Aug 20, 2009, Multiply, the release of the Lockerbie Bomber.

The release of the'' Lockerbie Bomber'' .Abdel Basset al-Megrahi

Aug 20, '09 4:15 PM for everyone

The release on compassionate grounds, of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Mr Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, 57 seems to have caused quite a bit of controversy. I know this will make me very unpopular with some of my friends, but I’m going to say it anyway.
My reasons for agreeing with his release has nothing to do with the uncertainty surrounding his conviction

‘’ The BBC's Daniel Sandford in Washington said "broadly" families in the UK were concerned about the conviction, whereas US relatives were convinced of his guilt.’’
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/282145,background-the-long-and-complex-tale-of-the-lockerbie-bombing.html

‘’ In a highly critical assessment of the 2001 conviction, Scotland's Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found in 2007 that al- Megrahi could have been the subject of a miscarriage of justice, and that his conviction "may be unsafe."
‘’ The commission pointed out that the Libyan's conviction was based on "wholly circumstantial evidence," and that a number of "critical inferences drawn were not sufficiently supported by the evidence." It also said that crucial documents had been withheld from the trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8198603.stm
Although I think this is another discussion entirely, I did follow the case and I did think there were questions left unanswered regarding the evidence and yes, I did think it was probably an unsafe conviction.


But as I said, agreeing with this mans release on compassionate grounds has nothing to do with my concerns over the safety of the conviction. I agree with his release because………………..it IS the compassionate thing to do. There are those who say this man deserves no compassion because he showed no compassion. Those people could be right, but personally, I don’t want to place myself in the same category as him or any one else who lacks compassion. I want to be a compassionate person, most of the time I fail miserably but that’s no reason to stop trying. I’ve also read newspaper reports and watched television reports saying many Americans don’t understand our concept of release on compassionate grounds; I’ve heard there is no equivalent in American law. If that’s true it really doesn’t surprise me but it does reinforce my previously held belief that our judicial system is very different to the American system. A judicial system that lacks compassion comes perilously close to being a revenge system. The value of a judicial system in a civilized country is that it deals with crime and criminals in such a way as to remove the threat of mob rule and vigilanite attacks. It also replaces that utterly understandable raw thirst for revenge experienced by the victims and their families with a calm impartiality and full consideration of all evidence and facts. I believe the overriding priority of the courts is to preserve the safety of the public. If someone is deemed by the court to be a danger to society it’s the responsibility of the court to protect the public from harm and from that person, for how ever long it takes for that person to stop being a danger.

 My own personal belief is that ‘punishment’ for the sake of it serves no purpose, if a person is dangerous, the public needs protecting, if the person isn’t dangerous, I don’t see the point in keeping them locked up. To imprison someone is a huge financial drain on the state and the manpower used to guard/ care for that person could be much better used elsewhere. In this case the prisoner is a frail sick man who presents no danger to any one; he just wants to go home to die. In the case of younger, fitter prisoners, to keep them locked up if they are not danger to society is not only a waste of state resources, it also prevents the individual contributing  toward society in a positive way, which means the state loses twice.

But my belief about ‘punishment’ in general isn’t particularly relevant in this case. This case is about a man who is 57, very frail and about to die. This man presents no danger to any one, he is facing a death sentence of his own, and there is no possible way this man could ever present a danger to any one. Part of the reason this man is so sick is his illness remained undiagnosed until it was terminal. Not only does it seem right to make the compassionate decision to allow him to die in his own country, it seems inhumane not to allow it. And I know there are many who would say he does not deserve compassion and he acted inhumanly toward his victims, and this could be true. But as a citizen of this country I want my country to act humanly and with compassion toward every one. Not to do so only legitimizes inhumane treatment of others in different situations.

It also gives me a certain amount of pride knowing that Scotland (yes tiny Scotland) can stand up to considerable pressure from America and say NO. I can’t help thinking that if this man were in prison in England he would be left to die there because; England traditionally does what ever America asks. I’m so glad Scotland is not afraid to stand up for what is right.

Tags: lockerbie

Prev: THE EPIC JOURNEY 1973; PART TWO
Next: john lee hooker & carlos santana , chill out

reply edit delete

6 Comments

Add a Comment

delete reply nicebutdim wrote on Aug 24, '09 forgetmenot525 said It also gives me a certain amount of pride knowing that Scotland (yes tiny Scotland) can stand up to considerable pressure from America and say NO. I can’t help thinking that if this man were in prison in England he would be left to die there because; England traditionally does what ever America asks. I’m so glad Scotland is not afraid to stand up for what is right. Yep, good old Scotland.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 21, '09 brendainmad said seeing as how he was given a hero's welcome upon his return - That was all over the news this morning here too, that's a shame but like the guys on TV said, we have no say in what goes on there, but I think it rather spoilet things though.

delete reply brendainmad wrote on Aug 21, '09 I think this was the right decision. However, I'm sure there will be many unhappy people seeing as how he was given a hero's welcome upon his return - at least that's what I've just heard on Spanish TV.

delete reply starfishred wrote on Aug 20, '09 I agree with both of-I to feel it was a good and wise decision to make-

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 20, '09 thanks Frank, you are right about his guilt, possibly the saddest thing is that we will never know for sure. He was appealing and there were people who had campaigned for him for a long time. I think there was a deal done, he officially dropped his appeal and they in return let him go home. I don't think think it was possible with in the framework of the law to allow a discharge on compassionate grounds if there was an appeal still going on.

delete reply veryfrank wrote on Aug 20, '09 I have no idea whether this man is innocent or guilty. I'm sure there are people in the US, England and Scotland who have more information than the public does, that's the way it's done these days. But that is not the issue, you said it above: "This case is about a man who is 57, very frail and about to die. This man presents no danger to any one, he is facing a death sentence of his own, and there is no possible way this man could ever present a danger to any one. Part of the reason this man is so sick is his illness remained undiagnosed until it was terminal. Not only does it seem right to make the compassionate decision to allow him to die in his own country, it seems inhumane not to allow it." The legal decision is one to be made by Scotland. Whether he deserves compassion or not is in the eye of the beholder and people will believe what they want to believe. That's the way it is.