> 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.
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?
> 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.
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.