[allsummer]

His death was consistent with both suicide and accident. He left no note, so the reasons for why he likely committed suicide are not clear. His nephew suggests it was "boyfriend trouble" and his friend said he had underwent the "treatment" in good spirits. Turing, on the advice of his lawyer, plead guilty and opted for chemical castration himself.

Of all the men in history charged with "gross indecency", Turing was the only one to receive a pardon. He was not castrated for being gay, but for a relationship with an Eastern European 19-year old homeless man, and getting his house broken into, while having a security clearance and access to secret information.

[foldr]

> He was not castrated for being gay, but for a relationship with an Eastern European 19-year old homeless man, and getting his house broken into, while having a security clearance and access to secret information.

Not sure what point you’re trying to make here. His chemical castration was a condition of his probation following his indecency conviction, and had nothing directly to do with his security clearance.

[allsummer]

I'm fine with Turing being a hero or a role model. But people are now writing that Turing was castrated for being gay.

> following his indecency conviction, and had nothing directly to do with his security clearance.

It had nothing directly to do with his being gay. You can be gay without starting relationships with homeless boys and getting your house broken into, exposing yourself to blackmail or coercion.

[freedomben]

> It had nothing directly to do with his being gay.

Do you really (personally) believe that? You don't think his gayness was a factor at all?

Seeing the way he was treated by law enforcement, particularly after the facts started coming to light, I can't believe it wasn't a factor. His final charge may have been more for the classified info risk as you say (I honestly don't know enough about the details to have an opinion there), but many parts of the process I think would have gone a lot more differently had he not been gay. Without a doubt in my mind, they would not have treated him so disrespectfully and cavalierly.

[allsummer]

> You don't think his gayness was a factor at all?

It was a factor, but not directly. I believe Turing's gayness is being pink washed. The way I see it, the UK was not castrating people for being gay, but gave this option after breaking indecency laws and being convicted for it.

> particularly after the facts started coming to light

Turing went to police to file a report and casually (perhaps ignorantly or haughtily) admitted to breaking a law.

[freedomben]

> Turing went to police to file a report and casually (perhaps ignorantly or haughtily) admitted to breaking a law.

Yes I agree, but (and I'm honestly asking because I don't know) was it one of those laws that nobody really took seriously or that was still on the books even though it was never enforced? Or was it a crime that was enforced at the time?

Edit: Unrelated to above, but from parent comment, I hadn't heard of "pink washing" before so just dropping a link for others who might not have heard of it either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkwashing_(LGBT)

[allsummer]

The law was enforced, but it seems Turing did not take it seriously. He was openly gay since university, complained the law was stupid, was unapologetic in court, and sought out "sex vacations" after his conviction.

[foldr]

He was not charged with being burgled (which is obviously not a crime!) or for exposing himself to blackmail (which is also not a crime). He was charged for having sex with another man, and his punishment was a result of that conviction. So his conviction and punishment were absolutely directly to do with his being gay. The very fact that chemical castration was considered as a 'treatment' shows that everyone involved regarded the problem as being 'gay sex', not 'exposing oneself to blackmail'.

[freedomben]

Al Capone was also charged with tax evasion to the fullest extent of the law, even though the gov was rarely if ever that aggressive with tax evaders. Prosecutors/law enforcement go for the charge that stands the best chance of conviction, not necessarily the one that is most accurate.

Personally given how society was at that point in time, I think his gayness was a big factor in how he was treated, but there are better arguments than pointing to what he was charged with as that is easily refuted.

[foldr]

But this is nonsense in the case of Turing. He was simply charged because he admitted to the police officer investigating the burglary that he'd had gay sex. His treatment was in line with that of other gay men of the time who were charged with similar offences (perhaps more 'lenient' if anything). What evidence do you have that there was more to the case than this? I have seen no indication that security concerns entered into the prosecution or sentencing.

Beware that OP's post is full of random nonsense, such as the claim that the younger man in question was 'Eastern European'. (His name was Arnold Murray and he was born in the UK, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain.)

[freedomben]

I don't have "evidence" at all, other than that when the subject comes up most people say that it was kind of a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing. I.e. if you were doing it in public there could be issues, but there was a pretty good gay community where it was kind of an open secret[1]. If you don't believe that to be accurate, please let me know!

> His treatment was in line with that of other gay men of the time who were charged with similar offences (perhaps more 'lenient' if anything).

Not challenging you, but do you or anybody have some numbers on how often this was prosecuted? It's probably impossible to say since by definition much of the activity was underground, but that doesn't match my current understanding of the environment.

[1]: as is always a risk when stating facts, there's a risk of is/ought fallacy here with people interpreting my statement of facts with what I think should be the case. I'm not saying it ought to be this way, merely that it was. I think we've made great progress in this area and I'm glad for it.

[dxdm]

> He was not castrated for being gay, but for a relationship with an Eastern European 19-year old homeless man, and getting his house broken into, while having a security clearance and access to secret information.

Assuming this is true (I don't know), would a heterosexual man have received the same punishment? In any case, it seems pretty cruel and unusual to me.

[allsummer]

A heterosexual 40-year-old man with top-level security clearance, access to sensitive information, and the skill set of Turing, getting involved with Eastern European strays, at the start of the Cold War, possibly compromising himself, would not have received the same punishment, but likely would not have been spared jail time.

Cruel? From the lens of modern times, certainly. But don't we still chemically castrate certain sex offenders?

[dxdm]

> A heterosexual ... would not have received the same punishment, but likely would not have been spared jail time.

I don't know if we can make the assumption that it was his being gay that spared him the jail time, or if other considerations were at play; and if another man benefiting from the same considerations but with different preferences would have been treated (edit: clarifying) more leniently, i.e. no chemical castration, as you say. And together with the following:

> But don't we still chemically castrate certain sex offenders?

This goes back to the view back then of homosexuality as sexual (and criminal?) deviance. I feel like we're pretty much back at the point of his sexuality being the reason for the chemical castration.

[tim333]

If they are behaving in a iffy manner but have not actually leaked secrets they would probably just be fired or transfered.