Matthew Parris Matthew Parris

Why I’m against posthumous pardons, even for Alan Turing

Pardoning those convicted under laws we now disagree with is an irrational surrender to the emotional tide

Alan Turing and colleagues working on the Ferranti Mark I Computer, 1951 Photo: SSPL/Getty 
issue 26 July 2014

Ross Clark is a columnist I try to read because he is never trite. So I was sorry to miss performances of his musical play staged earlier this month. Shot at Dawn is about a sister’s quest for a recognition (after his death) of her brother, Harry Briggs, a soldier in the Great War who was executed for desertion. The play is sympathetic to the idea of posthumous pardon; coupled with this, it’s a lament that society punishes people without trying to understand why they do what they did.

A second theme emerges: homosexuality, and the difficulty (then) of living with this in a world that does not understand. I suppose you could say that Ross’s play is about looking back not in anger but in sympathy.

Here’s a heresy, then. I intend no offence to legions of noble souls for whose posthumous pardons a powerful and moving defence can be made, but there’s an opinion I cannot shake off.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in