprise it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that he knew that Craig had a deadly weapon when they began the break-in. Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham of Cornhill ruled that Lord Goddard had not made it clear to the jury that the prosecution was required to have proved Bentley had known that Craig was armed. He further ruled that Lord Goddard had failed to raise the question of Bentley's withdrawal from their joint enterprise. This would require the prosecution to prove the absence of any attempt by Bentley to signal to Craig that he wanted Craig to surrender his weapons to the police. Lord Bingham ruled that Bentley's trial had been unfair because the judge had misdirected the jury and, in his summing-up, had put unfair pressure on the jury to convict. It is possible that Lord Goddard may have been under pressure while summing up since much of the evidence was not directly relevant to Bentley's defence. Lord Bingham did not rule that Bentley was innocent, merely that there had been defects in the trial process. If Bentley had been alive in July 1998 or convicted of the offence, it would have been possible for him to face a retrial.
Last edited by aerospacemango; 7th February 2012 at 03:35 PM.
Still got a full pardon despite not being innocent!
The law is a 'ass'.
Last edited by Theblacksheep; 7th February 2012 at 03:37 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
