Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

Is it certain that he would be immediately sent to Libya after his release or would he be allowed to remain in Scotland? I've heard conflicting reports.
 
Also, here's the thing about "compassionate release" - doctors are sometimes wrong. Manson Family member Susan Atkins requested a compassionate release in April 2008 because her doctors said she had less than six months to live. She's still alive.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Also, here's the thing about "compassionate release" - doctors are sometimes wrong. Manson Family member Susan Atkins requested a compassionate release in April 2008 because her doctors said she had less than six months to live. She's still alive.
Click to expand...

She's also "reportedly now paralyzed over 85 percent of her body, unable to sit up or be transferred to a wheelchair".

I'm sure the country would be better off if she was still in gaol, though. :rolleyes:
 
volatile said:
She's also "reportedly now paralyzed over 85 percent of her body, unable to sit up or be transferred to a wheelchair".

I'm sure the country would be better off if she was still in gaol, though. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's not the point though, her request for a compassionate release was based on the fact prison doctors said she had less than six months to live, they were wrong.

U.S. taxpayers are going to pay for Atkins treatment whether she's in prison or not, she's destitute. In the case of Megrahi why do I somehow believe that he will figure out a way to stay in Scotland if he's released? After all where you wanted to be treated for advanced cancer, Edinburgh or Tripoli?

In my opinion, when a prisoner serving a life sentence becomes too old or ill to continue to be a threat to society then it should be up to their vicitims or victim's families if they are to be released or not.
 
Megrahi has never expressed the slightest desire to remain in Scotland. He could be lying of course, but disinterested people who have spoken with him have all reported that he is "desperate" to return home.

Rolfe.
 
volatile said:
Fair enough. But seriously - cui bono? What's the point of not releasing him? Of what benefit is it to society, to anyone? Keeping him in gaol clearly not a deterrent, he's certainly not a threat to anyone or anything, and he's soon dead and suffering already. What is the point of keeping him locked up?
Click to expand...

The same as execution -- it's society's way of expressing its revulsion at the obscenity of the act. This reason is frequently skipped over in discussions of issues like this.

You keep them in jail to demonstrate to others that "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".


With your argument, why put them in jail at all? How will feminists sit with that argument for husbands? He murdered his wife, and he only has the one wife, so isn't likely to do it to another one even if he remarries, so why put him in jail?
 
Alt+F4 said:
After all where you wanted to be treated for advanced cancer, Edinburgh or Tripoli?
Click to expand...

Don't think there is much treatment going on. He is dying.

Unfortunately it appears there is a deal being done where he withdraws his appeal and gets released under prisoner transfer (not possible if he was still appealing) rather than release him on compassionate grounds (which would allow the appeal to continue).

Probably ends the last chance to find out what actually happened and who is really responsible.
 
E.J.Armstrong said:
Unfortunately for Mrs Clinton and all the US senators none of their pressure will work as the Scottish Government acts only in the interests of the Scottish people - not the US.
Click to expand...

And it is in the interest of the scottish people to keeep locked up someone who is in the habit of dropping flaming plane wreckage on scottish hoomes while scottish people are in them.
 
Another silly and poorly thought out thread bashing the US by E.J. What fun!

A very good friend of my family was murdered in this attack, so I'm quite pleased with Secretary Clinton's efforts.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
Since the punishment of the instigator of the attack has been completed and no further action is contemplated, it doesn't seem just to deny Megrahi his last couple of months home with his family.
Click to expand...


The punishment of a mass murderer is not complete, so long as the animal is still alive. The greatest injustice, in cases like this, is that as a civilized society, we are obligated to treat such savage beasts more humanely than they treated their victims.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Don't think there is much treatment going on. He is dying.

Unfortunately it appears there is a deal being done where he withdraws his appeal and gets released under prisoner transfer (not possible if he was still appealing) rather than release him on compassionate grounds (which would allow the appeal to continue).
Click to expand...

Not quite right (unless somthing has changed since I last read about it). The prisoner transfer looks exceedingly unlikely as there is still an outstanding appeal on his sentence and no moves to attempt to get that resolved before the decision on this will be made. So it looks like a dodgy deal where it was strongly hinted that dropping his appeal would facilitate his release on compassionate grounds.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
The punishment of a mass murderer is not complete, so long as the animal is still alive. The greatest injustice, in cases like this, is that as a civilized society, we are obligated to treat such savage beasts more humanely than they treated their victims.
Click to expand...
It's the mark of a civilised society that we do.
 
volatile said:
I agree. But I have to ask a serious question: why do they? Why do you think "serious crimes require serious consequences"? What rational, considered reasons can we use to justify punishments? What end do you consider these consequences to serve? And how would allowing Megrahi the right to die in Libya with his family negate those goals?
Click to expand...
Punishment is supposedly a deterrant against crime. The punishment should fit the crime and allowing a murder to go free is no deterrant.

I see your point. Believe me I do but to say I'm some sort of evil sadist because I feel he should be kept in prison is just wrong. How about the familys of his victims? How do they feel about this?

If he is innocent why was there no one to investigate and have the original charges dropped or have another trial and free him?

Maybe I'm just being a typical American but as I have said bad crimes require bad penaltys. Please don't tell me I lack compassion. I feel great compassion for the victims of crime. believe me. I do.
 
Last edited:
The compassionate release is not a new thing or something that is being done only for this guy. Others have been released under it.

Although I do not necessarily agree with the release, it is our business. Feel free to comment Hilary but do not criticize or attack should the outcome not be to your liking.

Considering this is the country that has Guantanamo, it is pretty ironic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom