By James Formosa — Wilfred Laurier University (CUP)
Image by: Bernt Rostad
Alan Turing, an English mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst, and computer scientist, is considered by many to be the father of computer science and artificial intelligence. Turing has been credited for his substantial contributions during the Second World War, when he was instrumental in deciphering the Enigma Code for the Allied forces.
He was also largely responsible for the development of the first reprogrammable computer. Yet many of Turing’s achievements remained classified until after his death due to their pivotal tactical role during the war; that he never got the acclaim he deserved in life only makes the way he was treated in 1952 more tragic.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of his conviction of “gross indecency.” Turing had a homosexual relationship at a time when a draconian legislation dating back to 1885 still applied in Britain. Turing was faced with the options of imprisonment or hormone therapy that amounted to chemical castration.
Turing opted for the latter and, in 1954, he was discovered dead at home, having ingested cyanide. Turing’s genius in the emerging field of computer science was well understood by his colleagues; at 41 years of age, a career with unimaginable potential was cut short. The greater tragedy, of course, is that this man was denied his humanity.
In 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a formal apology to Turing following a large public outcry and massive online support for a petition to this effect. Despite expressing deep regret and acknowledging the unjust manner in which Turing was treated, Brown never announced an official government pardon for Turing.
In recognition of Turing’s centenary, a petition is calling for this pardon; online it already carries over 30,000 signatures. The motion for this pardon was recently considered and rejected by the British government. Aside from the potential for homophobic prejudice still existing within the government, there are other, more disturbing possibilities as to why this happened.
Perhaps their concern sits with the precedent that this case will set. Legislators are supposedly worried about having to give the same sort of pardon to thousands of elderly victims of this archaic law, as well they should.
Some argue that Turing rationally chose to break the law, and offering his pardon would lend credence to a civil disobedience can of worms for any other current laws which society at large deems unjust.
Instead of focusing on righting past wrongs, the government is worried about the current consequences of raising public awareness about their own fallibility. Yet fallible it is: it once expected many of its citizens to deny an integral part of their beings. To be expected to forsake one’s humanity, to be forcibly prevented from forming a bond with another person was the crime in this case.
Another caveat made by opponents of the Turing pardon has been the very nature of pardon-grants in Britain. They are typically reserved for cases where the act was committed, but the persons involved are morally innocent. This clause of moral innocence was used to posthumously pardon soldiers who were shot for cowardice in the First World War, for example.
I do not see a distinction here between the moral innocence of those who refuse to take another human life and those who choose to act on their love for another human being. This was not a case of Turing making a rational choice to break the law; the law was a broken one to begin with.
Granting Turing this pardon would acknowledge that he was a morally innocent victim of an unjust law, as were the thousands of other men and women faced with imprisonment or chemical castration by virtue of an essential quality of their being.
As a pioneer of computer science and hero of the Second World War, the tragedy of Turing’s final years has finally entered the public consciousness; thousands are demanding that governments admit they are not infallible and atone for their transgressions. Hopefully, with mounting public disapproval for the government’s handling of the Turing case, justice will be served for this man and for every victim still living with the consequences of prejudiced legislation.
