The forum discussion centers on the controversial release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who was initially deemed terminally ill by Dr. Karol Sikora. Despite predictions of only a few weeks to live, al-Megrahi has survived for nearly a decade, raising questions about the motivations behind his release. Allegations suggest that the British government facilitated his release to protect lucrative trade deals with Libya, highlighting a moral and legal dilemma regarding compassionate release for convicted mass murderers. The discussion reveals deep frustration over perceived injustices in the legal system and the implications of compassionate release policies.
PREREQUISITESThis discussion is beneficial for legal professionals, policymakers, human rights advocates, and anyone interested in the intersection of law, ethics, and international relations, particularly in cases involving high-profile criminals.
It's in the OP's post #7.rootX said:OP source does not go into that kind of details but
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ce-that-helped-Lockerbie-bombers-release.html
seems to contradict what the doctor in this one claimed:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291939/Fury-Lockerbie-bomber-doctor-Karol-
Senior business sources have told The Sunday Telegraph that Britain was desperate that Megrahi should not die in jail after warnings by Libya in May that if this happened trade deals between the two countries – worth billions of pounds – would be cancelled. British businessmen were also told that plans to open a London office of the Libyan Investment Authority, a sovereign fund with $136billion (£83billion) to invest, would be jeopardised if Megrahi died in jail.
russ_watters said:Surely that's not the only thing better about our system, nor should it be necessary to prove our superiority via this release.
I don't know, Ivan - you said it, and you've left me scratching my head and speculating about what your point could have been. Please: you tell me what "that makes the system better than him" has to do with anything and what that has to do with "the moral high ground". Does just letting him rot mean we don't have the moral high ground? Saying one is true implies the opposite is not true.Ivan Seeking said:I didn't say or imply either one of those things. What is the definition of compassion, and how does that jive with either one of your statements?
Oh, that is just so wrong, Ivan. That's a conclusion resulting from wearing moral blinders, taking the act and looking at one of its effects while ignoring others. Compassionate release must weigh two issues of compassion against each other and in this case, the standard, even under its own legal definition was not met:As for being morally wrong, assuming the best intentions of those involved, there is nothing immoral about compassion.
Now it sounds like you're claiming the law always does the most compassionate thing and even when errors in judgement that aren't criminal are made, that is the case. Really? You believe in both of those? I don't believe either is true.If the system allows for an early release, then that IS the law. Did anyone break the law in releasing him? If not, then your argument is moot.
Me too.Personally, I would have let him rot.
Evo said:There is no law that people serving life sentences are to be released if they are terminally ill.
Evo said:A life sentence means they are expected to remain in prison until they die.
Though you say you disagree with Evo, your statement does not. As others did, you missed a key phrase in her quote and a key part of the issue: the words "are to be" (I prefer just using the words "must be"). Those words make the release mandatory, making it sound like the judge had no choice in the matter. That is not the case as she said and you confirmed by using the word "can be" instead of "must be". As the judge said, compassionate release is allowed, which makes it entirely the judge's decision whether to do it or not, if the criteria is met.shoehorn said:There is in Scotland; on the order of the Scottish justice secretary, any prisoner who is deemed to have three months or less to live can be (and very often is) released on compassionate grounds.
If the criterion is that the prisoner not be (medically) expected to live for more than 3 years, then his living beyond 3 years does not imply that the criterion is not met. Only a revelation that this was not a truthful expert estimation can do that.russ_watters said:The criteria for compassionate release has been shown to not be met: the prisoner did not die within 3 months.
madness said:He was under the jurisdiction of Scottish law and was treated accordingly. The decision had the support of many of the victims' families in Scotland.
And how many families was that? As stated, the overwhelming number of passengers were American. Please post the article that backs up your statement before you post in P&WA again. I need to see thatmadness said:He was under the jurisdiction of Scottish law and was treated accordingly. The decision had the support of many of the victims' families in Scotland.
Evo said:And how many families was that? As stated, the overwhelming number of passengers were American. Please post the article that backs up your statement before you post in P&WA again. I need to see that
Thanks.
Office_Shredder said:Nearly the entire flight's passengers and crew were American, so I'm not sure what the purpose of this is supposed to be.
It would be bizarre for a parole board or similar organization to take into account victims' opinions, but discriminate who should be listened to based on their nationality
I did a search and the only family member of a victim that claims to be ok with him being released as long as he dies soon was an American. That was back when he was going to die in a few weeks. I wonder how they feel now?madness said:Sorry it's hard to find now. In the articles in Scottish newspapers at the time of his release there were some opinions from victims' families and many of them supported the decision.
We, the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc, are devastated and outraged following the recent release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi from the Scottish prison in Glasgow. This man is the convicted mass murderer of our loved ones – 270 innocent victims in all. He showed no compassion to them or their families when he placed a bomb aboard Pan Am 103, killing all 259 on board the plane and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988. Since that time, he was tried and found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison in Scotland. His first appeal was denied; and he withdrew his second appeal. He has shown no remorse or regret or asked forgiveness. We deplore the fact that Scottish Minister Kenny MacAskill decided to release him on any grounds – compassionate or otherwise. He should have been required to serve out his sentence in Scotland – ill or not – as we were promised when he was tried and found guilty in January, 2001.
Courts here in the US take into account the victim's feelings when it comes to sentencing. The victims or their families are allowed to speak to the court. I would hope it is the same in Scotland.shoehorn said:The crime happened in Scotland and hence investigation and prosecution fell under Scottish jurisdiction. It matters not a whit where the majority of the victims were from.
shoehorn said:The crime happened in Scotland and hence investigation and prosecution fell under Scottish jurisdiction. It matters not a whit where the majority of the victims were from.
Evo said:Courts here in the US take into account the victim's feelings when it comes to sentencing. The victims or their families are allowed to speak to the court. I would hope it is the same in Scotland.
Evo said:The victims are also allowed to speak when the criminal tries to get released.
arildno said:No, after all, modern day criminology has already found out that victims are rather pathetic creatures, with utterly irrational and futile emotions towards the perpetrators.
Those relatives do not hold the benign&rational that the perpetrator was the real victim..(perhaps that is why they were attacked in the first place?)
And whatever relevance should this have for the process of compassionate release??madness said:The main purpose of the trial is to find out whether or not the perpetrator actually is the perpetrator. Having the victim interfere unnecessarily will only interfere with this process and could serve to make an innocent person into a victim.
madness said:The main purpose of the trial is to find out whether or not the perpetrator actually is the perpetrator. Having the victim interfere unnecessarily will only interfere with this process and could serve to make an innocent person into a victim.
I don't think the nationality should make a difference, I think the point was that there were considerably more of them. I believe that a member claimed that some Scottish victim's families thought the release was ok, as if them being Scottish gave them more weight in the matter.shoehorn said:Of course. But there seems to be a worrying undercurrent that the feelings of victims' families should be given undue weight largely because they are American, not because they are victims. This is quite bizarre.
Evo said:I don't think the nationality should make a difference, I think the point was there were considerably more of them. I believe that a member claimed that some Scottish victim families thought the release was ok, as if them being Scottish gave them more weight in the matter.
Some British relatives of the victims believe Megrahi was only a small part of the terrorist plot, while others believe he should not have been convicted at all.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, said he had never been convinced that Megrahi had carried out the bombing.
"The sooner he is back with his family, the better," he said.
"On reasonable human grounds it is the right thing to do.
"If it's true that he is to be returned on compassionate grounds, then that would be more to Scotland's credit than returning him under the prison transfer agreement."
Martin Cadman, who lost his son Bill, would also support Megrahi's release.
He said: "I think he is innocent and even if he were not innocent, I still think it's the right thing to do on compassionate grounds."
Lockerbie resident Maxwell Kerr, who witnessed the devastation caused by the bombing, said he was also in favour of Megrahi being freed.
"As far as I'm concerned he should be released on compassionate grounds," he told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme.
Evo said:So 2 relatives that thought Magraghi wasn't the right man to begin with. The third was just a bystander, so doesn't count.
That's not the many that you claimed. We've moved past that, but I really appreciate that you took the time to find it. Thank you.
That's months, Gokul, not years.Gokul43201 said:If the criterion is that the prisoner not be (medically) expected to live for more than 3 years, then his living beyond 3 years does not imply that the criterion is not met. Only a revelation that this was not a truthful expert estimation can do that.
russ_watters said:That's months, Gokul, not years.
And you're splitting hairs. Again, I'm not claiming the judge knowingly did anything wrong: as far as the information in front of him said, the criteria was met. But the fact that the prisoner has lived much longer than 3 months means that the prediction was wrong. It's logically the same as making any other decision based on a wrong fact. Whether the judge knew it was wrong or not isn't really relevant: it was still wrong.
No, it's not, Russ (that is, going by my best guess of what a "wrong fact" is). These are probabilistic models we are talking about. Whatever the determined time period was, is usually associated with some confidence level (at least in principle). One can only predict expectancies to say, a 90% confidence, or a 99% confidence or whatever. The nature of such a situation requires that some percentage of any sufficiently large sample set outlive the prediction.russ_watters said:But the fact that the prisoner has lived much longer than 3 months means that the prediction was wrong. It's logically the same as making any other decision based on a wrong fact.
Gokul43201 said:No, it's not, Russ (that is, going by my best guess of what a "wrong fact" is). These are probabilistic models we are talking about. Whatever, the determined time period was, is usually associated with some confidence level (at least in principle). One can only predict expectancies to say, a 90% confidence, or a 99% confidence or whatever. The nature of such a situation requires that some percentage of any sufficiently large sample set outlive the prediction.
Or, as NeoDevin puts it:"Statistics: There are always outliers."