Lockerbie bomber released on "Compassionate Grounds"

[bigbroon]

Why is anyone innocent sentenced?

Really, Gerry, are you telling me no one has every been sentenced wrongfully? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't England stop with the death penalty after they found out the last guy to get it was innocent?

Its one of the main reasons I think release on compassionate grounds is perfectly OK, because innocent people have always and will always occasionally get convicted. You can't do a "If he's innocent, then its OK!" because you can't KNOW if he was innocent, as court found him guilty. In people's eyes, that's all that matters.

1% of convicted people being innoccent rather than guilty is not a good enough reason to release any criminal for any crime if he develops a terminal illness. There are some things in life that deny you of your human rights. Murdering 270, in my book anyway, is one of them. No, you can't know if someone is innoccent 100%, but I'd sure rather that 10~ people who were innoccent were wrongfully convicted than every piece of shit criminal in this world who developed cancer released.

You're making the world sound like roses and rainbows, and that's just not how it is.

The world has many monsters in it.

The world always will have many monsters in it.

I would rather these monsters were kept behind bars, pending the re-instatement of the death penalty, than they be released because "their families deserve to see them." Committing such an atrocity absolves you of your human rights, to a point. Your compassion is tragically wrongly place.

 

[Gerry]

:facepalm:

Would it not be more accurate today that it "Makes you ashamed to be 1/4 Scottish" instead of generalising it completely?

Because I'm also 1/4 English, England and Scotland are part of the Great Britain, therefore I feel shame for being British.

Besides, it's not only the Scottish, but our parliament who didn't stop this from happening who also share the blame.

 

[Thelona]

The grass is ALWAYS greener on the other side, until you're ON the other side.

There are exceptions of course, I doubt you'd think the grass is greener in Afghanistan or Iraq, but yeah.

And you surely throw the word treason lightly. Do you even know what treason is if you think they should trial them for treason?

Also, fun info



Now, I'm not saying he is innocent, but imagine if he WOULD be. Don't he deserve to go home to his home country in that case?

ok so we're supposed to feel better about this cause hes a nice guy? and feels bad about the attack? and one of the victims father believes he didn't do it? sorry but that's all hearsay which first of all wouldn't be admissible in court, and doesnt mean shit.

second WTF did he really get sentenced to "a minimum of 27 years" . no offense to the ones that live there but WOW wtf kind of retarded shit is that? does that happen often over there? 270 people get you 27 years? whats rape get you? probation?

 

[RaidrX]

No where did I criticize the compassion felt for the ones that died. In fact, I even said it was natural.



It is for all people, some just don't get out. The fact it got brought up is because someone said "People have this idea that prison is a rehabilitation center and not a punishment", which is wrong. It is both. Always.

Whether some people don't get out, or some people don't care and is criminal even while in prison, it doesn't matter. All prisoners have the right to rehabilitation. And all prisoners should be treated equally.

Now this I disagree with. Someone who say got arrested for marijuana possession should not be treated the same way as someone who murdered 270 people. And personally, I dont see the point in rehabilitating someone who is serving a life sentence and never rejoining society.

 

[Uzor]

1% of convicted people being innoccent rather than guilty is not a good enough reason to release any criminal for any crime if he develops a terminal illness. There are some things in life that deny you of your human rights. Murdering 270, in my book anyway, is one of them. No, you can't know if someone is innoccent 100%, but I'd sure rather that 10~ people who were innoccent were wrongfully convicted than every piece of shit criminal in this world who developed cancer released.

You're making the world sound like roses and rainbows, and that's just not how it is.

The world has many monsters in it.

The world always will have many monsters in it.

I would rather these monsters were kept behind bars, pending the re-instatement of the death penalty, than they be released because "their families deserve to see them." Committing such an atrocity absolves you of your human rights, to a point. Your compassion is tragically wrongly place.

No, you can't know if someone is innocent. That is the point. Hence why the countries in Europe no longer has the death penalty, as even one innocent person getting it is one person too much.

And that's the whole point, everyone should get the chance to spend time with their family when they're terminally ill and will die within weeks. Just because they are convicted of something, in my opinion, doesn't change that, as there's always, always, a chance that they are innocent.

Really, if you were at the wrong place at the wrong time and got convicted of mass murder because of that, would you say "Well, I deserve rotting in prison while I'm terminally ill. Silly me for even going there"?

How would you react if a random person were forbidden from spending time with their family when they were terminally ill? Would be an outrage then too, wouldn't it? You can't please everyone all the time.

ok so we're supposed to feel better about this cause hes a nice guy? and feels bad about the attack? and one of the victims father believes he didn't do it? sorry but that's all hearsay which first of all wouldn't be admissible in court, and doesnt mean shit.

Never said it would be admissable in court, nor did I say we should feel bad about him. He was proven guilty and is a scum bag, but there's still a chance that he IS innocent. And even if he isn't, he should have the right to spend time with his family before he dies.

second WTF did he really get sentenced to "a minimum of 27 years" . no offense to the ones that live there but WOW wtf kind of retarded shit is that? does that happen often over there? 270 people get you 27 years? whats rape get you? probation?

Its worse in Sweden, here murder gives you 20 years if the murderer is unlucky. Then it is halved if you're nice in jail. Yes, Sweden have much too lax punishments. Hell, they spend more money on giving the prisoners food then they do on school children.

 

[Gerry]

ok so we're supposed to feel better about this cause hes a nice guy? and feels bad about the attack? and one of the victims father believes he didn't do it? sorry but that's all hearsay which first of all wouldn't be admissible in court, and doesnt mean shit.

second WTF did he really get sentenced to "a minimum of 27 years" . no offense to the ones that live there but WOW wtf kind of retarded shit is that? does that happen often over there? 270 people get you 27 years? whats rape get you? probation?

Britain's Justice system is massively fucked up. Last time I remember, I think rape was maybe 3 years or less, it's been a while since I saw how long a rapist got but I'm fairly sure it was less than 3 years.

Also, Life sentence is not a life sentence and criminals given a life sentence can get out on good behaviour here.

 

[bigbroon]

No, you can't know if someone is innocent. That is the point. Hence why the countries in Europe no longer has the death penalty, as even one innocent person getting it is one person too much.

And that's the whole point, everyone should get the chance to spend time with their family when they're terminally ill and will die within weeks. Just because they are convicted of something, in my opinion, doesn't change that, as there's always, always, a chance that they are innocent.

Really, if you were at the wrong place at the wrong time and got convicted of mass murder because of that, would you say "Well, I deserve rotting in prison while I'm terminally ill. Silly me for even going there"?

How would you react if a random person were forbidden from spending time with their family when they were terminally ill? Would be an outrage then too, wouldn't it? You can't please everyone all the time.

ok so we're supposed to feel better about this cause hes a nice guy? and feels bad about the attack? and one of the victims father believes he didn't do it? sorry but that's all hearsay which first of all wouldn't be admissible in court, and doesnt mean shit.

Never said it would be admissable in court, nor did I say we should feel bad about him. He was proven guilty and is a scum bag, but there's still a chance that he IS innocent. And even if he isn't, he should have the right to spend time with his family before he dies.



Its worse in Sweden, here murder gives you 20 years if the murderer is unlucky. Then it is halved if you're nice in jail. Yes, Sweden have much too lax punishments. Hell, they spend more money on giving the prisoners food then they do on school children.

You're basically feeding through an argument for why the death penalty is, in your opinion, a bad idea, when it has pretty much nothing to do with this case. I'll simplify:

MAN CONVICTED OF MURDER X 270

MAN GO TO JAIL

MAN SERVE 11 DAYS FOR EACH DEATH

MAN GET OUT, BECAUSE MAN HAVE VERY COMMON TERMINAL ILLNESS

The above decision is called compassionate, and is welcomed by certian people, and justified by others, yourself included Uzor. We are not talking about every case, a mean of a certain number of cases, or even a few cases; we're talking about 1 case, this case. He was found guilty, never found innocent or proven anything other than guilty, but is released because he has cancer.

No, the man who murdered 270 people isn't getting out of jail because he's innocent, he's getting out because he's got prostate cancer. How you can attempt to defend this is beyond me. If they had come out and given the reason as "lack of evidence" or "new evidence had come to light", at least this would have been a justifiable reason to let him go.

If you show compassion to the wrong people, there is little point in compassion at all. This decision could have gone one of two ways: Megrahi could have stayed in prison, to the delight of 99% of people who know about this case, or Megrahi could have been released, because he has cancer, to infuriate 99% of the people who know about this case, but show them American's that Scotland means business and we won't be bullied.

Give me a break.



Firestreak, most Scottish people condemn this decision, mostly for the reason given, along with most of the media, but we had no say in it. Please, along with the rest of the readers, don't tar an entire country with the stick which should be shoved up the ass of one man, the justice secretary for Scotland, Kenny McCaskill; afterall, he did say he made this decision on his own and accepted 100% responsibility for it.

 

[Mirewen]

He should at least get to say farewell to his family face to face, more so for their sake than for his.

Why should he get to do what he didn't allow his victims to do and what their families didn't get to do?

Bigbroon pretty much said what I have to say.

 

[Uzor]

You're basically feeding through an argument for why the death penalty is, in your opinion, a bad idea, when it has pretty much nothing to do with this case. I'll simplify:

MAN CONVICTED OF MURDER X 270

MAN GO TO JAIL

MAN SERVE 11 DAYS FOR EACH DEATH

MAN GET OUT, BECAUSE MAN HAVE VERY COMMON TERMINAL ILLNESS

The above decision is called compassionate, and is welcomed by certian people, and justified by others, yourself included Uzor. We are not talking about every case, a mean of a certain number of cases, or even a few cases; we're talking about 1 case, this case. He was found guilty, never found innocent or proven anything other than guilty, but is released because he has cancer.

And hence why I also brought up the death penalty, because it is closely related.

Do you really think every one who is innocent eventually gets discovered? Someone mentioned earlier that 1% of all convicts are found innocent. I'm willing to bed those 1% are only the discovered cases. I'm willing to bet there's still innocent people in jail who will never be found to be innocent either. Just because someone is found to be guilty and never proven otherwise, isn't proof that he is guilty. Nor is someone found to be innocent proof that the person is innocent either, as a lot of people believe to be the case with O.J Simpson. Court isn't perfect, as there are humans passing the sentence, and humans make mistakes.

No, the man who murdered 270 people isn't getting out of jail because he's innocent, he's getting out because he's got prostate cancer. How you can attempt to defend this is beyond me. If they had come out and given the reason as "lack of evidence" or "new evidence had come to light", at least this would have been a justifiable reason to let him go.

I never once stated he's innocent. I even said myself that I personally believe he is guilty. That does not change the fact that there's always a possibility that he is innocent. I'm intelligent enough to realize the world does not circulate around me, and that just because I say someone is guilty that's not necessarily the way it is.

If you show compassion to the wrong people, there is little point in compassion at all. This decision could have gone one of two ways: Megrahi could have stayed in prison, to the delight of 99% of people who know about this case, or Megrahi could have been released, because he has cancer, to infuriate 99% of the people who know about this case, but show them American's that Scotland means business and we won't be bullied.

Give me a break.

And who is the one that decides who should get compassion? The mob? QCDN is a perfect example of how the mob isn't always right. As is history. And religion. The mob have opinions too, and their opinion might not always be right. Sure, it might be the opinion of the majority, but a majority is not always right.

And really, I do not get your point. Are you saying it is only possible to ever feel compassion to one side? Because that's sure what it looks like.

 

[Dejavu]

Innocent or guilty, i don't care the fact is he was convicted and until that conviction is overturned they have no business letting him out. If the person who is convicted wants to die why is it that we don't let them it is much cheaper that way. As much as you want to talk about people being rehabilitated the main reason that you are in prison is actually punishment. Otherwise the crime wouldn't matter and sentence lengths would not exist they would just put you in prison "until you were better".

Honestly i think that we need to make some serious changes to our prison system. The first is to make the person who is incarcerated responsible to pay for their own incarceration once they are released. Secondly prison should be a miserable time solitary forever for everyone if necessary. Prisoner should be forced to work so that they decrease their burden on the state and finally they should make it so that in cases where someone is sentenced to 25 years or more the death penalty is an option because it is more cost effective.

 

[Morcheeba]

Prisoner should be forced to work so that they decrease their burden on the state and finally they should make it so that in cases where someone is sentenced to 25 years or more the death penalty is an option because it is more cost effective.

Yes, yes, yes!



I don't think this discussion is really about whether someone is 'in fact' innocent or guilty. If they are charged and convicted with a crime, their judgment should be completed in full. There is no other reason to release this convicted prisoner other than his having been diagnose with a terminal illness. His conviction landed him with a sentence that would have him die while behind bars.

What has changed? No matter which way you cut it the man would die in prison. Both obvious manners are natural. He could also be snuffed out, but you know what, he's in prison. That shit happens too. When a judge and jury sentences a prisoner to spend the rest of his/her natural life behind bars, being shanked kinda comes with the 'possibilties' package.

Compassion for this man, like I had said would be better suited by the prison officials, PM or whom ever to have his family see him in prison. They do have visitation rights do they not? Or has that changed too?

 

[Uzor]

Prisoner should be forced to work so that they decrease their burden on the state and finally they should make it so that in cases where someone is sentenced to 25 years or more the death penalty is an option because it is more cost effective.

You are very wrong in that. The death penalty is FAR from the most cost effective punishment.

It isn't as simple a putting him in the electric chair and starting it. The constitution requires a long and complicated process for capital cases. This is to ensure that innocent men and women are not sentenced to death, and even then, that process isn't perfect, as there's still innocent men and women being sentenced to death.

The cost of the present death penalty system in California alone is estimated to be at $137 million per year, while imprisonment for life without parole would cost roughly $11,5 million per year.

Now, maybe my math fail, but I do believe 137 million dollars per year is roughly 125,5 million per year more. But then again, maybe my math fails.

There's several benefits to him being released. The first is that the Brittish government will not have to pay for his medical bills, they will not have to pay for his prison time, and he will die a painfull death. Unless you truly believe that Libya's hospitals are better than the ones in Brittain?

 

[Thelona]

I'd just like to add that in this situation the CHANCE that he MIGHT be innocent, should mean absolutely NOTHING

Sure a prisoner should have access to things like lawyers appeals and all that stuff so if he IS innocent he has a chance of proving it later after hes sentenced. but until something comes up showing theres been a mistake, the prisoner should be treated 110% guilty.

the fact that theres a CHANCE he could be innocent should have NO effect on the sentencing or treatment of the prisoner after the verdict.

 

[Dejavu]

You are very wrong in that. The death penalty is FAR from the most cost effective punishment.

It isn't as simple a putting him in the electric chair and starting it. The constitution requires a long and complicated process for capital cases. This is to ensure that innocent men and women are not sentenced to death, and even then, that process isn't perfect, as there's still innocent men and women being sentenced to death.

The cost of the present death penalty system in California alone is estimated to be at $137 million per year, while imprisonment for life without parole would cost roughly $11,5 million per year.

Now, maybe my math fail, but I do believe 137 million dollars per year is roughly 125,5 million per year more. But then again, maybe my math fails.

There's several benefits to him being released. The first is that the Brittish government will not have to pay for his medical bills, they will not have to pay for his prison time, and he will die a painfull death. Unless you truly believe that Libya's hospitals are better than the ones in Brittain?

The bureaucracy implanted by the lefties that hate capital punishment in the first place is to blame for that. The problem is that in California which is where you decided to get your information from the average time from sentencing to execution is 20 years and during that time the person has to perform mandatory appeals and even if they asked to be executed tomorrow it would not be allowed.

Then those same people who made it more expensive to execute someone make the argument that it is cheaper to imprison someone for life... No shit it is that way ... by design.

Here is how the execution process should be. Guilty... ok whens the next open execution slot... Thursday.. ok. Oh he wants to appeal... ok he gets his one...3 months pass in new trial... guilty still... ok so friday now. BUZZZZ... NEXT! And at any time if the prisoner wants to speed up the process he should be able to set his own date.

There should be a policy like no one spends more than a month on death row with out a court case pending and capital punishment cases should get sent to the front of the line.

 

[Uzor]

The bureaucracy implanted by the lefties that hate capital punishment in the first place is to blame for that. The problem is that in California which is where you decided to get your information from the average time from sentencing to execution is 20 years and during that time the person has to perform mandatory appeals and even if they asked to be executed tomorrow it would not be allowed.

Then those same people who made it more expensive to execute someone make the argument that it is cheaper to imprison someone for life... No shit it is that way ... by design.

Here is how the execution process should be. Guilty... ok whens the next open execution slot... Thursday.. ok. Oh he wants to appeal... ok he gets his one...3 months pass in new trial... guilty still... ok so friday now. BUZZZZ... NEXT! And at any time if the prisoner wants to speed up the process he should be able to set his own date.

There should be a policy like no one spends more than a month on death row with out a court case pending and capital punishment cases should get sent to the front of the line.

So, basically, you want it to work like it does in third-world countries?

Got it. Let's just skip the trial altogether then, would be much cheaper to just execute them on the spot by "accident".

 

[Dejavu]

You mentioned our constitution earlier so here is part of it...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Right to a speedy and public trial... nothing about an execution taking 20 years (on average) in the appeals process.

 

[Firestreak]

You're basically feeding through an argument for why the death penalty is, in your opinion, a bad idea, when it has pretty much nothing to do with this case. I'll simplify:

MAN CONVICTED OF MURDER X 270

MAN GO TO JAIL

MAN SERVE 11 DAYS FOR EACH DEATH

MAN GET OUT, BECAUSE MAN HAVE VERY COMMON TERMINAL ILLNESS

The above decision is called compassionate, and is welcomed by certian people, and justified by others, yourself included Uzor. We are not talking about every case, a mean of a certain number of cases, or even a few cases; we're talking about 1 case, this case. He was found guilty, never found innocent or proven anything other than guilty, but is released because he has cancer.

No, the man who murdered 270 people isn't getting out of jail because he's innocent, he's getting out because he's got prostate cancer. How you can attempt to defend this is beyond me. If they had come out and given the reason as "lack of evidence" or "new evidence had come to light", at least this would have been a justifiable reason to let him go.

If you show compassion to the wrong people, there is little point in compassion at all. This decision could have gone one of two ways: Megrahi could have stayed in prison, to the delight of 99% of people who know about this case, or Megrahi could have been released, because he has cancer, to infuriate 99% of the people who know about this case, but show them American's that Scotland means business and we won't be bullied.

Give me a break.



Firestreak, most Scottish people condemn this decision, mostly for the reason given, along with most of the media, but we had no say in it. Please, along with the rest of the readers, don't tar an entire country with the stick which should be shoved up the ass of one man, the justice secretary for Scotland, Kenny McCaskill; afterall, he did say he made this decision on his own and accepted 100% responsibility for it.

Alright bigbroon my belief that Scottish are badass motherfuckers with giant axes will remain.

 

[Uzor]

You mentioned our constitution earlier so here is part of it...



Right to a speedy and public trial... nothing about an execution taking 20 years (on average) in the appeals process.

No where there does it say that an execution retrial should be fast either, Just says the initial trial should be speedy and public.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

As for criminals working, which I agree is a very good idead

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

[bigbroon]

And hence why I also brought up the death penalty, because it is closely related.

Do you really think every one who is innocent eventually gets discovered? Someone mentioned earlier that 1% of all convicts are found innocent. I'm willing to bed those 1% are only the discovered cases. I'm willing to bet there's still innocent people in jail who will never be found to be innocent either. Just because someone is found to be guilty and never proven otherwise, isn't proof that he is guilty. Nor is someone found to be innocent proof that the person is innocent either, as a lot of people believe to be the case with O.J Simpson. Court isn't perfect, as there are humans passing the sentence, and humans make mistakes.

I never once stated he's innocent. I even said myself that I personally believe he is guilty. That does not change the fact that there's always a possibility that he is innocent. I'm intelligent enough to realize the world does not circulate around me, and that just because I say someone is guilty that's not necessarily the way it is.

And who is the one that decides who should get compassion? The mob? QCDN is a perfect example of how the mob isn't always right. As is history. And religion. The mob have opinions too, and their opinion might not always be right. Sure, it might be the opinion of the majority, but a majority is not always right.

And really, I do not get your point. Are you saying it is only possible to ever feel compassion to one side? Because that's sure what it looks like.

My point is very simple: convicted criminals should be released if they are proven innocent, or if the evidence used to prove them guilty is shown to be inconclusive. They should NOT, I repeat, NOT, under any circumstances, be released for any other reasons, including religious festivals, compassionate reasons, illnesses, or financial reasons; all of which were reasons that Megrahi was released. This guy should still be in prison.

 

[Uzor]

But that has nothing to do with feeling compassion for both sides. So it wasn't really an answer to my question, just a repetition of what you've said before.