Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi : set free

[rham]

I find this disturbing. What next Rose West & Ian Bradey?
How compassionate would we have been about Myra Hyndley or Harold Shipman.
Whether you believe he did this or not, he is guilty under the law. I am happy to see a retrial if there was evidence.
I think because most of the telegenic dead were not UK, we do not feel the same outrage. Myra Hyndley was part to killing a few children, the image of these children is always shown whenever she was discussed. Do you notice that we only see pictures of a crashed plane for Lockerbie? The only Americans shown are angry ones who are shown to be "unforgiving". What about the hundreds of relatives who are simply distraught about their loss? Who feel that a convicted mass murderer should do the time sentenced. Note to mass murderers kill people in one go, preferably abroad.
It is a truth of our times that every event has a conspiracy theory. I have not seen enough or read enough for me to believe that Lockerbie was a CIA inspired plot. Amazingly some SNP supporters believe this a Labour conspiracy to screw up the SNP.
On Friday there was a huge conspiracy from the bank who gave me money, to the distillary who made the vodka, to the pub who served it and worse the conspiracy included my friends who bought rounds. As a result I was drunk through no fault of my own.

[Haunted]

Conditional release on compassionate grounds =/= set free.
Had Shipman or Hindley been diagnosed with an imminently terminal condition, they too would've had grounds to appeal for release on compassionate grounds. They probably would've been refused because there would be no safe place in the UK for them and the security concerns would be insurmountable but because Megrahi has a foreign country to go he can be released without fear of vigilantism.

[Al]

Do you notice that we only see pictures of a crashed plane for Lockerbie?

What should they have shown? The dismembered bodies?

Amazingly some SNP supporters believe this a Labour conspiracy to screw up the SNP.

Eh?

[wild_quinine]

What about the hundreds of relatives who are simply distraught about their loss?

They should have the least say in the punishment of the guilty out of anyone. And I would go so far as to say that if you disagree with this, sooner or later you will find yourself a monster or a hypocrite.

Nothing angers me more in discussions of justice than an appeal to the feelings of the relatives. "We just want justice," you'll hear them say on American daytime TV, right before they watch the death penalty carried out on the monster who slaughtered their teenage daughter. I'm sure we can sympathise.

But revenge is NOT justice.

Justice has an even hand, an even temper, and is not partial to one sort or another.

When justice decides to take a man's life or freedom, it does not do that as an act of vindictiveness, or to placate an angry mob. That happens in the real world often enough, but that is not justice. That is human frailty.

I neither support nor decry the decision to grant this particular case of compassionate leave. It was a decision made by a man who explained himself well enough. He believes that a great nation best shows its values when it shows mercy to someone who has committed a terrible, merciless act.

This is not as simple as letting a guilty man walk free. This is more the equivalent of allowing a man on death row one final visitation before sentence is carried out. In that light, can we not see the value of mercy? Would any of you deny the most evil man on earth one last chance to see his family or loved ones? And if you would, please genuinely stop and think - what part of myself is making this decision? Am I proud of this part of myself?

[Super Jock]

I'm glad to see replies that can look beyond the weak eye for an eye justification.

I really don't envy anyone who had a hand in making this decision.

Guilty or not, sometimes doing the right thing isn't the easiest thing, this is such a case. I'm just glad the decision wasn't pushed through by America who do have different justice views than the UK (not just Scotland.) I just hate the other politicians and people angry at devolution trying to spin this into an Anti Devolution thing. It isn't, it's a moral issue. The whole of the UK is against death penalty, the whole of the UK has compassionate grounds. The media will ride this for too long given everyone is bored with Swine Flu and Credit Crunch.

[Humphrey]

There were some serious doubts raised about the conviction, but in the event Al Megrahi got terminal cancer before the second appeal could begin. If it had gone ahead and the new evidence had stood up then a serious miscarriage of justice could have been revealed. This way, the alleged bomber gets to go home to a heros welcome; Gaddafi gets his propaganda victory and we maintain good relations with Libya; the Scottish Justice Minister gets to look all noble and compassionate and everyone gets to look all morally superior to the Americans. Meanwhile the guys who were really behind the bombing will never come to justice.

The people that lose out are the families of the victims. No justice here I'm afraid.

[donpablo]

I completely agree with everyone that has replied.

Rham you must still be drunk, those are some of the most incoherent and flimsy points that aren't even in the slightest bit related to this case. Sure there are many questions still to be answered but given time those will be answered I'm sure. It's early days yet. By the sounds of it America and the UK didn't do much in the way of intervening or objecting loudly as i'm sure they will no doubt start doing in retrospect.

I find myself asking what's in this for anyone? While I find this to be the right decision in context, I'm more dubious about how the decision was arrived at and the motivations. I find the compassion arguement from a politician a bit far fetched and that was the most rehearsed statement I have ever seen regarding the release decision. It was pretty much rehashed during all those TV interviews. Paxman would have had a field day. But hey we can all have another conspiracy to scream about. Must be oil, yup that's it!

America's politicians should really learn something from Scotland's example of how to treat humans though. After all, they do want to stick a Scot (Gary McKinnon) in jail for god knows how many years (60 I think?). His crime? Exposing serious flaws in their defence IT infrastructure while looking for information of a UFO cover up. They should be so lucky it was him and not 'Al Kayda' whoever he is (joke). It's all pretty rich from such a Christian country that can't even follow their own teachings. No wonder a lot of the world hates America and the UK by association and we're in these messes of wars.

[rham]

Err not drunk now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_se ... ed_Kingdom
If you will support these people for release on compassionate grounds if and when, then I admire your compassion and you are not a hypocritic. Megrahi was convicted of killing 270 people pre-planned including many children and showed no remorse. He said he did not do it, but other serial killers also deny their guilt. The guilt of Bush Blair is something I agree on, but to say well if they go free no one else deserves punishment is not sustainable.

My point is that somehow no one feels very much like supporting these other serial killers. I tried google but could not find any support group that campaigned for Myra Hindley (who died in jail) to get compassionate release.

I wonder why? Is it (as I wonder) that we don't feel much for the people who died. Somehow they deserved it, America starts wars etc? It may be because people suspect Megrahi to be innocent, on what basis? I agree there is a case for a retrial but I don't think it is cut and dried that Megrahi is innocent. He remains guilty until any appeal.

As to vengence and victims rights. my point was the opposite the only Americans we see are those crying for blood whom we can feel morally superior too. (Read the posts, there is plenty of moral superiority ). Unlike some of the UK serial killers, the only victims we see confirm what I think to be our prejudice (Swire: Man's innocent CIA conspiracy) or A.M. Erican "Hang em high". As to dismembered bodies, no, close your eyes when I say Ian Huntley what do you see? I bet it is two young girls in Man U tops. I guess you will be supporting his release is he is diagnosed by a doctor with 3 months to live (an impossible thing to predict accurately). For Shipman, I see an old lady and her grieving daughter. For Lockerbie I see the white nose cone of crashed plane.

AS to this being a Labour plot against the SNP, read Bryan Taylor's blog on the BBC (several SNP supporters make the point).

[Haunted]

I tried google but could not find any support group that campaigned for Myra Hindley (who died in jail) to get compassionate release.
I wonder why?

Was she, or any of the names, on your list terminally ill? Did doctors know they were going to die within three months? If the answer to any of these is no then the circumstances are not the same.

As to dismembered bodies, no, close your eyes when I say Ian Huntley what do you see? I bet it is two young girls in Man U tops. I guess you will be supporting his release is he is diagnosed by a doctor with 3 months to live (an impossible thing to predict accurately).

The security concerns for his release would, I imagine, be completely insurmountable. He has nowhere safe to go. What I imagine they could do is release him to an undisclosed minimum security institution. If he ever has grounds to appeal for compassionate release that is.

[donpablo]

Well I just read the last 3 days of Brian Taylors blog entries and I don't see a single mention of this Labour plot. They can't organise a plot against their own PM let alone something that seems this complicated but maybe I missed something so if you could paste the exerpt that would be grand.

I don't think anyone is supporting Megrahi here. People are supporting MacAskil's judgement. These decisions are arrived at after consulting many experts of various fields and those listed in that list of serial killers are no different. If they pose no threat to public safety and all other strict criteria are met then I would have to agree in principal that they should all be shown the same compassion too. But fortunately I can say that without ever having to make that decision. It's the biggest triumph not stooping to the same level of these people.

There is no conspiracy.

Why are these events refered to as serial murder anyway? Shouldn't they more appropriately be refered to as parallel murder?

[Therese]

I think mass murder is the proper term.

I agree with pretty much everything said here - I dislike the implication that compassion and mercy are somehow signs of weakness or hypocrisy. McAskill made and stood by a difficult and thankless decision that was bound to be widely criticised, but I believe that ultimately he did the right thing.

[Sinbad]

I find it hard to believe that no one here is in support of rham. Most people i have talked, like myself, are appalled by this decision. How on earth is this the right decision, this main killed 270 people and at the time he had no compassion for their families or friends. Yet we are supposed to feel sorry for him.

On a personal note, my mother was murdered 4 years ago and if i were to think that the man convicted was released to die with his family i would find it an insult to my family and me that this man should have the privilege of saying goodbye to his family, the very thing that he took away from us. This is nothing to do with blood lust or for that matter revenge but about justice. While prison is hardly justice for a life (and by that i am not advocating the death penalty) it is the best we have on this earth and as such the relative justice that we have at our disposal should be fulfilled.

As for the argument about Myra or Shipman the point is not how they died but the idea of them getting released, if they did get a terminal illness, would not go down well here due to the affilation we have with the suffering they caused, where as with Al-Megrahi we just see a plane and hear numbers.

Not that its needs to be said really but rham i couldn't agree with you more.

[wild_quinine]

If you will support these people for release on compassionate grounds if and when, then I admire your compassion and you are not a hypocritic.

You just need to support the right of the people on that list to a fair consideration. And I do. It's not about whether I want those people on the streets. It's about whether I am prepared to admit that whilst showing mercy is sometimes less satisfying than revenge, it is often ultimately the right thing to do. And I do accept that.

I'm not the guy who makes the decisions, and I don't envy the job. But I do respect it.

I wonder why? Is it (as I wonder) that we don't feel much for the people who died. Somehow they deserved it, America starts wars etc? It may be because people suspect Megrahi to be innocent, on what basis?

Like many people you obviously have difficulty separating your feelings from your ability to think rationally, and are happy to project this on to others, too.

In case I haven't been clear enough yet: your feelings on the matter should not come into play when making a decision about justice. Justice is not subject to your whims, or anyone elses.

this main killed 270 people and at the time he had no compassion for their families or friends. Yet we are supposed to feel sorry for him.

Who says? Mercy is not about 'feeling sorry for someone'. I don't feel the least bit sorry for the man.

On a personal note, my mother was murdered 4 years ago and if i were to think that the man convicted was released to die with his family i would find it an insult to my family and me that this man should have the privilege of saying goodbye to his family, the very thing that he took away from us. This is nothing to do with blood lust or for that matter revenge but about justice.

What you are describing does not fit the model of justice we have adopted in the UK. It is, in my opinion, a barbaric model of justice. Justice should be forwards looking, not retributive. It should look to do as much good as possible, not cause overdue harm simply because someone 'deserves' it.

There is a reason that we do not torture people in our jails, no matter how serious their crime. It is because evil acts don't stop being evil acts just because someone 'deserves' to be on the receiving end of them.

I'm sorry your mother was murdered. I don't know how to tell you how awful it makes me feel even to imagine that. But it does not give your opinion on justice any extra weight. It makes you less reliable as an adjudicator.

What good does it do to cause harm to a guilty person? Because if the answer is simply 'it would make me feel better', then you need to have a long think about whether or not someone should die alone and in pain, just to make you feel better. It's a short step from there to total barbarism.

And what of the guilty person's friends and family? They are not criminals, and they have not necessarily done wrong. Should they be robbed of a chance to say goodbye to someone they love? Would you hurt a whole group of people because one of them has committed a terrible act? Or do you just assume that alll the guilty people in the world have stopped being loved by their families, simply because they have done terrible things? Because it is possible to love the most flawed, evil of people you know. My mother would have loved me even if I had killed a man in cold blood, and I'm sure that yours would too. In a way, that certainty says more about love than any amount of a need to revenge.

[rham]

Feelings do not come into Justice, not subject to whims?

Compassion is a human feeling.

Justice is a social construct. It is designed and implemented by humans and to be effective it needs some level of consent within the community. At no stage in the process is "justice" divorced from human feelings (what law to create, what to enforce, what to prosecute and how to punish; what formula is followed for these other than those designed by feeling?). You indicate a very western view, courts, lawyers, impartiality etc. Societies' ideas of justice change in line with their other social ideas and trends. The idea of justice as some fixed absolute is favored by devout religious people (God's commandments, The Koran etc). Only one class of person can make major decisions without empathy or antipathy playing a role in the process.

I did not say that people who support freedom for Megrahi are guided by emotional dislike for Americans (although donpabio's comments did do the moral superiority over USA thing), All I wondered is why there seems to be such compassion for Megrahi, given by and large lack of such compassion for other mass murders.

[wild_quinine]

Feelings do not come into Justice, not subject to whims?

Compassion is a human feeling.

Justice is a social construct. It is designed and implemented by humans and to be effective it needs some level of consent within the community. At no stage in the process is "justice" divorced from human feelings (what law to create, what to enforce, what to prosecute and how to punish; what formula is followed for these other than those designed by feeling?).

Justice must be impartial, or it isn't justice.

If you have any personal feelings about a case, you cannot be impartial. So the personal feelings of those involved should not be involved in the process of doing justice.

If you do not accept this, I would like to know why.

Now you've brought meta-justice, or jurisprudence into the conversation, and that is where you think that feelings should be involved. And I agree that this might be the case. But jurisprudence is not the application of justice, it is the creation and maintenance of a system by which justice can most reasonably be done.

As you indicate, there are many sources for inspiration in jurisprudence - societal or religious values, social contracts, attempts to objectify morality. We cannot invalidate utterly any of these sources as possible foundations, and that is fair enough.

But having defined a system of justice, such a system must then be run with complete consistency and impartiality, or it fails to be justice. And that means that feelings get put in the back seat, in the face of cold, hard reason.

Oh, sure, that doesn't always happen. But in the ideal of justice, nobody gets a bum deal because you're having a rough day.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that it is possible to be rational about feelings without simultaneously experiencing them, and also that it is also possible to feel things, and not act directly in accordance with those feelings.

If you can't appreciate that, I dearly hope you're never on a jury for anything I'm accused of! I'd hate to go down because the prosecution brought candy, or something.

You indicate a very western view, courts, lawyers, impartiality etc.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Societies' ideas of justice change in line with their other social ideas and trends.

But in the application justice is egalitarian, and people's feelings are not.

Only one class of person can make major decisions without empathy or antipathy playing a role in the process.

For such a person, it would simply not appear to be a major decision. And if their principles were in accordance with our system of justice, there is nothing to suggest that they would not be better than adequate in the role, provided they had no vested interest in the outcome.

For the record I have never come across such a person who, in each case, did not have deep, deep feelings about one particular subject.

[donpablo]

It's a tough question to answer but my guess is it's the perception perhaps given off by the media that this guy may somehow be hard done by and made a scapegoat. Im just keeping an open mind about it all.

People are a product of society and as you say Justice is a social construct and I would rather live in a compassionate society given the choice. As long as people can be rehabilitated and are not a danger I see absoloutely no reason to keep anyone under lock and key. Life long restriciton of liberty is a hefty hefty punishment, one that could be argued is worse than the death penalty. After all look at the outrage at Harold Shipman's suicide (it's a whole other debate that I'd prefer not to start as this one is big enough already). Prison should only ever be an option for dangerous and violent people to protect the public. A terminally ill man who is several thousand miles away I would say is not a safety concern to our society and also seeks to show that we are not this stereotypical amoral western country completely devoid of values.

wild_quinine also raises equally valid points that save me a lot of typing.

[Super Jock]

Given that his release was done, because it was the right, merciful and the civilised thing to do (and I'm not being sarcastic) and it was definitely not the most opportune thing to do, (as the incident has created pretty serious, but not irreparable, damage to our international relations not to forget the undeniable belittling of those directly affected) where does our sense of right and wrong come from?

Why do some of us "know" that a wrong followed by a wrong, is two wrongs, where as others "know", a wrong followed by a wrong (perpetrated by the other side) is balance.

I apologise for the gross simplification, and although I'm not religious, I can't help but think the two sides of the argument remind me of one of the main difference in the old and new testament.

P.s I'm a physicist not a philosopher can you tell?

[wild_quinine]

Why do some of us "know" that a wrong followed by a wrong, is two wrongs, where as others "know", a wrong followed by a wrong (perpetrated by the other side) is balance.

There are a lot of ways to answer this, and a lot of systems we can use to evaluate... but you know this.

One of the simplest ways to look at this, which I hope will appeal to an empiricist, is as follows:

It should be self evident that causing harm is wrong, in any reasonable moral system.

If someone causes harm, you have the option of causing harm to them in return. This increases the amount of harm in the system, and is therefore a bad thing, unless there are demonstrable counteracting factors.

In other words, you would need to show that causing harm to such a person was overall a good thing, even though it is self evidently a bad thing in itself.

This places the onus of explanation on those who believe that punishment, revenge, or retribution is a right act. They need to explain how it is a right act, because it is NOT self evident that this is the case.

Imprisoning people is a form of harm. But we have reasonable explanations as to why we do this, and punishment is not usually top of the list!

Even if you think that retribution is morally appropriate, sooner or later it is obvious that we DO draw the line at causing harm. So any explanation of the rightness of retaliation will have to account for this.

[Gubbins]

Something no-one has mentioned in this: the compasionate release is not only so that he can return to Libya to see his family before he dies, but (perhaps more importantly) so that they can see him. Why should they be denied a chance to say goodbye?

[Cain]

I thought that he was sentenced to 800+ years after his initial trial. Did I imagine that?

All that I've seen since refers to life imprisonment, serving a minimum of 27 years.