Well, it's been six months...

[Rolfe]

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.

To some people, maybe. To the people who actually took the decision, it was far more important that the appeal process could be stopped, they would never be in the embarrassing position of having nobody convicted for these 270 deaths, and they could heave a sign of relief that legal demands for the release of certain documents to the defence would cease.

Rolfe.

 

[funk de fino]

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.

Which give work to US companies. Who were operating in country during the embargos also.

Some people need to get off their high horses and look closer to home.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The thing that I keep coming back to is that prisons don't have the facilities to deal with the terminally ill. Which would mean that he would be out of prison and in a hospital or hospice anyway. The only difference would be that it would be in this country where we would be paying for it, and also paying for the prison guard who would have to be with him 24/7 until he pegged it.

 

[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.

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)

I understand your points. I do not think this is analagous, however.

Sentencing is done on conviction, and conviction can be appealled. If the appeal is successful, the sentence will be quashed.

Here we have a dying man, who could not hope to live to see the appeal process completed. Normal procedure would allow him to be granted compassionate release. To insist that the findings of the Review Commission should not be taken into account when deciding to overturn normal procedure and deal out a harsher punishment, is perverse. If you're going to call for normal procedure to be overturned on the basis of one particular facet of a case, you open the discussion to other facets of the case that might also have a bearing on the decision.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The thing that I keep coming back to is that prisons don't have the facilities to deal with the terminally ill. Which would mean that he would be out of prison and in a hospital or hospice anyway. The only difference would be that it would be in this country where we would be paying for it, and also paying for the prison guard who would have to be with him 24/7 until he pegged it.

And as one of the people running the hospice movement said, what about the other patients in that hospice at the same time, also dying? How would such an arrangement affect them?

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

Which give work to US companies. Who were operating in country during the embargos also.

Some people need to get off their high horses and look closer to home.

Funny, I could have sworn it was the UK Libya was pressuring to release this guy with the reward of business deals. And who were rewarded with said deals after his release.

Am I mistaken?

 

[Francesca R]

Normal procedure would allow him to be granted compassionate release.

I know, but not because: "the demand that compassionate release be denied on the basis of the severity of the offence, [ . . . ] inevitably invoke the question of whether or not the man actually committed the offence". Just because those are the rules for normal procedure.

It would be quite possible to have the alternative rule without any logical inevitability that you need to haircut severity of offence with probability they dunnit.

 

[funk de fino]

Apparently in the US there is a system to allow compassionate release but most of the time the weak minded idiots allow the beaurocracy of the system to leave the prisoner in jail to die, without anyone having the balls to make a decision on it.

These are the type of idiots that pontificate on it over there.

Subjecting anyone, including a mass murderer, to British cancer care probably violates basic human rights.

The Scots used to be brave, lovers of freedom. Now, they are craven terrorist lovers, and left wing PC extremists. It might be all the illegal drugs they use. This Justice Minister had to have been high when making this decision. This release would have never happened to a lesser criminal from a Christian country. The Justice Minister should be immediately removed as a Moslem terrorist collaborator. He should be investigated for a payoff.

This PC, terrorist lover Justice Minister has no problem offending the memory of the innocent people who died and their surviving families. He has to appease the terrorist Moslem. Why? The left hates our way of life and wants to abet our enemies, despite their being far to the right of us. I would like to see a purge of all internal appeasers from our governments. They are a threat to our physical survival.

The latter must resign immediately. He should be shunned as a terrorist lover, and appeaser. There should be zero tolerance for lawyer terrorist love or appeasement.

One guess as to the professional training of this traitor, MacAskill

 

[funk de fino]

Funny, I could have sworn it was the UK Libya was pressuring to release this guy with the reward of business deals. And who were rewarded with said deals after his release.

Am I mistaken?

Yes, I work for one of the companies who get work from these deals and it is American. There are loads of them. They were in Libya all through the embargos making millions. You should know that any deals involving oil or gas will involve US companies. Unless you are completely ignorant of the oil and gs industry?

I've been there and I am going back soon for my American employers.

Have you been?

 

[Rolfe]

It was the UK government which was horsetrading with Libya about prisoner transfer agreements. It was the Scottish government which actually had the power to release Megrahi, or not. The Scottish government doesn't have anything in particular to gain from such deals. It did however have quite separate reasons for being glad to see the back of Megrahi, see earlier posts.

Thus, it rejected the UK government-negotiated prisoner transfer, and chose compassionate release instead, to avoid the perception of falling in with Westminster's wishes. And still managed to get the appeal withdrawn.

I'd roast Kenny over slow coals for that part alone.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

The thing that I keep coming back to is that prisons don't have the facilities to deal with the terminally ill. Which would mean that he would be out of prison and in a hospital or hospice anyway. The only difference would be that it would be in this country where we would be paying for it, and also paying for the prison guard who would have to be with him 24/7 until he pegged it.

The federal government operates six prison hospitals. Since most prisoners are indigent it doesn't matter where the prisoner dies - in prison or in a hospice - it's taxpayer money both ways.

 

[chillzero]

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

Well, if it is about the cost of lives, we have one member here who stated that these 270 people are more important than several million others who have died in slower, more painful circumstances, many of whom were tortured first.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The federal government operates six prison hospitals. Since most prisoners are indigent it doesn't matter where the prisoner dies - in prison or in a hospice - it's taxpayer money both ways.

AFAIK, the UK does not have any. We have high security psychiatric hospitals like Broadmoor (and Carstairs in Scotland), but nothing comparable for physical health. For more minor or easily managed conditions, the prison's own infirmary would be used, but otherwise, seriously ill prisoners have to use NHS facilities - with the attendant costs of managing a prisoner in a non secure environment.

 

[Rolfe]

The federal government operates six prison hospitals. Since most prisoners are indigent it doesn't matter where the prisoner dies - in prison or in a hospice - it's taxpayer money both ways.

Maybe so, in the US. This case is in Scotland. Prison hospital wings in Scotland are not suitable for the care of terminally-ill cancer patients, because it is not normal practice to keep such prisoners incarcerated. And we'd rather not start a precedent on that.

The alternative, which happened to accord with normal practice, was to grant compassionate release, and in this case be relieved of all burden of care.

Rolfe.

 

[dtugg]

Well, if it is about the cost of lives, we have one member here who stated that these 270 people are more important than several million others who have died in slower, more painful circumstances, many of whom were tortured first.

Who? If you're talking about me, that's a lie.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, if it is about the cost of lives, we have one member here who stated that these 270 people are more important than several million others who have died in slower, more painful circumstances, many of whom were tortured first.

No, I didn't say that. I simply refused to reply to the "But they released Nazi war criminals for health reasons, so why not this guy?" so-called "argument".

The reason, of course, is that just because they were wrong to release the Nazi war criminals doesn't make it OK to release this guy. One might as well argue that killing innocent people is fine because it often occurred in the past.

This is just another attempt to paint those who are outraged at the release of this mass murderer as morally deficient.

 

[chillzero]

No, I didn't say that. I simply refused to reply to the "But they released Nazi war criminals for health reasons, so why not this guy?" so-called "argument".

I didn't say you did.

This is just another attempt to paint those who are outraged at the release of this mass murderer as morally deficient.

No ... just an observation, based on:

Personally, I find it hard to be outraged over something that happened before my parents were born. I do think the Nazi scum should have died in prison though.

It's simply my interpretation, but the comment that they should not have been released comes across as an added throwaway comment, and the lack of interest in the lives of all those who died - just because they died so long ago, seems quite apparent to me. Personally I find myself outraged at such disgraceful deaths of anybody, regardless of when it happened.

 

[Skeptic]

Sorry about the misunderstanding. But I don't think dtugg means it that way. He does think they should have died in prison.

He simply is not outraged at an event that happened 60 years ago because if we'd start with that, we'd all be constantly outraged.

Rage is something that one usually feels for a limited time, when an event is fresh, like in the case of the release of this mass murderer.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm still not totally understanding the exhortations to ignore the possibility that this man may well not be a mass murderer at all.

We could have an abstract discussion about whether Scots law is right when it takes no account of severity of offence when considering compassionate release. To some extent we've been having that discussion. It hinges partly on the practical difficulties of maintaining someone requiring hospice care within the prison system, and partly on whether we as a society wish to pursue what may be seen as vengeful cruelty rather than just pubishment.

My own view is that such cases arise quite rarely, as most criminals have served their sentences before they reach old age, and progressive, fatal disease is relatively unusual in middle age. Accordingly, there seems no justification to invest the sums of money that would be necessary to establish prison hospices, and every reason to argue that by the time a convict has reached the later stages of terminal illness, there is little to be gained by keeping him in prison.

However, this thread wasn't started as an abstract discussion, it was started in response to the specific case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. One main thrust of the thread has been that he, specifically, should have been denied compassionate release because of the specific circumstances of his case. As this is the scope of the discussion, then other specific circumstances of the case inevitably also become relevant.

Most of the posters originally calling for denial of compassionate release were probably quite unaware that the man might be innocent. And not "might be innocent" in some abstract, we-can't-be-certain-of-anything sense, or in the sense that a few kooks and weirdos are promoting an improbable CT about the issue, but "might be innocent" because the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said so, after spending three years investigating the case, including interviewing many witnesses, and producing an 800-page report with 13 volumes of appendices.

The Commission is of the view, based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

In other words, he might be innocent. Really, realistically, in the light of the evidence and in the view of a bunch of official legal people.

Knowing this, on what grounds would you say, "I don't care, I want him to die in jail 5000 miles from his home and family anyway"?

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

I'm still not totally understanding the exhortations to ignore the possibility that this man may well not be a mass murderer at all.

...snip...

However, this thread wasn't started as an abstract discussion, it was started in response to the specific case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. One main thrust of the thread has been that he, specifically, should have been denied compassionate release because of the specific circumstances of his case. ...snip...

Although you can word it as such that does not really reflect the arguments in this thread against his compassionate release, a better wording would be "denied compassionate release because of the severity of his crime"

As this is the scope of the discussion, then other specific circumstances of the case inevitably also become relevant.

But that is not the scope of the discussion, whether his conviction was safe or unsafe has nothing to do with the argument that the severity of a crime should be taken into consideration when deciding if someone should be eligible for compassionate release.

Most of the posters originally calling for denial of compassionate release were probably quite unaware that the man might be innocent.

Since all people convicted of a crime may be innocent I really doubt that.

And not "might be innocent" in some abstract, we-can't-be-certain-of-anything sense, or in the sense that a few kooks and weirdos are promoting an improbable CT about the issue, but "might be innocent" because the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said so, after spending three years investigating the case, including interviewing many witnesses, and producing an 800-page report with 13 volumes of appendices.

But that had nothing to do with his release, the Minister was very clear about that.

In other words, he might be innocent. Really, realistically, in the light of the evidence and in the view of a bunch of official legal people.

Knowing this, on what grounds would you say, "I don't care, I want him to die in jail 5000 miles from his home and family anyway"?

Rolfe.

Because they are arguing that the severity of the crime should be part of the criteria used to determine whether someone is released on compassionate grounds or not and they consider someone deliberately killing hundreds of innocent people in a planned act of terrorism is of sufficient severity that the person should not be granted compassionate release.