Lockerbie bomber released on "Compassionate Grounds"

[Uzor]

He haven't paid people to kill others while in jail.

And have US ever used Compassionate Release?

 

[Raesvelg]

He haven't paid people to kill others while in jail.

And have US ever used Compassionate Release?

Yes.

We just don't generally release mass murderers.

Susan Atkins (of the Manson Family), for example, was up for compassionate release (terminal brain cancer) and will rot in prison until the day she dies.

 

[Dejavu]

Didn't you know im the only guilty man in here.

 

[Cort]

He haven't paid people to kill others while in jail.

Who cares. Letting murders out because they're going to die is complete bullshit, and an extreme injustice to the families they have damaged.

Life in prison shouldn't mean 10-20 year and you get to go about your marry way. Life in prison should be exactly as it sounds.

Any argument for "potential innocence" is null and void.

 

[bigbroon]

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.

Again, do you get more of a threat to society than mass murderers?

 

[Uzor]

Apparently they are a threat to the society just walking free in your opinion.

To be honest, I wouldn't consider a hospitalized mass murderer that is stuck in a hospital a threat to society. Nor would I consider a Libyan mass murderer stuck in Libya a threat to England nor America.

Although I don't know about you, perhaps you're afraid he will use his mental powers and fry everyone's brain from half-way across the world?

 

[Myrrh]

Well, I don't know the whole details on the bomber guy but I really don't think someone who blew people up should be let free for the sole fact that it prolly wasn't hard for him to get explosives in the first place. He could easily blow up the hospital.

And again, just to repeat what can seem to be repeated enough. LIFE in prison should mean YOU DIE in prison.

 

[Excim]

Although I don't know about you, perhaps you're afraid he will use his mental powers and fry everyone's brain from half-way across the world?

Clearly.


Anyone who thinks the release was justified because of his illness is an utter twat, end of story. The simple fact of the matter, is he didn't give an option of life or death to the people he murdered. Why, in any comprehensible way, should he have been given that option? Its not as if the crime he committed was any less reprehensible now that he's ill. People are dead because of a direct action that he took. Are they going to get a chance at life again? The answer is no. If you ask me, his illness should not be viewed as a tragedy that we should pity, but as a divine act of ironic comedy.

 

[Uzor]

No, he did not give an option between life and death, but that does not matter. A life is still a life, even if he's a murderer.

 

[Gerry]

No, he did not give an option between life and death, but that does not matter. A life is still a life, even if he's a murderer.

In my view, a murderer gives up his life when s/he commits the act, and becomes something less than human.

 

[Uzor]

If simply killing someone makes you less than human, then soldiers should be included in this, too. And I'm sure most of you, me included, disagree that soldiers are murderers for killing people, because they do it under orders.

Fact still remains, though, that they both technically commit acts of murder. Where do you draw the line? Do you choose who gets to be less than human? Does the murderer become less than human because you say so?

 

[Gerry]

If simply killing someone makes you less than human, then soldiers should be included in this, too. And I'm sure most of you, me included, disagree that soldiers are murderers for killing people, because they do it under orders.

Fact still remains, though, that they both technically commit acts of murder. Where do you draw the line? Do you choose who gets to be less than human? Does the murderer become less than human because you say so?

This is where the line gets drawn between war hero and war criminal. The victors decide history, the ones who win become heroes in the eyes of history. Additionally, fighting for a cause also justifies these acts.

Murderers though, have no justifiable cause to kill.

This may seem like the same thing to you, but to me, there's a huge difference that not many people would understand.

In any case though, without derailing this into a debate about whether it is justifiable to kill for a cause or not, let's get to the main point.

Did the Lockerbie Bomber have a justifiable cause to kill 270 people?

The short answer would be No.

 

[Cort]

Apparently they are a threat to the society just walking free in your opinion.

To be honest, I wouldn't consider a hospitalized mass murderer that is stuck in a hospital a threat to society. Nor would I consider a Libyan mass murderer stuck in Libya a threat to England nor America.

Although I don't know about you, perhaps you're afraid he will use his mental powers and fry everyone's brain from half-way across the world?

It's extremely naive to think that a murderer is no threat to society, and it has been proven that they are numerous times over.

If simply killing someone makes you less than human, then soldiers should be included in this, too. And I'm sure most of you, me included, disagree that soldiers are murderers for killing people, because they do it under orders.

Fact still remains, though, that they both technically commit acts of murder. Where do you draw the line? Do you choose who gets to be less than human? Does the murderer become less than human because you say so?

Holy fucking shit.

There is a massive different between someone like Charles Manson, Ed Gein, etc. and someone like my Father, a Gulf War vet.

Let me help you out:

* Main Entry: mur·der
* Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
* Date: before 12th century

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

* Main Entry: murder
* Function: verb
* Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing \ˈmər-d(ə-)riŋ\
* Date: 13th century

transitive verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : slay
3 a : to put an end to b : tease, torment c : mutilate, mangle <murders French> d : to defeat badly

tl;dr ATOMICRAGE.jpg

 

[Sharpe]

His release makes me feel ashamed, depressed even to be British.

I'm proud that they released him, especially as most of the "evidence" was bullshit and the guy who's testimony "proved" he was the bomber, had been paid millions by the US and kept changing his story. I don't believe he was the bomber.

 

[Cort]

I'm proud that they released him, especially as most of the "evidence" was bullshit and the guy who's testimony "proved" he was the bomber, had been paid millions by the US and kept changing his story. I don't believe he was the bomber.

:facepalm:

 

[Sharpe]

:facepalm:

I'm sorry that I believe someone who can't be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt has been released and been allowed to die with his family.

 

[Uzor]

It's extremely naive to think that a murderer is no threat to society, and it has been proven that they are numerous times over.



Holy fucking shit.

There is a massive different between someone like Charles Manson, Ed Gein, etc. and someone like my Father, a Gulf War vet.

Let me help you out:




tl;dr ATOMICRAGE.jpg

So let me see if I get this right.

Napalm boms are totally A-OK and is a justifiable death of innocent humans? The shoot-down of Iran Flight 665 (or whatever its name was) is A-OK, simply because people say it is?

That's exactly what my point was. Yes, I agree, I even said it myself, that killing people in war is OK, as they do it under oders. You still take human lives, though. The only difference is that one is ordered, and thus "justified" and legal, and the other one is done by one or several rouges.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

 

[Cort]

I'm sorry that I believe someone who can't be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt has been released and been allowed to die with his family.

Good thing you're not a Judge then.

So let me see if I get this right.

Napalm boms are totally A-OK and is a justifiable death of innocent humans? The shoot-down of Iran Flight 665 (or whatever its name was) is A-OK, simply because people say it is?

That's exactly what my point was. Yes, I agree, I even said it myself, that killing people in war is OK, as they do it under oders. You still take human lives, though. The only difference is that one is ordered, and thus "justified" and legal, and the other one is done by one or several rouges.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

I never mentioned Napalm, or Flight 655. Your arguments are nothing short of naive, and hardly worth the time it takes to type this.

Orders have nothing to do with it.

Edit: I don't mean to come off harsh, but I feel that you're insulting men like my Father - who fought for and gave up much for this country.

 

[Uzor]

Edit: I don't mean to come off harsh, but I feel that you're insulting men like my Father - who fought for and gave up much for this country.

And I have no idea why, since I've not only mentioned once, but twice, that I am well-aware of the difference, and that I have nothing agaisnt those that fight in wars.

I merely pointed out the irony (and how wrong he is) in Gerry stating that simply taking a life makes you less than human, when soldiers take several, and the only real difference is people's attitude towards the two.

Do explain to me why those arguments are so naïve. Apparently there was a good reason of doing them both then as you seem to think they were justifiable?

 

[Cort]

And I have no idea why, since I've not only mentioned once, but twice, that I am well-aware of the difference, and that I have nothing agaisnt those that fight in wars.

I merely pointed out the irony (and how wrong he is) in Gerry stating that simply taking a life makes you less than human, when soldiers take several, and the only real difference is people's attitude towards the two.

Do explain to me why those arguments are so naïve. Apparently there was a good reason of doing them both then as you seem to think they were justifiable?

You think soldiers kill simply because of an order. You don't think a murderer is a danger to those around him. You say murderers and soldiers commit the same acts. You think murderers should be let free because they could be innocent. You think someone who partakes in the DEATH of TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY PEOPLE should be allowed to say goodbye to family. Those same TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY people died a terrible death, and never got to say goodbye to their families. Someone who does this is a monster, and arguably is incapable of "rehabilitation". He lost his rights when he committed this atrocity. He should've been killed in turn. He doesn't deserve "compassion".

You said earlier in this thread:

I'm sure it will, but their pain will pass.

This is god damned insulting to the families, and shows your ignorance of what someone goes through when a loved one is torn violently from life. You might as well just spit in their face, it'd probably be a kinder thing to do.

That is another example of your ignorance, your naïveté.

Edit: When a murderer takes life, it's vastly different from a soldier. Do you think rape is about sex? It's not, at all. Entirely different, another example for you.