News Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber can live on for a decade.

[Evo]

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-

It's in the OP's post #7.

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.

 

[KalamMekhar]

Commit mass murder, don't pay rent, and eat free food for 20 years, get released and finish out your life at home. Sounds like an awesome time to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Surely that's not the only thing better about our system, nor should it be necessary to prove our superiority via this release.

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?

If this was about money, then, presumably, someone in the courts or above have commited a crime... or does the British system openly allow for political influence?

As for being morally wrong, assuming the best intentions of those involved, there is nothing immoral about compassion. 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.

Personally, I would have let him rot.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

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.

As for being morally wrong, assuming the best intentions of those involved, there is nothing immoral about compassion.

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:
If we assume the best intentions of all those involved and that this was all it appeared to be on the surface (one judge, making a judgement call on evidence provided by zealous defense attorneys and their paid experts), then we have a clear mistake and miscarriage of justice on the part of the judge. The purpose of compassionate release is to weigh compassion for the perpetrator against justice for the victims and their survivors. That the formula was not followed is at best a mistake by the judge and taking away justice for the victims and survivors is NOT compassionate! The [apparent] fact that the judge didn't know he wouldn't die does not make it less of an error because the now known fact is that he didn't die.

And that's even if you set aside the logical self-contradiction of allowing compassionate relase in a life imprisonment case at all. The judge had a judgement call to make and so could not have made a legally wrong choice given the information available. But based on the contradiction outlined above, he made the wrong choice morally.

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.

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.

Personally, I would have let him rot.

Me too.

 

[arildno]

One of the very worst fantasies within the liberal left is that victims are consumed by hateful, irrational urges that society has a duty to counter-act.

In particular, victims of crimes must be vilified if they have the notion that the criminal should have less opportunities for happiness than non-criminals, precisely because he was a criminal.

To actually want the criminal to suffer is, within this mindset, the embodiment of evil., and definitely irrational.

After all the criminal probably had an awful childhood, why should we trample upon him even more?

 

[shoehorn]

There is no law that people serving life sentences are to be released if they are terminally ill.

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.

A life sentence means they are expected to remain in prison until they die.

I have no idea how similar situations work in the US, but this isn't true in the UK; nor, for that matter, is it true in most of Europe. Prisoners serving life sentences are often released from prison having served at least the minimum prescribed term of incarceration. The important point is that even though they have been released from prison, they are still "serving their life sentence". More specifically, they are released under a life tariff, meaning that they have to abide by the terms laid out in their release from prison for the rest of their lives. Typically, this means that any criminal offence or breach of the terms of their release will see them returned to prison.

As to the more general point of his release, a considerable amount of evidence has come to light in the UK over the past ten years or so to suggest that the original conviction of Megrahi would be deemed unsafe were it to be presented to an appeals court. (In particular, BBC Newsnight and Private Eye have given genuinely excellent coverage to this.)

The fact that Megrahi's release had the helpful consequence of ending his then-extant second appeal, at which much of this evidence was presented, probably should not go unnoted by those who believe he was truly guilty of the crime.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

And that last part is key to why it can be correctly said - in hindsight - that he made the wrong choice. The criteria for compassionate release has been shown to not be met: the prisoner did not die within 3 months. The source of that error is now what is being questioned. Did the doctor know this and lie? Did the judge consult other experts? Was he gullible? Overzealous? Part of a conspiracy? What the judge did was legally allowable in that he had information available to him to justify the action, but it was still against the criteria of the law and morally wrong.

 

[Gokul43201]

The criteria for compassionate release has been shown to not be met: the prisoner did not die within 3 months.

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.

 

[madness]

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.

 

[Office_Shredder]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Passengers_and_crew

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

 

[Evo]

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 that

Thanks.

 

[madness]

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.

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.

 

[madness]

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 don't think they took the victims' families into account at the time. Like I said, the decision was based on Scottish law.

 

[shoehorn]

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]

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.

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?

The victim's families were appaled by his release. From the official victim's families website -

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.

http://www.victimsofpanamflight103.org/

 

[Evo]

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.

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.

The victims are also allowed to speak when the criminal tries to get released.

 

[arildno]

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.

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?)

 

[shoehorn]

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.

There is no equivalent in Scottish law. A victim statement scheme was introduced in 2009 but is very different from victim impact statements in US law.

The victims are also allowed to speak when the criminal tries to get released.

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.

 

[madness]

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?)

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.

 

[arildno]

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.

And whatever relevance should this have for the process of compassionate release??

 

[shoehorn]

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.

To be fair, that's not how victim impact statements work. They are usually (always?) delivered to the court orally or in written form after a guilty verdict but before sentencing has taken place. I have difficulty seeing how this risks producing an incorrect verdict.

 

[Evo]

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.

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]

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 of the Scottish victims' families did indeed say they were okay with the release; largely this was to do with the fact that they didn't actually believe the original verdict was safe. (As before, see previous editions of BBC Newsnight or Private Eye.)

As to whether or not this lends more credence to their opinions, I don't know. One could possibly make the case that it's their country, their legal system, and their tax revenue that paid for the trial, incarceration, and subsequent appeals. One could also make the case that there's still a large degree of resentment in Scotland and the UK more broadly about the interference of the US state department and law enforcement in the case. Whether these are convincing arguments I doubt any of us can say.

 

[madness]

Better late than never - I found one of the news stories from the time with Scottish families' opinions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8199574.stm

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]

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.

 

[madness]

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 not really a fair assessment - the article says that the release would provoke mixed reactions from victims' families. It gives the opinion of 2 families who would be against, 2 families who would be for, and 1 witness who would be for his release. Of the two relatives that wanted his release one said they wanted his release whether or not he was guilty and the other simply didn't believe he was guilty.
The article does not in any way portray the Scottish families who are for his release as a minority or fringe group.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

 

[NeoDevin]

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.

Just because he has lived this long, does not mean the diagnosis was wrong. Statistics: There are always outliers.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

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."

 

[Cyrus]

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."

While what you are saying is correct, I feel like you are looking at the trees and missing the forest. The Judge was in no way obligated to let him go (as far as my understanding goes), and therefore this was a horribly poor political decision by the Judges.