4 ms·

It is interesting to note how the main point behind the resolution not to pardon Turing is exactly the same point that, in other legislations, is used to pardon

by gioele 15y ago

It is interesting to note how the main point behind the resolution not to pardon Turing is exactly the same point that, in other legislations, is used to pardon people sentenced under no-longer-actual laws. Italian case (also present in many other civil law jurisdictions): you are sentenced in 2012 for sharing a music file. You are fined and jailed because so says the law in 2012. 2020, an act is passed that says that sharing a music file is no longer felony. fifteen days after the day that act has been enacted you can go to a court and say "ehi, I was just ahead of the time, clean my criminal records" and you will instantly get your records cleaned with a "il fatto non è previsto dalla legge come reato" sentence ("because that actions is no longer seen as a criminal offence under the current law"). In some rare cases you can also get money back from the state. In the recent times this principle has been used to provide blanket pardon for things that once were felonies such as having or providing an abort, divorcing (abroad), opposing to draft, hiding jews from the police... You know, these things that change over time.

nextparadigms 15y ago
Doesn't it feel so unfair that people do something at a time because they don't think it's morally wrong, but it is illegal, so they get persecuted or arrested for years and suffer for it, but later society decides that what he and others did wasn't actually illegal? In a way, they are the heroes or martyrs that that were indeed ahead of time and led to the society's change of heart regarding a certain law. Who knows how many laws we still have that 20-30 years were from now we'll just consider as stupid, irrational laws that shouldn't have existed.
- batista 15y ago
  How about the reverse, people going unpunished for stuff we don't consider a crime, but then 20-50-100 years later it's considered one? You know, like owning a slave.
mst 15y ago
> and you will instantly get your records cleaned Which so far as I can tell is what the disregard and deletion process that jgc describes in http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-for.html http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-f... will achieve. A pardon is not the same thing. Nothing to see here, move long :)
- gioele 15y ago
  The difference here is that the "disregard and deletion process" is an ad-hoc mechanism put in place by an ordinary act that can be later repelled. In many legislation such a favor rei mechanism is a funding principle and a tenet of law.
feralchimp 15y ago
To a U.S. observer, the U.K. (or maybe just the monarchy?) has a very peculiar notion of what "pardoning" (even ceremonially) means, or is meant to accomplish. In the U.S., many (Presidential) pardons are used for crimes that everyone agrees were indeed committed, and even crimes for which we fully intend to continue prosecuting other people in the future!
- arctangent 15y ago
  The UK concept of a pardon is the same as yours. Historically it was used in much the same way as your Presidential pardons are (i.e. to get friends of the ruling elite out of prison or spare them the gallows). In modern times we've pardoned people who we consider to be wrongly executed (including all soldiers executed for cowardice in the First World War) and people who have been wrongly executed for other crimes. However, there is still a general principle that a pardon doesn't remove the original conviction but instead removes the punishment that was applied. So in the case of a miscarriage of justice there is a tendency to allow the conviction to be quashed by an appeal court rather than pardon someone (unless time is of the essence e.g. they are close to death and the appeal would take too long).
  - droithomme 15y ago
    This is getting really interesting. Pardons are indeed based on the idea of forgiveness. So, to issue a pardon would be to say that the person committed a crime and needed to be forgiven. Thus, it is possible a pardon may be inappropriate as it would send the wrong message. It sounds like Italy has a different concept available, where things no longer considered crimes are no longer considered crimes, rather than sins that must be forgiven. I wonder if the same sort of principle is possible at all under English law.
    - arctangent 15y ago
      Laws which retroactively criminalise behaviour are expressly forbidden under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights [1] but merely ex post facto law (which may presumably make something legal retroactively) is merely "frowned upon" in the UK [2], because the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (i.e. parliament can do what it likes) takes precedence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Conve... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_Kingdo...

by gioele 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

Doesn't it feel so unfair that people do something at a time because they don't think it's morally wrong, but it is illegal, so they get persecuted or arrested for years and suffer for it, but later society decides that what he and others did wasn't actually illegal? In a way, they are the heroes or martyrs that that were indeed ahead of time and led to the society's change of heart regarding a certain law. Who knows how many laws we still have that 20-30 years were from now we'll just consider as stupid, irrational laws that shouldn't have existed.

batista 15y ago
How about the reverse, people going unpunished for stuff we don't consider a crime, but then 20-50-100 years later it's considered one? You know, like owning a slave.

mst 15y ago

> and you will instantly get your records cleaned Which so far as I can tell is what the disregard and deletion process that jgc describes in http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-for.html http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-f... will achieve. A pardon is not the same thing. Nothing to see here, move long :)

gioele 15y ago
The difference here is that the "disregard and deletion process" is an ad-hoc mechanism put in place by an ordinary act that can be later repelled. In many legislation such a favor rei mechanism is a funding principle and a tenet of law.

feralchimp 15y ago

To a U.S. observer, the U.K. (or maybe just the monarchy?) has a very peculiar notion of what "pardoning" (even ceremonially) means, or is meant to accomplish. In the U.S., many (Presidential) pardons are used for crimes that everyone agrees were indeed committed, and even crimes for which we fully intend to continue prosecuting other people in the future!

arctangent 15y ago
The UK concept of a pardon is the same as yours. Historically it was used in much the same way as your Presidential pardons are (i.e. to get friends of the ruling elite out of prison or spare them the gallows). In modern times we've pardoned people who we consider to be wrongly executed (including all soldiers executed for cowardice in the First World War) and people who have been wrongly executed for other crimes. However, there is still a general principle that a pardon doesn't remove the original conviction but instead removes the punishment that was applied. So in the case of a miscarriage of justice there is a tendency to allow the conviction to be quashed by an appeal court rather than pardon someone (unless time is of the essence e.g. they are close to death and the appeal would take too long).
- droithomme 15y ago
  This is getting really interesting. Pardons are indeed based on the idea of forgiveness. So, to issue a pardon would be to say that the person committed a crime and needed to be forgiven. Thus, it is possible a pardon may be inappropriate as it would send the wrong message. It sounds like Italy has a different concept available, where things no longer considered crimes are no longer considered crimes, rather than sins that must be forgiven. I wonder if the same sort of principle is possible at all under English law.
  - arctangent 15y ago
    Laws which retroactively criminalise behaviour are expressly forbidden under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights [1] but merely ex post facto law (which may presumably make something legal retroactively) is merely "frowned upon" in the UK [2], because the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (i.e. parliament can do what it likes) takes precedence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Conve... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_Kingdo...