RapierFugue
Posts: 4740
Joined: 3/16/2006
From: London, England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
I'm at a complete loss to imagine any reason compassion would even be considered for someone who murdered 270 innocent human beings. What's the point of putting mass murderers in prison in the first place? Christ, if compassion is more important than justice, just give 'em cab fare home as soon as the verdict is announced, and of course be sure to apologize for inconveniencing them.
But 2 wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the law is to enact justice, not revenge. As others have pointed out, the mere fact this individual showed no compassion doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same; he's got terminal cancer, and will die shortly anyway.
The second point is that his release is part of the ongoing attempts (successful thus far) to re-integrate Libya into "polite society" - the last thing the world needs is yet another despotic leader of a state which sponsors terrorism. For some years now Europe and the USA have been using a "carrot & stick" approach to demonstrate that, for states that genuinely abandon state-sponsored terrorism, the rewards will outweigh the risks. This is, I think, a Good Thing.
Where I actually do disagree with releasing this specific individual is that, on the balance of probabilities, he almost certainly didn't commit the crime he was convicted of (indeed a senior judge said, a while back, that if the evidence had been heard now, rather than back then, when people were baying for blood, that he almost certainly would have been acquitted). What he did do, however, was have prior knowledge of what was to take place, and acted as co-conspirator in the role of “fixer”, between the Libyan government and the men who did commit that awful act.
Hence I don’t think he should have been released until and only until he had spilled the beans on who actually committed that act of mass murder. It’s possible, of course, that he’s already done this in secret, but I think it’s unlikely.
He now has a few weeks of pain and illness before death, therefore I see no harm in letting him die in his homeland, in return for better relations with a country that is attempting to prove that even “rogue” states can reform.
I do, however, completely understand the anger the families of his victims feel; were I in their shoes, I’d be baying for blood too. That doesn’t make them right though, and the state’s job is to make decisions on people’s behalf when they are too close to the issue to be able to think clearly.
As others have pointed out, the practice in Britain of releasing prisoners who are terminally ill (specifically, those whose terminal illness will cause their imminent demise – longer term conditions such as MS, when in early stages, are not usually considered sufficient grounds) is widespread, though not exactly “common”. Ronnie Biggs got the same treatment, and others like him.
|
RE: Lockerbie bomber is let out to die at home - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread