Astor Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 This afternoon, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will announce the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who has been serving a life sentence for the Lockerbie Bombing in 1988. This comes amid fierce criticism from many in the international community, most notably the families of the victims, and many within the US and UK goverments. Is it right that he is released? Or, in the words of Hilary Clinton, is his release "absolutely wrong"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 He should be made to die alone in his cold cell, I'm not so sure he showed "compassion" when his Victims were taking their last breaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 For once I agree with Hilary Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 It's times like this we all want to put aside the civics of modern day society, take out our guns and just turn guys like him into human swiss cheese. That's what I think. All Grand Theft Auto fantasies aside, there is only one rationalization (amidst explanations) for something like this: $$$$$$$$$! I'm not so sure judges who allow hard criminals to roam free like this don't know what they are doing. Looking at this sort of thing with a very cynical eye, I theorize it is somehow perversely profitable. But I guess that's just me and my nuttery. I mean, think about it. Backlash from this could, in turn, generate revenue for the system. It's all just wrong, I tell ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 While I can understand the compassionate part considering that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is terminally ill with prostate cancer. However, I did not see him or the other perpetrators of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing showing any compassion for their victims. They were not allowed to go home and get their affairs in order before their death. Considering I watched my real father die of prostate cancer, I feel extremely guilty being happy that another human would suffer that fate, but in this case I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 It's farcical. Time off for being sick should have no place when considering punishment for the deaths of 270 people. Utter lack of remorse doesn't help matters. Says a lot for the state of sentencing and imprisonment in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Great. With his dying breaths, he can organize another plane bombing. Brilliant move, Scotland. Thanks for putting our safety at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted August 20, 2009 Author Share Posted August 20, 2009 I can only really echo all of your comments - I could understand if this were a lesser crime, but mass murder on such a scale should never be forgiven. The man was supposed to die in Jail, and should have, by all accounts. It's farcical. Time off for being sick should have no place when considering punishment for the deaths of 270 people. Utter lack of remorse doesn't help matters. Says a lot for the state of sentencing and imprisonment in this country. It puzzles me that the Prime Minister allowed this to be handled solely by the Scottish Government. Yes, he was tried by a Scottish court, and a prisoner of the Scottish government, but leaving it in the hands of one minister is negligent at best, especially when this has clearly had an impact on our foreign relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I'm going to join the chorus of people saying that this decision is absolute idiocy. No compassion was shown to the two hundred seventy people who died, and no compassion should be shown to the perpetrator. Kudos, Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Great. With his dying breaths, he can organize another plane bombing. Brilliant move, Scotland. Thanks for putting our safety at risk.Egocentric much? Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Egocentric much? Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly? It's my opinion that, in certain cases, this idea ends up causing more harm than good. This man was convicted of killing two hundred seventy people. Call it Biblical, but I don't think that he should enjoy comforts that those he murdered didn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Egocentric much?Is there some reason why you need to be impolite? You've made a gross and incorrect assumption about my motives on top of it. Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly?Did he show any mercy to the people he blew up? He was shown mercy by not being put to death for his crimes as he would have been under Shari'a law in his own culture. Has he expressed regret for his crimes? No? Prison for life means just that--for life. Not 'for life til you're about to die, and then we'll let you out so you can meet up with your cell and plan more murders.' This is a safety issue for the entire world, not just me, since it's highly unlikely that I'm in a place that would be affected if he plans another crime. He is a menace to the entire world as a successful terrorist, and Scotland erred greatly by letting out such a dangerous man. The minister who allowed his release was foolish for doing this and putting more people in danger of experiencing the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Not to join the pile-on, but I don't see anything merciless about letting him die in prison where he belongs. In the interests of justice, an appropriate sentence would have involved his being pushed out of a plane at 30,000 feet without a parachute to give him a taste of what he did to those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I too believe that the Scottish minister is seriously mistaken if he thinks a man with cancer can't plan acts of terror. After all...Bin Laden has kidney disease, and we know that horrors that he as brought about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 People die in jail all the time (and not just at the hands of other criminals). His cancer could be treated in prison. In the case of Agca, it was attempted murder of one person (even if it was the Pope) vs actually murdering almost 300 in the Lockerbie case. He should "rot" in jail till he's ready for his dirt nap. No misplaced "mercy" for this schmuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Granted, he is a mass murderer, and his crimes are inexcusable, but that doesn't mean he should be treated mercilessly. You're absolutely right: he should be treated absolutely the same as anybody else should be under those circumstances. After all, if Mehmet Agca was eligible for parole, and he attempted to assassinate the Pope, out of all people, then why can't a terrorist that has spent the rest of his life in prison be treated accordingly? That was an example of misplaced judgment, as is this case. I have to agree with Litofsky and Jae. Proof of a criminal being remorseless might seem like a noble idea, but test out the reality of that. You find out the truth in due time when it's too late and more had to die needlessly. Keeping him in his cell to live out the rest of his days is the solution with the least amount of possible harm to be done in the big picture. People are not locked up b/c they are good and nice. You turn your back on people like this and they'll strike the moment you're oblivious to them. Ferrile in civil society is dangerous. Talk to prison counselors or probation departments if you don't believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Did he show any mercy to the people he blew up? He was shown mercy by not being put to death for his crimes as he would have been under Shari'a law in his own culture. Has he expressed regret for his crimes? No? Prison for life means just that--for life. Not 'for life til you're about to die, and then we'll let you out so you can meet up with your cell and plan more murders.'Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways.This is a safety issue for the entire world, not just me, since it's highly unlikely that I'm in a place that would be affected if he plans another crime. He is a menace to the entire world as a successful terrorist, and Scotland erred greatly by letting out such a dangerous man. The minister who allowed his release was foolish for doing this and putting more people in danger of experiencing the same thing."An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways."An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies. What exactly are you proposing as a just punishment for someone convicted of killing almost 300 people? How is "fixing" someone particularly relevant if they are locked away for the rest of their life? Sort of hard to enact your vengeful tendencies when you're locked in a 6X8 cell for the rest of your days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Concidering that the evidence against him was far from overwhelming, I'd say he might deserve a retrial, but not a release. As for him being a threat, considering the fact that he was supported by (at least parts of) the libyan state during his last action, and that the big G is currently not terribly keen on having the west turn against him, what's the chance of him being able to carry out a new attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways. I don't believe anyone has previously mentioned that he was placed in isolation for the purpose of 'correcting himself.' This man was part of a plot that resulted in the deaths of two hundred seventy people. He's not going to isolation so that he can 'correct himself.' I do believe that isolation has far more sinister purpose. "An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies. Again, I think that, in this case, it's precisely the thing that needs ti be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caius Fett Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies. If it had truly been an eye for an eye this scumbag would have been dead. Kinda hard to have vengeful tendencies then isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I think it's fine that they released him, but only as long as he's kept under police watch. Letting someone convicted of bombings wander around free is just not a good idea, even if the evidence used to convict him doesn't seem so reliable now. It seems that the US is talking with Libya about doing this, so it's probably covered already. It's natural to want him to suffer, especially the families of the victims. Compassion is extremely hard to show in a case like this. But because of that, his release exemplifies the vast gulf between a terrorist's morality and our own. If mercy can be shown even here, it is an example to the entire world - and to ourselves - that we are not like them, not even the slightest bit. And I am glad of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 What exactly are you proposing as a just punishment for someone convicted of killing almost 300 people?Not life. Long periods of confinement doesn't really benefit anyone, IMO, and would only create a larger amount of discourse than actually addressing the problem directly. As far a suitable punishment goes, how about actually trying to understand and attempt to "break" the individual? There's no purpose for him to be living in solitude if he's not productive or repentant of his ways. How is "fixing" someone particularly relevant if they are locked away for the rest of their life?Well, I do believe that "correcting" someone is the entire purpose of a correctional center. After all, why bother even keeping the prisoner, at least, if you could simply attempt to improve their lives and actually resubmit them into society, if possible.Sort of hard to enact your vengeful tendencies when you're locked in a 6X8 cell for the rest of your days.That's the point; extreme punishment only breeds more hatred, and therefore, an increased risk of violence. If prisons operated more like court-ordered self-improvement rehabilitation centers, rather than solitary dungeons, then I'm sure that there would be far less recidivism than in the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Simply "moving" the problem away isn't going to fix it, no matter what the problem is in the first place. Why bother isolating someone for the rest of their life if they're not going to "correct" themselves? More or less, how would isolation "fix" the prisoner, and even if one is "fixed", there is no chance for one to practice one's new ways."An eye for an eye" wouldn't exactly fix anything, even if the man is a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely for the man to harbor more vengeful tendencies. So you're Ok with letting the guy out and taking the chance that he's going to commit, or conspire to commit, other murders? He was sentenced to life in prison not only as punishment to him but to protect the public from him. Let me ask you this--if there's intel showing he's talked with his buddies about a particular flight, and you have a ticket to for that flight, are you going to get on board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 So you're Ok with letting the guy out and taking the chance that he's going to commit, or conspire to commit, other murders? He was sentenced to life in prison not only as punishment to him but to protect the public from him.Only if he's on house arrest or other government surveillance, then I can't really see what's the matter with letting a convicted terrorist with terminal cancer to spend the rest of his days somewhere preferable. It's much akin to the tradition of a "last meal" before an execution, which is pretty much the same thing that he will be going through with prostate cancer.Let me ask you this--if there's intel showing he's talked with his buddies about a particular flight, and you have a ticket to for that flight, are you going to get on board?I'd prefer to leave hypothetical guiltbait out of the debate, Jae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.