Well, it's been six months...

[Hallo Alfie]

Why does it make any difference to you personally what happens to this one individual?

Not a lick of difference to me personally. I could not care less about him.

If I did have a choice, perhaps allowing him the freedom to walk the streets of Lockerbie in his underwear on a cold winters day in his underwerar, would be appropriate.

Not at all. I don't think the decision to release him was appropriately made - I stated this quite clearly above.
I don't know if he is innocent, and I certainly do not believe he was remotely justified in what he did if he is guilty. There is no 'side' to take here, because I don't have access to the things that would confirm his guilt or innocence, or the state of his health at the moment. The only reason this thread was started was to complain that a man diagnosed with prostate cancer has not yet died.

I simply don't take pleasure in the pain of others.

Fair enough. Just an impression.
However, he could experience the same levels of discomfort in a UK prison.
People die in gaols everyday, I get the impression - and the assertion is - that Libyan oil greased the wheels for his release.
That part stinks if true.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'll ask you the same question.

do you believe he is faking prostate cancer?

Not terminally ill?

We are all terminally ill. Prostate cancer is something people may live with for very long.

Since he had treatment pending, he was not an 'end state patient'

The most sensible definition for terminally ill or end stage is that all reasonable treatment has been tried and is given up, and the disease is still progressing.

what?

If he is still alive after 6 months, one may begin to doubt that he fulfills that definition.

Hans

 

[chillzero]

However, he could experience the same levels of discomfort in a UK prison.

You aren't a UK taxpayer, though, which is the only part of this I do have an opinion on. It's an expense we can do without.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You aren't a UK taxpayer, though, which is the only part of this I do have an opinion on. It's an expense we can do without.

Oh, I had no idea it was a cost issue for you.
Perhaps the death penalty would have been cheaper.

 

[Darat]

Libyan doctors, the way I read it.

...snip...

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/This-Week/Speeches/Safer-and-stronger/lockerbiedecision

...snip...

Mr Al-Megrahi was examined by Scottish Prison Service doctors on 3 August. A report dated 10 August from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The advice they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner - he may live longer.
...snip...

 

[Darat]

I'm well aware of the effect prostate cancer can have on you, having had a scare last year. If I was a murdering terrorist though I don't think I would expect any merciful treatment due to this disease.

This was a political decision, nothing more.

But one based on the legislation that exists in Scotland

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Oh, I had no idea it was a cost issue for you.
Perhaps the death penalty would have been cheaper.

I remember a Judge who had an opinion on the death penalty for convicted terrorists:

Mr Justice Donaldson, who also presided over the Maguire Seven trial, expressed regret that the Four had not been charged with treason, which then still had a mandatory death penalty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven#Guildford_Four

 

[commandlinegamer]

Patrick Swayze lived for twenty months after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. IIRC, the media reported shortly after diagnosis he had only weeks to live, though this was denied by doctors. Is there any other disease which is so difficult to provide an accurate timetable for?

 

[funk de fino]

I'm well aware of the effect prostate cancer can have on you, having had a scare last year. If I was a murdering terrorist though I don't think I would expect any merciful treatment due to this disease.

My friends mum was given weeks to live she is still going at 4 months. Another friends mum was given 6 months and died 2 weeks later. If you were a prisoner in the UK then you would be right in thinking that you may well be released on compassionate grounds because it has happened before in the majority of cases such as these.

This was a political decision, nothing more.

Considering it was made by a Scottish politician it would have been hard to have been anything else.

 

[Beerina]

[For the purposes of those not blessed with a sense of humour I am not serious. I am not inciting anybody to kill anyone, I will certainly take no pleasure from seeing grieivng families whether they be Libyan, Scots or former editors of the Sun.]

Science: Observation, theory, prediction, tests.

Theory: Guy isn't really dying, at least as badly as portrayed by those in charge, including putting up a major fake sickiness.

Prediction: When released, will live a lot longer because he really wasn't as sick as people in charge were fooled into believing.

Prediction 2: Apologists will, when faced with Prediction 1 coming true, claim it's just a random fluke to the progress of his disease.

 

[Darat]

"apologists" for what?

 

[Beerina]

"The compassionate way of letting a mass-murderer go so he can spend the last few months of life in his home country with his family."

 

[Ziggurat]

it has happened before in the majority of cases such as these.

Really? Are there many other cases of mass-murdering terrorists in UK prisons who get compassionate release because they develop terminal cancer?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

There's certainly a case of a very notorious criminal being released on compassionate grounds. We don't have a huge pool of mass murdering terrorists who have become terminally ill in prison to compare Megrahi with, but there is nothing in the rules for compassionate release that says this group should be exempt from the same rules as other prisoners.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's certainly a case of a very notorious criminal being released on compassionate grounds. We don't have a huge pool of mass murdering terrorists who have become terminally ill in prison to compare Megrahi with, but there is nothing in the rules for compassionate release that says this group should be exempt from the same rules as other prisoners.

Who said anything about exempting them from the rules? But what are the rules? Do the rules require release, or do they only allow release? If it's the former, well, they're bloody stupid rules (and not just because of this case) and ought to be changed. And if they're the latter, then a judgment call gets made, and things like the severity of the crime are probably one of the factors that gets considered. And if that's the case, well, they could certainly consider a terrorist attack with mass casualties to be a particularly bad crime, worth denying release because of, but that wouldn't be exempting him from the rules.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

According to this QC:

Thus, on the published facts of Megrahi’s case, had the Scottish Government refused to allow compassionate release in terms of a policy which had been applied by it and its Lib-Lab predecessors, and before them by Labour and Conservative Secretaries of State alike, it would have been open to legal challenge with excellent prospects of success (see, for discussion and expansion of this statement, comment below by FP Heur and my reply). That’s the way the law works; it doesn’t suddenly cease to operate because the person claiming its benefits is criminal, or a foreigner, or because release is politically undesirable. Still less because of the improbable suggestion that Americans will boycott Scotland and all its works if Scots law is applied impartially and judicially.

http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/20...se-in-scotland-the-actual-policy-and-the-law/

 

[Skeptic]

had the Scottish Government refused to allow compassionate release in terms of a policy which had been applied by it and its Lib-Lab predecessors, and before them by Labour and Conservative Secretaries of State alike, it would have been open to legal challenge with excellent prospects of success

In other words, the law does allow them to not compassionately release people they don't want.

But they have constantly been releasing most people who apply for release due to terminal illness, so they made compassionate release for such illness a de facto right that applies to everybody -- including mass murderers -- no matter how horrific their crime.

Making a virtue of necessity, they make their own weakness and the creation of yet another "right" for the criminals into an example of their "consistency". This defeats the whole point of "compassionate release": that it should be something granted out of compassion to those who deserve compassion, at least relatively so, not a de facto legal right given to everybody who fits a certain criteria regardless of their crimes, and people can actually sue if they don't get.

If anybody ever deserved not to get "compassionate release" and to die in prison, then this mass murderer did. But being too weak and afraid of legal challenges to refuse, they praise themselves for being "consistent", like those teachers who give everybody an "A" and then praise themselves for "not hurting the students' self-esteem".

If they had any balls, they would deny his release and deal with the legal challenges by stonewalling and procrastinating until the scum dies in prison. Ooops, sorry about that! Too bad, so sad.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Were you this incensed about the release of a war criminal/convicted murder of 22 people by the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

 

[Ziggurat]

According to this QC:

I can't tell from that what "excellent prospects of success" for an appeal means. Is it simply the author's opinion of which way higher courts would exercise their own judgment, or is there some legal grounds on which a refusal to release cannot be justified? For the former, well, that's not really a reason to release him (if he gets released on appeal, so be it), and if it's the latter, then the laws regarding release sound bad and should probably be changed on general principle.

To put it slightly differently, are there no criminals for whom the government can ever say, "this criminal we aren't willing to release even if he's terminally ill"? Because if there aren't, I see that as a problem. And if there are, I don't see why they couldn't have decided that this terrorist was one such criminal.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Deleted, see fuller post below