DarthSydodyas
rusting
weren't life sentences 25 years, or therebouts'?
Release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi or not?
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
a sly agreement for whitehall to keep stfu when the independence question comes before the electorate of scotch land, maybe.
untethered
For industry & decency
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
You are a bit yes.
untethered
For industry & decency
You find that this chap's compassionate release is an appropriate opportunity for a triumphalist return to be used as a political victory for Libya?
Odd.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
oh, he's done x amount of years on a very probable fit up. I think a nice parade is the least he can expect before his cock-cansa does him in
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
I don't give a toss what a dictatoprial loon who's 'our' new pal in the oil business does with his mad parades.
I find your selective anger even odder. Now fuck off you repugnant piece of shit.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Haven't read the thread but I'm pleased he will die in Libya surrounded by family.
I can't support any conviction not by a jury and would also have reservations about any jury that's not comprised of 12 of my peers. On top of that, this was so political someone had to be convicted and also Jim Swire doesn't think al-Megrahi was involved - Jim Swire is no one's fool.
I can't support any conviction not by a jury and would also have reservations about any jury that's not comprised of 12 of my peers. On top of that, this was so political someone had to be convicted and also Jim Swire doesn't think al-Megrahi was involved - Jim Swire is no one's fool.
starfish
No dialogue. Just plot.
Is it really that diificult for people to understand though.
You get a life sentence with a minimum tariff of, say, 20 years. After 20 years you might get released on parole, you might not. If you do you are still owned by the state. You break your parole you go straight back to jail. That cycle continues for the rest of your life. The only way to not go back to jail is to not break your parole conditions.
I thought it was quite straightforward.
untethered
For industry & decency
It seems to be. You understand it. I understand it. But I meet lots of people who don't, including many on this very forum.
And of course understanding it has no bearing on whether you think it's right.
untethered
For industry & decency
Have you noticed how just about everyone else on this forum who disagrees with me nonetheless manages to avoid pointless personal abuse?
Yes. Why not?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
No, I would not have agreed with Shipmans release even were he terminally ill, or Myra Hindley, Ian Bradey, Ian Huntley, Fred West etc .. for me life means "until you are dead" them having an illness just means that happens earlier perhaps but does not to me mean that they should be released.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
So? Bizarre how you seem to think I should just fall in line with everyone else...
untethered
For industry & decency
I don't expect you to conform blindly. I expect you to behave decently.
Still, not all expectations can be satisfied.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Why behave 'decently' to people I find indecent?
You'all were had.
It isn't really that simple though, is it?
The whole thing's been a political affair from start to finish, and politics and justice don't make good bedfellows.
Gadaffi agreed to hand al-Megrahi over in the first place to win himself brownie points with the west. Subsequently the whole trial was highly politicised, and partly as a result it was flawed (how badly so I didn't realise until now). Now Gadaffi's taken the opportunity to thumb his nose at us and the Americans by welcoming the bloke back (which no doubt has gone down well with his domestic audience), whilst Westminster has largely washed its hands of the affair and left it to the Scottish government to deal with. That means the SNP, which is keen to demonstrate that Scotland can play ball on the international stage in its own right. Meanwhile, President Obama plays to his home audience by talking tough about wanting him kept in prison until he turns up his toes. No-one comes out of it smelling of roses, frankly.
As I said earlier on, had al-Megrahi not been terminally ill then IMO his conviction should have been quashed and he should have been retried - and if found guilty locked up for life, which in the case of mass murders especially should mean just that. As it is, however, sending him home to die seems the least worst option.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Why? There are plenty of people in this country who believe he's totally innocent, even though the full facts have not really been disclosed by most of the mainstream media.
Perhaps the Lybians are more aquaiented with the facts of the case and the trial than we are, and have reached the only logical conclusion: that he is innocent and the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.
Unless you're suggesting the Lybians believe he's guilty and are celebrating him as the slayer of Westerners. That could be the case, but I sincerely doubt it.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
I don't think anyone deserves to die of a terminal illness in gaol, for the reasons I've already given.
Shipman should have been hanged. But if we refuse to execute, then yes, I'd have supported his release. Since Megrahi's crime was (at least) as bad as Shipman's I don't see why that particular example should cause second thoughts. The same goes for any other convicted folk devil.
Leaving murderers to die in prison smacks of having your cake and eating it so far as retribution goes.
Normally I'd agree, but there was no jury at Libya's request, and so far as I know, both accused were free to travel to Scotland and be tried in the normal way. In effect, they waived jury trial. There's nothing magical about the number 12: Scottish juries are composed of 15 people, and have been for hundreds of years.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
No, imho life should mean until death.
Harold Shipman, Ian Bradey, Myra Hindley, Ian Huntleigh, Fred West, they should remain in prison, they should leave in a box. Life should mean "for life". imho.
And al-Megrahi were he guilty of the bombing should be the same, the only issue for me is that this thread has brought up a lot of doubt in his conviction, we have to be sure he was responsible. If he was responsible then he committed a crime every bit as bad as those mentioned above. But, was he guilty? Now, without his second appeal, we may never know.
Harold Shipman, Ian Bradey, Myra Hindley, Ian Huntleigh, Fred West, they should remain in prison, they should leave in a box. Life should mean "for life". imho.
And al-Megrahi were he guilty of the bombing should be the same, the only issue for me is that this thread has brought up a lot of doubt in his conviction, we have to be sure he was responsible. If he was responsible then he committed a crime every bit as bad as those mentioned above. But, was he guilty? Now, without his second appeal, we may never know.
Without wanting to revisit the whole capital punishment debate - we know one another's views and they're not about to change - I don't follow your reasoning here. I do believe in retribution, but I don't see why a long sentence with the risk of dying in jail doesn't achieve it, unless you equate 'retribution' with the act of executing someone.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
What purpose is being served in forcing people to die in prison? Retribution? If so, it's far crueler than a hanging. "Life should mean life" has become a slogan that hides some nasty consequences, which tend to go unexamined.
As for Megrahi's guilt, a subject I've avoided as it draws conspiracy theories like geeks to a grassy knoll, I'll just say that three trial judges, and a five judge appeal panel, all voted unanimously for his guilt, and I've not seen any reason to doubt them.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Gaol until death does achieve retribution, but it's needlessly cruel. I'd go so far as to say cruel and unusual. I don't see how you can be against execution but for forcing a man to wither away and die behind bars. If hanging is too cruel, then that certainly is.
I'm not against the death penalty on the grounds that it's cruel, though. In fact I think it's probably less so than life in prison. But you know my reasons for opposing it.
untethered
For industry & decency
Well it's all nasty, isn't it? It's meant to be a punishment.
People separated from their spouses, children and parents. Being locked up with some of the meanest people in the country. The lack of privacy and autonomy. The boredom and monotony.
But the good news is that you don't go to prison at all if you obey the law (barring occasional mishaps) and you don't go to prison for life unless you do some of the most despicable things. Far more despicable than lawfully punishing someone that has deprived someone else of their life.
Similar threads
