Well, it's been six months...

[Hallo Alfie]

I will make the statement again without any distractions

For the interested observer we are looking at actual facts.

It is about him being charged, tried and convicted of killing 270 truly innocent people.
He has since been released on compassionate grounds and frankly, I can see why some people would be upset at that.

Please put your CTs and (possible) innocence to one side as well as the defence of the Scottish laws (which I respect btw).

Should we (anyone) be upset about the early release of a person who has committed a crime such as this.

For mine, that's the point here.

 

[Skeptic]

Rolfe -- ever heard the expression, "an apology that's worse than the deed"?

"Don't be angry we 'compassionately' released a mass murderer! You don't understand -- he actually might well have been innocent and held in jails for decades for a crime he didn't commit in the first place!"

 

[Skeptic]

And where's the limit? Do you lose that right at 270 victims? 250? 200?

The problem is the belief that it is a right to be "compassionately released". It isn't a right (morally, in any case, I'm not sure about the law). It is an act of mercy or compassion -- and for one to be worthy of it, one must be deserving of such mercy.

But, yes, I agree: if we deny this guy release, next time someone who merely killed 200, or even 100, innocent people would be denied release, as well! And we wouldn't want that sort of barbaric, mideaval cruelty in our legal system, now would we?

What's even more annoying than the "compassionate" release itself is the attempt to claim that "compassionately" releasing a mass murderer of 270 people is some sort of higher morality.

This is the king's new morality: only smart men can see it.

 

[Skeptic]

The latest.

 

[Rolfe]

I will make the statement again without any distractions

Please put your CTs and (possible) innocence to one side as well as the defence of the Scottish laws (which I respect btw).

Should we (anyone) be upset about the early release of a person who has committed a crime such as this.

For mine, that's the point here.

Can you see the double standard in what you posted? First you tell us to "put aside [his] possible inocence", and in the next breath, describe him as "a person who has committed a crime such as this".

You're asking us to consider whether a person whose guilt is under genuine and serious doubt should be treated more harshly than standard practice because of the seriousness of the crime he may not have committed. To say "but just forget for now that he might not have done it in the first place" is perverse. I already posted that I find this an impossible consideration, because it's an unrealistic scenario. The actual real world is the one where Megrahi's guilt has been called into serious question.

You also describe the doubts over Megrahi's guilt as a "CT". This is not a CT. There are indeed CTs attached to the Lockerbie incident, but the possibility/probability of a miscarriage of justice at Camp Zeist is not a CT. It's no more a CT than the doubts over the guilt of the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, the Guildford Four, Barry George, Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and all the many other people who were convicted of a crime they were later acquitted of on appeal. (I don't see any calls for the 4000-post thread on Amanda Knox to be labelled a CT, and yet that's a discussion of a verdict some posters believe may be a miscarriage of justice.)

Megrahi, unfortunately, fell ill with a fatal disease during the course of the appeal process. I'm struggling to see why you feel that justifies the dismissal of all the evidence that the appeal was likely to have succeeded.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The problem is the belief that it is a right to be "compassionately released". It isn't a right (morally, in any case, I'm not sure about the law). It is an act of mercy or compassion -- and for one to be worthy of it, one must be deserving of such mercy.

But, yes, I agree: if we deny this guy release, next time someone who merely killed 200, or even 100, innocent people would be denied release, as well! And we wouldn't want that sort of barbaric, mideaval cruelty in our legal system, now would we?

What's even more annoying than the "compassionate" release itself is the attempt to claim that "compassionately" releasing a mass murderer of 270 people is some sort of higher morality.

This is the king's new morality: only smart men can see it.

Well, you know, we don't want that sort of barbaric, mediaeval cruelty in our system.

We don't want our prisons turned into hospices for elderly, dying, demented, cancer-ridden, paralysed criminals. And that's the road we'd be going down if we were to allow consideration of the severity of the offence to influence the decision to grant compassionate release.

If you look at the criticism of this case in Scotland, it's entirely based on whether or not the assessment was correct that Megrahi was sick enough at the time to qualify - not whether the principle was wrong. Actually, the three-months-to-live thing isn't set in stone, because the law recognises that no doctor can give a prognosis to that degree of accuracy. Three months is a rule-of-thumb guideline. The evidence at the time would have been quite sufficient for any "ordinary" prisoner, however this case has become a great political stick for the opposition to beat the government with. That's why we're seeing the press articles railing against Megrahi's continuing survival, and not against Biggs who is in the same situation.

I don't know where you get any assessment of "deserving" mercy when it comes to this sort of situation, unless you're again simply talking about the severity of the offence. What about Biggs? Lower body count, but still a notorious criminal (and one proved beyond any reasonable doubt to have been guilty, with no outstanding appeal). He deliberately gamed the system, escaping to live in luxury abroad for many years, only returning to England voluntarily when he was old and sick and knew he'd be eligible for compassionate release quite soon for that reason. He's still alive, and it's getting on for seven months since he was released.

Set against the 270 fatalities at Lockerbie, there are a number of reasons not to deny Megrahi compassionate release.

• His outstanding appeal was held to have a good prospect of success - i.e. he may well be innocent
• He's Libyan, so holding him in prison in Scotland is a more severe punishment than for someone imprisoned close to home and family, and in his own culture
• His disease is extremely painful, necessitating hospice-like treatment including the use of strong painkillers - that's heroin (diamorphine) by the way, and we've got more heroin in our prisons than we want already
• There is no prospect of his re-offending
• And finally, keeping him in jail till he dies would have seriously damaged Britain's interests in the Middle East

You may not like that last bit, but it's part of the mix. The Middle East is a big enough problem as it is, without doing something that will piss off Gadaffi for no particularly good reason. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

Megrahi, unfortunately, fell ill with a fatal disease during the course of the appeal process. I'm struggling to see why you feel that justifies the dismissal of all the evidence that the appeal was likely to have succeeded.

Rolfe.

See, this is an opinion not shared by everyone. Would you release Meredith Knox because she has a lot of support by people who are convinced of her innocence and her appeal might succeed? I wouldn't and I don't think her appeal will be successful.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I think he should still be in jail.

 

[Rolfe]

The latest.

You want to discuss that article?

First, remember that this is the Telegraph, which is very anti-SNP. Within Britain, this whole affair is simply a stick to beat the SNP with. The other parties couldn't give a rat's arse what happens to Megrahi, so long as they've got some traction in that department.

Second, Megrahi has gone home. As the paper reports, he comes from a very wealthy family. So the fact that's he's living in a very nice house shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

Third, did you read the whole thing?

Prof Sikora, one of the examining doctors who was paid a consultancy fee last July to examine Megrahi, told The Sunday Telegraph this weekend: "My information from Tripoli is that it's not going to be long [before Megrahi dies].

"They stopped any active treatment in December and he has just been going downhill very slowly at home. He is on high doses of morphine [a painkiller] and it's any day now."

I suggest you go back and read Chillzero's excellent post earlier in the thread.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

See, this is an opinion not shared by everyone. Would you release Meredith Knox because she has a lot of support by people who are convinced of her innocence and her appeal might succeed? I wouldn't and I don't think her appeal will be successful.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I think he should still be in jail.

Er, it's Amanda Knox who is in jail. Meredith Kercher was the victim.

If Amanda Knox was suffering from (say) advanced metastatic breast cancer with only a few months to live, of course I would support her release.

You don't think her appeal will be successful. I gave up on that thread a while ago, but I have to say I rather share your view of the situation. However, at least you have a view of the situation. You appear to be taking a hard line against Megrahi without any idea of the disputed facts in that case.

It's at least possible to have a sensible conversation discussing the evidence that supports Knox having committed that murder. I can't find anyone who will support the view that Megrahi was guilty other than, in effect, "court verdicts cannot be wrong".

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

Sorry about the mistake.

And no, I have not fully researched the Megrahi case, but don't automatically accept that your (and others) opinion trumps the decision of a properly constituted court in a legal system of generally high regard.

I know you have made up your mind on this matter. So be it.

 

[Darat]

Can you see the double standard in what you posted? First you tell us to "put aside [his] possible inocence", and in the next breath, describe him as "a person who has committed a crime such as this".

...snip...

That's not a double standard Rolfe, in the eyes of the law he has been found guilty, and the release on compassionate grounds had nothing to do with any on-going appeal or any doubt about the conviction (which is as it should be), the Minister stated this very clearly: "...My decisions are predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed..."

 

[Darat]

Sorry about the mistake.

And no, I have not fully researched the Megrahi case, but don't automatically accept that your (and others) opinion trumps the decision of a properly constituted court in a legal system of generally high regard.

I know you have made up your mind on this matter. So be it.

And as I've just shown the decision made by the Minister had nothing to do with any doubts about the conviction.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Can you see the double standard in what you posted? First you tell us to "put aside [his] possible inocence", and in the next breath, describe him as "a person who has committed a crime such as this".

..snip..

You also describe the doubts over Megrahi's guilt as a "CT". This is not a CT. There are indeed CTs attached to the Lockerbie incident, but the possibility/probability of a miscarriage of justice at Camp Zeist is not a CT. It's no more a CT than the doubts over the guilt of the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, the Guildford Four, Barry George, Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and all the many other people who were convicted of a crime they were later acquitted of on appeal. (I don't see any calls for the 4000-post thread on Amanda Knox to be labelled a CT, and yet that's a discussion of a verdict some posters believe may be a miscarriage of justice.)

Respectfully Rolf you have missed my point and stayed on the soapbox. Two things? and I would ask you review my question again. If you don't want to answer it, fine, I'll drop it.

1/. I have applied no double standard, in fact I was asking the question with regard to a person and not this person (i.e. Megrahi), hence my request to put those other things aside.
2/. It was you who originally raised CT, not me (nor anyone else that I recall), I was simply following your line (your post #64).

So I ask again:
Should we (anyone) be upset about the early release of a person who has committed a crime such as this?

 

[funk de fino]

The latest.

From your link

The Libyans had encouraged doctors to say he had only three months to live

It's like quoting a MaGZ piece that is written on Israel

One leading prostate cancer specialist cast serious doubt yesterday on the wisdom of predicting that Megrahi had only three months to live – when a patient still had to undergo chemotherapy. Dr Chris Parker said it was extremely difficult to give an accurate prognosis for individual patients. "Studies show experts are very poor at trying to predict how long an individual patient will live for," he warned.

Thats why it is an estimate.

 

[Rolfe]

I [....] don't automatically accept that your (and others) opinion trumps the decision of a properly constituted court in a legal system of generally high regard.

Of course I'm not asking you to accept my opinion without looking at the evidence. And of course nobody is under any obligation to look at the evidence and hold any opinion at all on the matter.

However, I've pointed out that people being convicted of offences they were later found to be innocent of is not exactly uncommon, even in highly-regarded systems. I've also explained that the opinion that Megrahi was the victim of a similar miscarriage of justice is not merely mine, but is held by many reputable and qualified people who have examined the case, and by the SCCRC itself, who recommended that the appeal should proceed because there was clear evidence (of a possible miscarriage of justice). I've linked to a summary of the SCCRC report, and one of the expert witness reports. The SCCRC is also a properly consitiuted legal body, which took evidence from a wide range of witnesses before making its report. Why would you want to ignore that?

Perhaps I'm expecting too much here, but under these circumstances I would hope that those who do not wish to examine the evidence for themselves will refrain from calling for exceptionally heavy punishments for this man, and that those who wish to call for such punishments will have the common decency to familiarise themselves with the facts of the matter before doing so.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

That's not a double standard Rolfe, in the eyes of the law he has been found guilty, and the release on compassionate grounds had nothing to do with any on-going appeal or any doubt about the conviction (which is as it should be), the Minister stated this very clearly: "...My decisions are predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed..."

I agree entirely with what you say, and I think there is a subtle distinction here. If one is not intending to go against precedent to impose a particularly heavy penalty in this case (such as denying compassionate release), then there is no need to consider the question of the grounds of appeal at all. Kenny was absolutely definitely not going there, and he didn't need to.

On the other hand, if you're going to call for a reversal of precedent to impose a harsher than usual punishment because of the severity of the crime, it becomes relevant to note that the SCCRC believed that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred in this case. And therefore one might be rather wary about calling for exceptional punishment.

And as I've just shown the decision made by the Minister had nothing to do with any doubts about the conviction.

Exactly. There was no need to consider any such doubts when deciding for compassionate release.

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

There is an enormous difference between a bank robber who never killed anybody (nor intended to) and someone who killed 270 people. The first I can see can qualify for compassionate release eventually; the latter, no.

I'd say that once you kill 270 innocents people deliberately, you lose all right to compassion.

But that's what you get when the law does not even allow you to consider the enormity of the crime in the "compassionate" release considerations.

Now now, 270 dead people is water under the bridge.

What's important is the business deals that can now go forward as a reward for his release. 270 dead is a small price to pay for those sweet, sweet Libyan business deals.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

On the other hand, if you're going to call for a reversal of precedent to impose a harsher than usual punishment because of the severity of the crime, it becomes relevant to note that the SCCRC believed that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred in this case. And therefore one might be rather wary about calling for exceptional punishment.

Rolfe.

In this case a respected (i.e. assumed to be reasonably fair and just) legal system has legally established his guilt therefore it is not necessary for anyone to have to provide any further evidence of someone's guilt to argue that x should have happened based on his guilt.

 

[Francesca R]

As soon as you demand that compassionate release be denied on the basis of the severity of the offence, you inevitably invoke the question of whether or not the man actually committed the offence.

No I don't think you do. That question is dealt with completely separately in the general case.

"As soon as you demand that sentencing be decided on the basis of the severity of the offence, you inevitably invoke the question of whether or not the man actually committed the offence." . . . seems to be a close analogy of your argument, and isn't the norm anywhere (beyond--obviously--trying guilt in a court first-time round)

 

[Rolfe]

Respectfully Rolf you have missed my point and stayed on the soapbox. Two things? and I would ask you review my question again. If you don't want to answer it, fine, I'll drop it.

1/. I have applied no double standard, in fact I was asking the question with regard to a person and not this person (i.e. Megrahi), hence my request to put those other things aside.
2/. It was you who originally raised CT, not me (nor anyone else that I recall), I was simply following your line (your post #64).

So I ask again:
Should we (anyone) be upset about the early release of a person who has committed a crime such as this?

Fair enough. I can see the queston from both sides, as I indicated. If this was Goebbels or someone like that, I'd feel queasy about it too. However, as I've said several times, there are other good reasons not to take severity of crime into account when making such a decision, and I support the principle even if it did throw up the occasional case that seemed a bit much.

Like Biggs, for example. He gamed the system, returning to Britain and jail (and the NHS, which was his main reason for coming back) when he knew he'd be eligible for compassionate release in due course anyway.

Perfect justice is impossible. I'd rather err a little on the side of mercy, than be unjustly harsh to someone. Allowing a precedent to be set whereby severity of offence counts in cases like this could well result in such injustice in future. And in prisons having to become hospices, and house patients on legal heroin treatment.

Rolfe.