Misgivings over the pardon of Alan Turing

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/25/misgivings-pardon-alan-turing

Version 0 of 1.

Many people will welcome the granting of a retrospective royal pardon to Alan Turing, and there can be no doubt that those who have campaigned for one have been well-intentioned and moved by perfectly understandable feelings. But Andrew Hodges is absolutely right in his criticism (Report, 24 December). The fact is that Turing was properly convicted of what was at the time a criminal offence. There was no doubt about the soundness of the conviction, and there were no extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Lord McNally was accordingly quite right to decline the request for a pardon, harsh as his decision doubtless appeared to many.

Contrary to what some seem to think, the fact that Turing was a great mathematician who performed, during his time at Bletchley Park, an enormous service to his country which may well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives is completely irrelevant. What was wrong was not the conviction, but the law under which Turing was convicted. Singling him out for special treatment in a way that conveys the appalling message that, as Hodges put it, "a sufficiently valuable individual should be above the law which applies to everyone else" is both morally offensive and damaging to our system of justice. If anyone who was convicted under that law is to be "pardoned", everyone should be – at least then there would be some chance that some of those affected by convictions under the bad law which was then in place would derive some consolation. But better simply to acknowledge that it was a bad law, and to be ever wary of introducing legislation which panders to the "moral sense" of the majority. Bob Hale Sheffield

• You state that a pardon is normally granted only when a person is innocent (in which case, of course, the term "pardon" is surely inappropriate). In fact the strict Home Office criterion has been that the recipient be both "morally and technically innocent". It seems that Turing's technical guilt in 1952, despite his "moral" innocence in 1952, prompted the then justice minister Lord McNally to refuse a recommendation in 2012.

However, that decision may have ignored the administrative practice that has existed since the early 1960s (and which Turing's pardon now reflects) whereby the strict Home Office criterion for a non-statutory pardon can be sidestepped. The breakthrough was the award of pardons in 1964 in two separate cases to prisoners convicted of possessing offensive weapons that had been planted on them by "bent coppers", including the notorious Detective Sergeant Harold Challenor. While the innocence of the prisoners could not apparently be conclusively established, Roy Jenkins had these cases in mind when he recommended a posthumous pardon for Timothy Evans in 1966. For despite Evans' "technical" innocence (though still disputed by some), the latter's "moral" innocence might have been considered compromised by his prior belief that Christie was going to carry out an illegal abortion on the subsequently strangled Beryl Evans. Gerry Rubin Bridge, Kent

• Most of us appreciate the pardon of Alan Turing, but we cannot atone for his appalling treatment and eventual suicide by persisting in the "Colossus misconception". Professor Jack Copeland and Paul Gannon, in their books on Colossus, draw attention to the misconception that Turing played some part in the design and build of the world's first electronic computer. Turing was in America when Tiltman and Tutte broke the more complex Fish/Tunny code.

Thomas H Flowers, a Post Office engineer, already using valves, knew he was the only one with the expertise to build an electronic machine that would speed up the urgent deciphering process. His offer to build a machine was turned down. He went back to Dollis Hill and, with his own money, built Colossus. Installed in January 1944, it was an immediate success and allowed the Allies to read messages between Hitler and his high command. It was Colossus that shortened the war by two years and saved millions of lives. It was Flowers who led the world into the electronic computer era we now live in. When asked what part Turing played in the Colossus computer, Flowers said "he had nothing to do with it". Why the misconception persists and Flowers' role is diminished is worthy of some consideration. He may himself have been the victim of a different form of discrimination. His degree in electrical engineering was gained at night school at London University. He was not an Oxbridge chap and was referred to at Bletchley Park as "the cockney". Jack Armitage Silverdale, Lancashire

• By definition, "granting a pardon" means forgiveness or exemption from punishment for an offence committed. Alan Turing's "offence" was to be in a relationship with a man in the privacy of their own homes. He quite rightly felt no remorse or guilt for his lifestyle and it would be surely be more appropriate to declare void all laws outlawing homosexuality, including the 1885 Act under which he was convicted, thus meaning that he was never guilty of any crime and thus obviating the need of a pardon. Colin Burke Manchester

• It is not Alan Turing who is in need of a pardon. It is the British government for having, in the recent words of Lord McNally, "properly convicted" him. Michael Holroyd London

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.