[postitnotecode]

I'm not sure if the article is supposed to be attacking the people that convicted Turing or the legalese used by the Crown in the pardon. On both counts, it seems to miss the mark and just wander greatly.

Unless there's precedent for not using formal wording in the pardon, I don't see what the author's point is.

[brudgers]

The issue the author is getting at is that the pardon, and hence the monarch's body political, is unlikely to pass the Turing test not only due to its language but because it lacks empathy, sympathy, and a willingness to take responsibility for past actions or to use its power to redress wrongs inflicted upon the thousands victims of that particular injustice who are still living.

To be circumspect, neutrality towards monarchy - nevermind its celebration - is not historically a feature of either American progressivism or American populism.

[MatthewWilkes]

I agree. It reads like a republican (lower case!) with an axe to grind. It's entirely appropriate and expected for the monarch to use such a register. What's inappropriate is suggesting that everything should be done differently because it's Turing.

[mtdewcmu]

Agreed. I think a pardon from the Queen is a nice gesture. Of course, it can't take back the wrong. But it is a nice gesture.

[yaddayadda]

I think the article can best be summed up in two of its paragraphs, which highlight the Queen's gesture as incomplete and suggest a more complete gesture ...

> "We can’t change Turing’s experience with a pardon. But his legacy mandates that we emulate, create, and codify humane and humble bodies politic, whether with law or with software, to steward and respect bodies natural."

> "According to Buzzfeed’s Jim Waterson, 75,000 men were convicted under the same law as Turing, some 26,000 of whom are still alive. (The law was repealed in 1967.) We might start by pardoning, or apologizing to, all those other men."

[teamonkey]

> We might start by pardoning, or apologizing to, all those other men."

The British government's apology in 2009 was an apology to all affected by these laws, not just Turing. I'm not sure how the author missed that, having quoted directly from the apology earlier in the article.

[yaddayadda]

I'm seeing two apologies mentioned: Gordan Brown's, and the failed legislative apology.

Gordon Brown's, while somewhat ambiguous, reads as though Gordan Brown is apologizing only to Turing. He does acknowledge the injustices suffered by others, but states, "So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work, I am very proud to say: we're sorry. You deserved so much better." [1]

The legislative apology starts off, "A Bill to give a statutory pardon to Alan Mathison Turing for offences under section 11 of the Criminal Amendment Act 1885 of which he was convicted on 31 March 1952.", which strikes me as extremely specific to Turing, and wasn't even approved. [2]

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/617011...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2012/jul/25/ala...

[brudgers]

The monarch did not pardon Turing, the monarchy did. Hence the signature was not that of the monarch.

Noting that Elizabeth was reigning when Turing was charged [ and later convicted and sentenced], there is some fair criticism - at least from the foundational American political perspective - that the lack of any personal acknowledgement of the injustice lessens the measure and the pardon's praise of its own beneficence, in light of its power to declare itself the very writ of pardon, is inexcusable.