Release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi or not?

[weltweit]

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.

The people I mentioned just up the thread have been responsible for killing children or the elderly and defenceless. They have earnt their life sentences. Well, we wimp out of capital punishment because we worry about false convictions, lets not wimp out of life in prison also.

They are being punished, their punishment is to be locked up in a prison for the rest of their days. Far more merciful than they showed their victims.

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.

Well .. if I was sure that al-Megrahi was guilty I think I would have voted for letting him die in prison in Scotland. 270 people is a lot of people to have killed, a life sentence does not seem less than a fair punishment.

 

[Azrael]

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.

Fair enough. By the by, it's not my intent to debate hanging (which has, pardon the phrase, been done to death here) but why people want the likes of Megrahi to die in gaol.

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.

No civilized justice system can judge itself against the actions of those it convicts, not to any degree. Not only would all kinds of cruelties would be possible, its moral authority would end.

Yes, prison imposes inevitable cruelties (although some that we treat as inevitable are no such thing: being left at the mercy of your fellow convicts would easily be remedied by the silent and separate systems). But we must always limit them with civility and mercy, or we're on the same moral scale as the inmates. Of course criminals have made choices they need to be punished for, but that doesn't absolve society of its duties in any way.

 

[untethered]

Of course criminals have made choices they need to be punished for, but that doesn't absolve society of its duties in any way.

Our duties towards prisoners comprise food, medical treatment, shelter and protection from violence.

Aside from that it should be a genuinely punishing hard labour regime in an unremittingly Spartan environment.

We have a prosperous and stable society. Combine that with effective policing and a tough prison environment and we're well on the way to sensible levels.

We can afford it, we just don't have the courage to do it.

 

[Azrael]

The people I mentioned just up the thread have been responsible for killing children or the elderly and defenceless. They have earnt their life sentences. Well, we wimp out of capital punishment because we worry about false convictions, lets not wimp out of life in prison also.

They are being punished, their punishment is to be locked up in a prison for the rest of their days. Far more merciful than they showed their victims.

Megrahi did just as much to earn his life sentence, slaughtering people of all ages indiscriminately. (By the by, I don't like how emotionalism now has free reign when it comes to murder. It's inevitable that certain murders will provoke stronger reactions than others, but we should resist the tendency to focus on the victim instead of the crime itself.) It's thought that some of Megrahi's victims may have regained consciousness as they fell to earth, a thought too horrific to contemplate for long. If we have a pantheon of murderers then he's right up there.

All that said, if we haven't the moral guts for hanging it doesn't follow that we do something even worse. It only happens because it's hidden.

 

[Azrael]

Our duties towards prisoners comprise food, medical treatment, shelter and protection from violence.

Aside from that it should be a genuinely punishing hard labour regime in an unremittingly Spartan environment.

We have a prosperous and stable society. Combine that with effective policing and a tough prison environment and we're well on the way to sensible levels.

We can afford it, we just don't have the courage to do it.

I'm all for a hard labour regime, and have advocated one countless times on here. Spartan conditions get the nod as well. But all this should be done in as civilised a way as possible, and tempered with mercy. Retribution should be a means to the end of reform. The single exception is hanging for the unique crime of murder, and this should be done in as humane a way as possible. If we don't want to hang murderers, we must try to reform them. Forcing men to die in a concrete box is simply cruel, and serves no useful purpose to anyone.

I'm not referring to you here, but I think many people give the nod to indirect cruelties like slopping out, bullying and death in gaol because they've suppressed the desire for official punishment like penal servitude. Which just goes to show that if you get rid of something you don't like, you can end up with something even worse in its place.

 

[Roadkill]

Fair enough. By the by, it's not my intent to debate hanging (which has, pardon the phrase, been done to death here) but why people want the likes of Megrahi to die in gaol.

Personally I don't. Like you, but for different reasons, I've come to think sending home to die was the least-worst option in a situation that was never going to produce a good outcome.

I've no problem with the idea of Rose West or Ian Brady dying in prison, though, to name an obvious two mass murderers. They can't be freed whilst they're still dangerous in any way, and freeing them when they're at death's door would be pointless, and by then probably more cruel than keeping them inside to the end.

FWIW I don't think not hanging them is a matter of lacking moral courage - as you suggest in post #214 - but let's not go there...

It's thought that some of Megrahi's victims may have regained consciousness as they fell to earth, a thought too horrific to contemplate for long. If we have a pantheon of murderers then he's right up there.

Indeed, and apparently one of the flight attendants was alive when she was found. She died before help could be summoned.

The bombing of flight 103 was a truly hideous crime, but also an intensely political one, and principally for that reason justice has never been done. Nor will it ever be, sadly.

 

[weltweit]

So for some killers life in prison is ok but for al-Megrahi it is not?

It does not make sense to me.

If he was guilty he should have stayed in scotland.

 

[Azrael]

I've no problem with the idea of Rose West or Ian Brady dying in prison, though, to name an obvious two mass murderers. They can't be freed whilst they're still dangerous in any way, and freeing them when they're at death's door would be pointless, and by then probably more cruel than keeping them inside to the end.

I doubt either currently pose a danger to anyone, and precautions like house arrest or tagging could be taken. Pragmatically they might prefer to stay inside out of fear of the mob, but should be offered a choice between taking their chances (with reasonable protection) and protective custody.

Please excuse the comment about moral guts, which was paraphrasing weltweit. People of infinitely greater moral courage than I possess have opposed and continue to oppose capital punishment.

The bombing was of course a political act, as are many of the worst crimes. Justice was always going to be compromised by the way in which we obtained the accused. (Namely, cutting a deal with the despot who ordered the crime!) Even if you're not against letting prisoners die in gaol on principle, there's a realpolitik case for shipping Megrahi off home. If we didn't want to sully our justice system with this sort of thing, we shouldn't have extradited Megrahi or Mr Fhimah to begin with.

 

[weltweit]

All that said, if we haven't the moral guts for hanging it doesn't follow that we do something even worse. It only happens because it's hidden.

I don't buy that life in prison is any worse than hanging.

It is a life that people have, different from that they could have outside but they are still alive, can share a chat and a joke with their fellow inmates.

I know just a little about it as I have been locked into a psych ward for four months only to be released when the psyciatrists decided I was normal enough. While I was "incarcerated" in a very real sense and deprived of my freedom family and friends I still had a life inside.

So these murderers are kept in prison for the rest of their lives, they killed people, in many cases lots of people. They significantly broke the rules of civil society and lost their rights to a free life.

 

[DexterTCN]

... (By the by, I don't like how emotionalism now has free reign when it comes to murder....... It's thought that some of Megrahi's victims may have regained consciousness as they fell to earth, a thought too horrific to contemplate...

Make up your mind. You can't dislike emotionalism then use it yourself in the same breath.

 

[gnoriac]

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.

Good summary, add to that the prisoner transfer agreement, which as McAskill pointed out, meant specifically al-Megrahi as he was the only Libyan prisoner in the UK.

Worst outcome from the POV of all the big players would have been an appeal or an inquiry, which would've exposed them to the danger of all the dirty dealing becoming transparent.

 

[T & P]

Our duties towards prisoners comprise food, medical treatment, shelter and protection from violence.

Aside from that it should be a genuinely punishing hard labour regime in an unremittingly Spartan environment.

Yeah, because that's proven so effective elsewhere eh?

 

[STFC]

Would anyone here have agreed with Harold Shipman's release, had he been terminally ill?

Yes. Why not?

Really? I'm genuinely surprised you say that.

Why not? Because I believe the severity of his crimes warranted him spending the rest of his days behind bars.

 

[QueenOfGoths]

Really? I'm genuinely surprised you say that.

Why not? Because I believe the severity of his crimes warranted him spending the rest of his days behind bars.

For me one of the differences with Harold Shipman or Ian Brady, say, is that any family they have are close enough in distance to them to would be able to visit them, spend time with them in the prison hospital. Or wherever they would be spending their final days.

However if that were not the case then I would not object to them being released on compassionate grounds.

 

[gabi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8213352.stm

Jesus. How fucking retarded are the Scottish powers that be if they didn't see that coming?

Unbelievably naive. No, unbelievably stupid. I assume all other terminally ill prisoners in scotland are currently with their briefs preparing their applications for release.

 

[detective-boy]

Really? I'm genuinely surprised you say that.

Yes. Really. (You are probably surprised because you believe all the shit you read posted on here by people who assume they know who I am and what I think based on the single fact that I used to be a police officer. They don't.)

I agree the severity of the crimes was such that a full life sentence was merited. I would not support any sort of release which would give any significant period of freedom in a context in which it may be enjoyed. But if illness is proven to be terminal (and any release based on compassionate grounds should have a clear recall clause in case of sudden onset of Saunders Syndrome ...) I have no problem at all with release for the last few days to die with family at home. That is not, to any significant extent, a release from a full life sentence.

 

[QueenOfGoths]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8213352.stm

Jesus. How fucking retarded are the Scottish powers that be if they didn't see that coming?

Unbelievably naive. No, unbelievably stupid. I assume all other terminally ill prisoners in scotland are currently with their briefs preparing their applications for release.

I think they probably did see it coming, but it shouldn't and didn't effect their judgement.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Unbelievably naive. No, unbelievably stupid. I assume all other terminally ill prisoners in scotland are currently with their briefs preparing their applications for release.

Why not? It's a decent principle imo. If they pose no danger to others and are themselves not in danger from others, it is the right thing to do. Whatever the real reasons for the release of al-Megrahi, the reason given is a fair and decent one, and the SNP justice minister handled it well.

 

[QueenOfGoths]

Yes. Really. (You are probably surprised because you believe all the shit you read posted on here by people who assume they know who I am and what I think based on the single fact that I used to be a police officer. They don't.)

I agree the severity of the crimes was such that a full life sentence was merited. I would not support any sort of release which would give any significant period of freedom in a context in which it may be enjoyed. But if illness is proven to be terminal (and any release based on compassionate grounds should have a clear recall clause in case of sudden onset of Saunders Syndrome ...) I have no problem at all with release for the last few days to die with family at home. That is not, to any significant extent, a release from a full life sentence.

Well said, absolutely agree with this

 

[gabi]

the SNP justice minister handled it well.

I cannot think of how he could have handled it worse..

Did you see his speech yesterday? The irony of releasing this turd on 'compassionate' grounds while showing nothing short of contempt for the feelings of the victims' families was astonishing...

He then tried to pin responsiblity for the decision on Downing St... Who is that guy? Just some maverick? Or did he actually have the backing of the scottish parliament?

Edit: They were waving scottish flags on the tarmac as the guy left the plane. Good work guys.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I cannot think of how he could have handled it worse..

Did you see his speech yesterday? The irony of releasing this turd on 'compassionate' grounds while showing nothing short of contempt for the feelings of the victims' families was astonishing...

Which victims' families? The ones that wanted him to die in jail? The ones who agreed with the decision? Or the ones who are convinced that al-Megrahi was innocent?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Edit: They were waving scottish flags on the tarmac as the guy left the plane. Good work guys.

The reaction in Libya ought to have no bearing on the decision.

 

[gabi]

Which victims' families? The ones that wanted him to die in jail? The ones who agreed with the decision? Or the ones who are convinced that al-Megrahi was innocent?

The majority of the families as far as i know.

His family were offered free flights and visas to visit him whenever they so wished. That in itself was over the top in my estimation. To fly him home in time for ramadan on a private jet to a hero's welcome is beyond belief.

But some major British oil and gas companies, bidding for highly competitive contracts with the country could benefit from improved relations between Libya and the UK following Megrahi's release, he suggests.

In the short time Megrahi is believed to have left to live, he is likely to be feted as a national hero in Libya.

The whole thing stinks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The majority of the families as far as i know.

There are a significant number among the families and many others who think that the trial and conviction were travesties of justice. '85% sure he's innocent' was the assessment of the father of one of the victims.

It stinks alright, but not in the way you're saying.

 

[danny la rouge]

Because knowlege is a wonderful thing.

Knowledge of what, though? I do read newspapers, and I do read newspaper websites and even, occasionally, their comment blogs. You said "read the comments". What am I looking for?

Incidentally, judging from the front pages today of the Sun, the Mail, and the Daily Record, the right decision was definitely made. If it causes those papers to react that way, it must have been just and wise.

 

[gabi]

There are a significant number among the families and many others who think that the trial and conviction were travesties of justice. '85% sure he's innocent' was the assessment of the father of one of the victims.

It stinks alright, but not in the way you're saying.

He was found guilty. Repeatedly. He's now effectively admitted his guilt by dropping his latest appeal.

'85%' sounds spurious given that well over half of the victims were americans and i've certainly not heard one american voice on the news over the last few days agreeing with this decision.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He was found guilty. Repeatedly. He's now effectively admitted his guilt by dropping his latest appeal.

Has he bollocks. He dropped the appeal so that he could be freed. A purely pragmatic decision that has allowed him to return home to die, not an admission of anything.

 

[danny la rouge]

I have no problem at all with release for the last few days to die with family at home. That is not, to any significant extent, a release from a full life sentence.

Indeed.

Under Scots law, compassionate release is granted if the prisoner is expected to live three months or less, under the Prisoner and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. In Scotland, 23 prisoners have been released on medical grounds in the last nine years, with seven requests denied.

 

[danny la rouge]

'85%' sounds spurious given that well over half of the victims were americans and i've certainly not heard one american voice on the news over the last few days agreeing with this decision.

He wasn't tried in an American court, and he wasn't subject to American law. He was tried under Scots law, and was being held in a Scottish prison. His release was under the provisions of the Prisoner and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.

 

[gabi]

He wasn't tried in an American court, and he wasn't subject to American law. He was tried under Scots law, and was being held in a Scottish prison. His release was under the provisions of the Prisoner and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.

The Scottish powers assured the Americans that he would serve at least 27 years. They've reneged. Embarrassing all round really.