Lockerbie bomber released on "Compassionate Grounds"

[bigbroon]

Criminal rights should never come before victims rights. He was tried and convicted. He should die in jail, alone, without his loved ones nearby - just like the 270 people he had a hand in killing.

It's disgusting to see murderers, or other violent criminals, released; something that happens far to often. See Phillip Garrido, Arthur Bremer, etc.

Those who kill and those who rape oftentimes cannot be "rehabilitated" and should just be put down.


Sweet action, brb robbing a bank.
P.S. Denny Crane.

I think I love you.

As I've said countless times in the thread already, yes. As long as they do not pose a risk to those around them.

And not once has I stated a justice system should be built around "Oh, but he might be innocent!".

Firstly, in my opinion, you'll struggle to find someone MORE of a risk to those around them than someone convicted of murdering 270 people. You have stated your opinion that he should have been released on compassionate grounds, meaning you believe someone convicted of 270 counts of murder isn't a danger to other people. Whut?

To address the bolded part of your post, you really have. Every time you've said "I think every criminal should be released compassionately because there's a chance they're innocent." Those are not your exact words, but they are exactly what you meant - a ludicrous idea.

 

[Mirewen]

Why is this still being argued, had he been in America he would have gotten the death penalty and this wouldn't even be up for discussion. So he has cancer, he killed 270 people, I don't give a fuck if he's got a terminal illness. There is always a *chance* someone isn't guilty, if you think that of everyone, then we wouldn't have jails in the first place. Found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of murdering 270 people, fucker deserves to die in jail.

 

[Uzor]

I think I love you.




Firstly, in my opinion, you'll struggle to find someone MORE of a risk to those around them than someone convicted of murdering 270 people. You have stated your opinion that he should have been released on compassionate grounds, meaning you believe someone convicted of 270 counts of murder isn't a danger to other people. Whut?

To address the bolded part of your post, you really have. Every time you've said "I think every criminal should be released compassionately because there's a chance they're innocent." Those are not your exact words, but they are exactly what you meant - a ludicrous idea.

That's not what I said. I said every criminal should get a chance to be released on compassionate grounds if they are terminally ill . Not that they should all be compassionately released because there's a chance they're innocent. If that's what you thought I've been saying, you've obviously misunderstood me quite a lot.

The very act of murdering someones means you're a risk to others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this guy's sentence was LIFE in prison. That means you die in a prison cell, not in your home. You gave that choice up when you decided to kill someone.

In Europe, life in prison isn't a life sentence. Its 10-20 years depending on the country.

 

[Raesvelg]

That's not what I said. I said every criminal should get a chance to be released on compassionate grounds if they are terminally ill . Not that they should all be compassionately released because there's a chance they're innocent. If that's what you thought I've been saying, you've obviously misunderstood me quite a lot.

That's an understandable mistake, given that you've been flinging up just about any concept you can think of to see if one sticks at one point or another in this thread.

Put simplest: Stick to one position, and argue it. If you don't think it's relevant, don't bring it up. You are the one who brought the potential for innocence into this debate, and had it proved to be a more successful tactic, I'm reasonably sure you'd be arguing it as a justification for his compassionate release.

You also brought up Iran Air 655, as if that were relevant to this debate.

 

[Myrrh]

Based on reading nothing in this thread.

If terminally ill people are getting out of jail for murdering people then I'mma go slaughter all my friends. BRB flying to Miros' house.

 

[.Curjos.]

Why is this still being argued, had he been in America he would have gotten the death penalty and this wouldn't even be up for discussion. So he has cancer, he killed 270 people, I don't give a fuck if he's got a terminal illness. There is always a *chance* someone isn't guilty, if you think that of everyone, then we wouldn't have jails in the first place. Found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of murdering 270 people, fucker deserves to die in jail.

They were unable to prove him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", as far as I know.

 

[Mirewen]

They were unable to prove him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", as far as I know.

The judges announced their verdict on 31 January 2001. They said of Megrahi: "There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused, and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the indictment as amended."

They thought they had good reason.

 

[Uzor]

That's an understandable mistake, given that you've been flinging up just about any concept you can think of to see if one sticks at one point or another in this thread.

Put simplest: Stick to one position, and argue it. If you don't think it's relevant, don't bring it up. You are the one who brought the potential for innocence into this debate, and had it proved to be a more successful tactic, I'm reasonably sure you'd be arguing it as a justification for his compassionate release.

You also brought up Iran Air 655, as if that were relevant to this debate.

Because innocence is relevant. There's a chance he's innocent, just like everyone. However, me arguing that there's a chance he is innocent does not automatically equal me saying everyone should be free because there's a chance they're innocent.

And I brought up Iran Air 655 because, if you'd have read the thread, there's lots evidence that a group from Palestina are the actual people to blame. I also brought it up because the year before, the American military shot down an innocent airplane killing 270 civilians.

 

[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.

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.

So you're not saying everyone should be released on compassionate grounds because there's a chance everyone's innocent, you're saying that anyone who's terminally ill should be released because there's a chance they're innocent? If not, stop fucking talking about the "chance of being innocent", there IS NO 100%. If your opinion is that all people who are terminally ill should be released to see your family, then that has nothing to do with a chance of innocence, as ludicrous as that idea is. It makes a mockery of any justice system, and basically says "If you're ill, you can do what you want!"

Also, in response to the underlined, there's a pretty massive difference between a "random person" and a mass murderer of 270 people. Your statement is akin to saying "how would you feel if a random person was jailed for nothing? Well, you can't please everyone!" Give me a break.

 

[Uzor]

So you're not saying everyone should be released on compassionate grounds because there's a chance everyone's innocent, you're saying that anyone who's terminally ill should be released because there's a chance they're innocent? If not, stop fucking talking about the "chance of being innocent", there IS NO 100%. If your opinion is that all people who are terminally ill should be released to see your family, then that has nothing to do with a chance of innocence, as ludicrous as that idea is. It makes a mockery of any justice system, and basically says "If you're ill, you can do what you want!"

Also, in response to the underlined, there's a pretty massive difference between a "random person" and a mass murderer of 270 people. Your statement is akin to saying "how would you feel if a random person was jailed for nothing? Well, you can't please everyone!" Give me a break.

Was that point really that hard to get through?

And how WOULD you feel?

 

[Gerry]

Alright then, Jack Straw just ADMITTED they traded the bomber for Oil.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...d-To-Trade-Deal/Article/200909115375450?f=rss

As if it couldn't get any worse for our Government.

 

[Raesvelg]

Because innocence is relevant. There's a chance he's innocent, just like everyone. However, me arguing that there's a chance he is innocent does not automatically equal me saying everyone should be free because there's a chance they're innocent.

If innocence is relevant, then in this particular case, terminally ill is irrelevant. After all, he's serving a life sentence, and is scheduled to die in prison.

We're all dying.

It's just a question of when.

Any one of us could die tomorrow. Or today. Or in the next 30 seconds.

For those sentenced to life in prison, dying in jail is part of the sentence, as far as I'm concerned. In all honesty I don't believe in life imprisonment. It's a cop-out for liberals who don't want to admit that some crimes are unforgivable and some people are too dangerous to be allowed to live.

But if you're going to take that route, you take it all the way. You don't wuss out because someone could be dying.

I also brought it up because the year before, the American military shot down an innocent airplane killing 270 civilians.

Yeah, that's why I thought you were bringing it up. Classy. Imply that maybe, even if he's guilty, he was justified. Real classy.

Of course, now that I've explicitly stated what you've implied, I'll wager you'll backpedal and claim you meant no such thing.

 

[Cort]

Based on reading nothing in this thread.

If terminally ill people are getting out of jail for murdering people then I'mma go slaughter all my friends. BRB flying to Miros' house.

Wanna team up and rob a bank or two later?

Cancer patient + ??? bank robbery team, fuck yeah!

 

[Uzor]

If innocence is relevant, then in this particular case, terminally ill is irrelevant. After all, he's serving a life sentence, and is scheduled to die in prison.

We're all dying.

It's just a question of when.

Any one of us could die tomorrow. Or today. Or in the next 30 seconds.

For those sentenced to life in prison, dying in jail is part of the sentence, as far as I'm concerned. In all honesty I don't believe in life imprisonment. It's a cop-out for liberals who don't want to admit that some crimes are unforgivable and some people are too dangerous to be allowed to live.

But if you're going to take that route, you take it all the way. You don't wuss out because someone could be dying.

Again, life imprisonment in Europe is not life in jail, nor dying in jail. It is 10-20 years in prison with halved jail time if you behave well in prison.

Yeah, that's why I thought you were bringing it up. Classy. Imply that maybe, even if he's guilty, he was justified. Real classy.

Of course, now that I've explicitly stated what you've implied, I'll wager you'll backpedal and claim you meant no such thing.

Once again you misunderstood. You should try reading before you jump to conclusion. I've mentioned like 2-3 times now that I mentioned the airship because there is a group of Palestinians that claimed responsibility for the attack as a counter-attack to the Americans shooting down Iran Air 655. Perhaps if you'd have read what I said before you think I imply something, you'd have noticed I didn't mention Iran Air 655 or whatever the plane's name was to justify what he did.

There is no backpedaling. Go back and read what I've said before if you'd like, you'll see that, no where, have I used it as a justification for what he did. I mean, hell, read the part you removed when quoting me.

And I brought up Iran Air 655 because, if you'd have read the thread, there's lots evidence that a group from Palestina are the actual people to blame. I also brought it up because the year before, the American military shot down an innocent airplane killing 270 civilians.

I do admit I worded it a bit strange.

 

[Uzor]

If innocence is relevant, then in this particular case, terminally ill is irrelevant. After all, he's serving a life sentence, and is scheduled to die in prison.

We're all dying.

It's just a question of when.

Any one of us could die tomorrow. Or today. Or in the next 30 seconds.

For those sentenced to life in prison, dying in jail is part of the sentence, as far as I'm concerned. In all honesty I don't believe in life imprisonment. It's a cop-out for liberals who don't want to admit that some crimes are unforgivable and some people are too dangerous to be allowed to live.

But if you're going to take that route, you take it all the way. You don't wuss out because someone could be dying.



Yeah, that's why I thought you were bringing it up. Classy. Imply that maybe, even if he's guilty, he was justified. Real classy.

Of course, now that I've explicitly stated what you've implied, I'll wager you'll backpedal and claim you meant no such thing.

Also, whoever quoted me earlier and said that rumors are stupid about prison transfers;

The Justice Secretary told The Daily Telegraph his decision to include Abdelbaset al Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya two years ago was influenced by commercial interests.

While the timeline of said rumor wasn't right, there still WAS talk about transferring him.

 

[.Curjos.]

So! He wasn't released on compassionate grounds. The Scottish government decided to release him because of a trade deal with Libya.

Discuss.

 

[bigbroon]

So! He wasn't released on compassionate grounds. The Scottish government decided to release him because of a trade deal with Libya.

Discuss.

Not true, the reason given for his release was "compassionate grounds", so that is what he was released on. Whether or not he should have been released on compassionate grounds is a matter of opinion, and the trade deal only helped the decision be made, as dodgy as it is.

 

[Cort]

Was that point really that hard to get through?

And how WOULD you feel?

John Gotti should've been let out of jail? I mean, there's a chance he was innocent!

Stupid idea.

 

[Uzor]

John Gotti should've been let out of jail? I mean, there's a chance he was innocent!

Stupid idea.

Stupid argument is stupid.

John Gotti lived in America and not in Scottland where compassionate release exists. If the option were available in America and if a jury consider him to not be a threat to society (which he was as he offered 100k dollars for someone to kill Walter Johnsson while in prison), then yes.

However, as I stated, he was still a threat to society (paying people to kill people is an example of why he'd be dangerous), and that by itself shows he was not innocent. Even if he would be innocent to the crime he was jailed for, I think him paying people off while in jail at least shows he's guilty of other things.

 

[Cort]

Stupid argument is stupid.

John Gotti lived in America and not in Scottland where compassionate release exists. If the option were available in America and if a jury consider him to not be a threat to society (which he was as he offered 100k dollars for someone to kill Walter Johnsson while in prison), then yes.

However, as I stated, he was still a threat to society (paying people to kill people is an example of why he'd be dangerous), and that by itself shows he was not innocent. Even if he would be innocent to the crime he was jailed for, I think him paying people off while in jail at least shows he's guilty of other things.

But partaking in the destructing of a passenger airplane that resulted in the deaths of 270 people is a-ok?



P.S.
Compassionate Release exists here too. :wink: