Merged [Ed] Convicted Lockerbie bomber released

[Darat]

If you scroll up the thread you'll find where I posted some of what the First Minister has actually said. Then you will find that I am not unless you believe that US government vindictiveness is somehow of 'merit' or 'evidence' or part of Scottish law in relation to the case.

Since the First Minister did not make the decision (and it would not be in his power to do so) I'd rather go from what the bloke who actually made the decision said about it. Look him up.

 

[Donal]

The sentence is being carried out.

Technically, its being changed. Again, it is the prerogative of your justice system and we do it here as well. I don't really agree with "compassion releases" on a philosophical level.

 

[Darat]

I'm on the fence about the decision to release him on compassionate grounds, I'd certainly have been happier with a prison transfer (I'm all for those).

On the compassionate grounds I would say it is not just meant to be compassion for him but also for his family. And even if you don't think compassion should be shown to him do you think they cannot be shown some compassion?

_________


Changing the subject a tad - does anyone know if the Justice minister is known for being quite a fervent Christian?

 

[Donal]

But most prisoners have families. What about prisoners with heart trouble in their family history? They are good candidates to drop dead on a moment's notice.

Where does the line get drawn?

 

[funk de fino]

No, not really, but if they were in federal custody and the UK government (which was a party to the Good Friday Accords) signed off on it, there really isn't too much more to be said.

By the way, my statements regarding Blair and the MoU were just my ham-fisted way of pointing out how silly and hypocritical the OP's drama of Hillary Clinton's statements was. But it is a prisoner transfer, technically. He is supposedly going to be serving out his sentence in Libya. It just seems to be a house arrest than regular prison sentence.

Why is there not too much to be said. UK govt agree to release terrorist murderers. Scottish govt agree to release terrorist murderer. Where is the hoolah from the morally superiors posting in this thread about the Irish terrorist?

And "life in prison" does indeed mean that you are intended to die in prison.

You did not know what life sentence meant here where it matters. It matters not one jot to Megrahi or to the Scottish Justice system what it means in the US.

Just so we can see what you were talking about when you made the incorrect claim.

If he indeed was found guilty (although, I have little knowledge of Scottish courts or this case, so I can't really offer an educated opinion on that) and sentenced to life in prison, he should be there for the rest of his life. That is why it is called "life in prison".

He was not sentenced to life in prison.

A life sentence lasts for life. However, a punishment tariff is set by the trial judge. This is a period of time which must be served before the prisoner may be considered for parole. At the discretion of the Scottish Ministers and subject to a favourable recommendation from the Parole Board, the offender may then be released on life licence. They remain on licence for the rest of their life and may be recalled to custody for breaching the terms of their licence. The average time spent in prison by prisoners being released on life licence is current around 13 years.

 

[Darat]

But most prisoners have families. What about prisoners with heart trouble in their family history? They are good candidates to drop dead on a moment's notice.

Where does the line get drawn?

In Scotland it seems quite a clear cut line - if the medical opinion is that the prisoner has less than 3 months to live they can be considered for release.

 

[funk de fino]

So, you believe a justice system should show favoritism?

Do you believe it should show discrimination?

Many criminals in Scotland have been released under these circumstances. How is Mehagri different?

Please do not be suckered in by the antagonising from the OP and his recent posts. It is skewing the thread.

 

[Donal]

Do you believe it should show discrimination?

no. I think the crime, its consequences and circumstances are the only things relevant in sentencing. Later developments of the convicted's health or personal situations are immaterial.

The only thing that should change a sentence is new evidence.

Many criminals in Scotland have been released under these circumstances.

No idea. How many have died of natural causes in prison?

How is Mehagri different?

Never said he was. I said I don't like compassionate releases on principle. The prisoner doesn't matter.

Please do not be suckered in by the antagonising from the OP and his recent posts. It is skewing the thread.

I know, my ham fisted use of the MoU was bad, and I don't actually believe it. Like I said, it was used to illustrate a point regarding the OP.

I don't understand how his being sick changes the situation. What is the purpose of "life without parole" if you are going to release him?

If what Rolfe and others have said about new revelations casting reasonable doubt on his guilt are true, that should be why he gets out. In fact, it would be a tragedy he was imprisoned in the first place.

 

[Donal]

Why is there not too much to be said. UK govt agree to release terrorist murderers. Scottish govt agree to release terrorist murderer. Where is the hoolah from the morally superiors posting in this thread about the Irish terrorist?

Because the government of the victims (the UK government) signed the treaty releasing them. I do not like that. But, since the country where the crimes were committed has elected to grant them amnesty, I have no idea what more you want.

You did not know what life sentence meant here where it matters. It matters not one jot to Megrahi or to the Scottish Justice system what it means in the US.

In other words it doesn't mean life. Then why have a life sentence if you don't really mean it?

 

[Fiona]

I don't understand how his being sick changes the situation. What is the purpose of "life without parole" if you are going to release him?

He was not sentenced to "life without parole". I am not sure that is available in Scotland

ETA:

In other words it doesn't mean life. Then why have a life sentence if you don't really mean it?

This has already been explained to you. A person with a life sentence is subject to licence for his or her whole life: it does not mean lifelong imprisonment.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I've read some more from the link that Rolfe provided and I must say that the situation is different from what I thought. If the man is not completely proven to be guilty then I don't think I have a problem with him being released, as long as he is still under certain surveillance.

If, however, we were talking about a man who was without a hint of a doubt proven guilty of such act, then I would maintain my position that releasing him just because he has cancer is an idiocy.

 

[Rolfe]

Changing the subject a tad - does anyone know if the Justice minister is known for being quite a fervent Christian?

I'm not sure, I barely know the guy, but some bells are ringing. The bit of the speech they keep broadcasting makes him sound like Rev. I. M. Jolly on Mogadon though.

I'm intrigued by the politicking going on though. I strongly suspect that the US outrage, from Obama down, is crocodile tears. Everything that's happened over the past 20 years indicates that the one thing the US government wants is to have further investigation into the affair shut down. However, with so many of the US relatives opposing release, they had to say something.

Another interesting point is that the behaviour of the politicos doesn't change no matter what party is in power. In particular, McAskill had no influence at all in this issue until just over two years ago, nevertheless (to my mind) he has promptly taken up the coverup agenda. It could simply be that after all this time, the extensive ramifications of the truth coming out are simply too much to contemplate for whatever minimal benefits it might bring.

Rolfe.

 

[funk de fino]

no. I think the crime, its consequences and circumstances are the only things relevant in sentencing. Later developments of the convicted's health or personal situations are immaterial.The only thing that should change a sentence is new evidence.

Treating Mehagri different than other previously released prisoners is discrimination. You seem to agreee with that.

No idea. How many have died of natural causes in prison?

That was not a question it was a statement. I believe 23 in the last 10 years have been released on compassionaate grounds and 3 of them were murderers.

Never said he was. I said I don't like compassionate releases on principle. The prisoner doesn't matter.

You disagreee with it but that it tough tits as we say here. It is how we do things and it is not a one time happening. It has happened in the past. If we deny him we are discriminating against him compared to other prisoners

I know, my ham fisted use of the MoU was bad, and I don't actually believe it. Like I said, it was used to illustrate a point regarding the OP.

I don't understand how his being sick changes the situation. What is the purpose of "life without parole" if you are going to release him?

If what Rolfe and others have said about new revelations casting reasonable doubt on his guilt are true, that should be why he gets out. In fact, it would be a tragedy he was imprisoned in the first place.

You get a life sentence with a minumum term. That is not life without parole.

 

[Rolfe]

I've read some more from the link that Rolfe provided and I must say that the situation is different from what I thought. If the man is not completely proven to be guilty then I don't think I have a problem with him being released, as long as he is still under certain surveillance.

If, however, we were talking about a man who was without a hint of a doubt proven guilty of such act, then I would maintain my position that releasing him just because he has cancer is an idiocy.

I've been wondering what my attitude would be if he was undountedly guilty. I find I can't say, because the entire circumstances would be so different.

Megrahi has been widely believed to have been framed, right from the time of the original trial. That point of view has been so prevalent in the quality press that I found it difficult to find out what the proposed theories were - one was simply assumed to know.

This whole thing is approximately 110% political, with international diplomacy and trade and simple best-friends-pacts having far more influence on how matters have been dealt with than any regard for the truth. At the same time, far-fetched allegations and scenarios have been introduced by the sceptics of the Libya story, and it's hard to know where to draw the line.

As I said, though, if he's guilty then justice may have been violated, but at least mercy has been served. If he'd been forced to die in jail as an innocent man, then both justice and mercy are screwed.

Rolfe.

 

[Minadin]

For someone convicted of first degree murder I think that's too high of a risk to take - in my opinion.

How can you make such a judgment without access to the facts?

Does anyone here have access to all of the facts? I'm all for presuming innocence on the part of an accused person; however, for me, that presumption typically ends at the point that they are convicted.

I understand that there are other things which are alleged here, which may or may not be true, but those allegations haven't been tried in court, so would it be right to assume those things to be true?

That said, I don't really have any issue with the compassionate release of a terminal cancer patient with only a short time to live.

I did find a couple of news stories about the various reactions on both sides of this issue to be rather interesting:

Most Families Outraged

Convicted Lockerbie Bomber Returns Home to Libya, a Hero

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm not sure, I barely knkow the guy, but some bells are ringing. The bit of the speech they keep broadcasting makes him sound like Rev. I. M. Jolly on Mogadon though.

I'm intrigued by the politicking going on though. I strongly suspect that the US outrage, from Obama down, is crocodile tears. Everything that's happened over the past 29 years indicates that the one thing the US government wants is to have further investigation into the affair shut down. However, with so many of the US relatives opposing release, they had to say something.

Another interesting point is that the behaviour of the politicos doesn't change no matter what party is in power. In particular, McAskill had no influence at all in this issue until just over two years ago, nevertheless (to my mind) he has promptly taken up the coverup agenda. It could simply be that after all this time, the extensive ramifications of the truth coming out are simply too much to contemplate for whatever minimal benefits it might bring.

Rolfe.

I agree. That's why (IMO) he was told to drop his appeal (which he stood a good chance of winning if he lived long enough to see it through). Since the US and Libya are now friends the last thing the US needs is Libya being accused of harboring terrorists.

 

[scissorhands]

Any budding terrorists out there who want to commit mass murder by blowing up airliners?
Heres a tip.
Make sure you do it over Scotland.

 

[funk de fino]

Because the government of the victims (the UK government) signed the treaty releasing them. I do not like that. But, since the country where the crimes were committed has elected to grant them amnesty, I have no idea what more you want.

The crime took place in Scotland and had Scottish victims. The Govt of Scotland followed the process they have used before to release prisoners who have been classed as being close to death. The Irish terrorists carried out crimes at home and abroad and killed citizens from other countries than their own and they were released by the UK govt.

Do you actually read any of the posts made here?

In other words it doesn't mean life. Then why have a life sentence if you don't really mean it?

See Fiona reply. This is not the first time it has been explained in this thread

 

[funk de fino]

Any budding terrorists out there who want to commit mass murder by blowing up airliners?
Heres a tip.
Make sure you do it over Scotland.

And then will yourself to get terminal cancer

 

[Donal]

Treating Mehagri different than other previously released prisoners is discrimination. You seem to agreee with that.

So, if you are doing something wrong you should continue to do it for fear of discriminating against someone?

That was not a question it was a statement. I believe 23 in the last 10 years have been released on compassionaate grounds and 3 of them were murderers.

How many died in prison of natural causes?

You disagreee with it but that it tough tits as we say here.

And I acknowledged and respect that. The trick is this is a discussion on a message board and I'd like to learn more and offer an opinion. Don't like it? That, as many people say, is tough tits.

It is how we do things and it is not a one time happening. It has happened in the past. If we deny him we are discriminating against him compared to other prisoners

That doesn't seem a good argument on a skeptic's forum. "That is the way we've always done it and we aren't changing now."

And stop making like I'm trying to single out Megrahi. That is just plain dishonest.



You get a life sentence with a minumum term. That is not life without parole.[/quote]