If it's purely to stop that person from committing further offences then release here is reasonable enough. Clearly no more danger of direct action exists.
But if you believe that prison also acts to deter others and to show community consensus as to wrongful acts and crimes then the release here doesn't make sense.
Of course, since Libya has been brought back to the world of acceptable states it does seem odd to punish the servant who acted while being friendly to the master -- but that's another issue.
I see prison as being overused and badly structured. But this is one case where I cannot see how it is sensible to release just because of advanced illness. There's no suggestion treatment is limited in prison (that would be a reason for release) and the fact the convict faces death soon, well, sooner or later that's true for everyone.
I think I'd have kept him in.
Lockerbie bomber freed
August 20, 2009
Ben McConville
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
EDINBURGH, Scotland – Scotland freed the terminally ill Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds Thursday, allowing him to go home to Libya to die and rejecting American pleas for justice in the 1988 attack that killed 270 people.
As the White House declared it "deeply regrets" the Scottish decision and U.S. family members of Lockerbie victims expressed outrage, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi left Greenock Prison and flew out of Glasgow Airport on a Libyan Airbus plane.
"I think it's appalling, disgusting and so sickening I can hardly find words to describe it," said Susan Cohen of Cape May Court House, New Jersey, whose 20-year-old daughter, Theodora, died in the attack. "This isn't about compassionate release. This is part of give-Gadhafi-what-he-wants-so-we-can-have-the-oil."
Al-Megrahi, who had served only eight years of his life sentence, was recently given only months to live after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said although al-Megrahi had not shown compassion to his victims – many of whom were American college students flying home to New York for Christmas – MacAskill was motivated by Scottish values to show mercy.
"Some hurts can never heal, some scars can never fade," MacAskill said. "Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive ... However, Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power."
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
8 comments:
What can I say? I agree.
I disagree Morton. First of all the evidence against him is deeply problematic and as you know even a group of the victims' families has been actively working for his release based on their assumption that he was wrongly accused. Even the prosecution in the first place was deeply problematic because there was far too much politics involved to ensure a fair trial. Then of course there is the wider issue of what is essentially a political prosecution. This case was so charged with politics that I look at it very much like a war-crimes trial. Many of people have been brought up on war-crimes but never members of the US military or government. You know what I am getting at here.
Then there is the simple question of the protocol for release on humanitarian grounds within the British legal system and this case was quite clear.
KirbyCairo -- the problematic point is a good one and a reason to release -- I totally agree -- but that's not why he was released. But good point.
Are there really discrete groupings of people, those who believe in prevention and those who believe in deterrence? I believe both are valid reasons for a prison sentence, as is punishment, and denunciation. Considering the Scottish security services felt this guy WAS a risk for release in Scotland I wonder if maybe your assessment of his risk is incorrect. In fact, If he is dying of cancer I wonder if maybe he might be motivated to commit a crime because he cannot be punished further? I realize Libya is not exactly Islamist in nature but a suicide bombing by a terminally ill man seems possible.
The thing that really bothers me, though, is the speech from the Scottish minister talking about "our values" as if he speaks for all Scots. Frankly, it reminds too much of the arrogant "Canadian values" speeches I had to listen to from Chretien and his thousand thieves. Maybe those are HIS values or the values of HIS party, but I wonder if they really reflect the value of the average Scot-on-the-street? I bet most Scots, like I believe most Canadians, find this "compassionate" release to be an outrageous act.
Rat, Fair point. james
Here's a question . . . If in a few years this man is proven innocent of the charges as I believe he will be, will his release then be considered an outrageous act?
I would support having sent him to Libya, but under conditions.
The Libyans are acting stupidly with allowing a huge airport celebration for him arriving. You can't normally have a party on the tarmac, so apart from considerations of Libya being a totalitarian state (which controls almost all political thought), this party would have had to have been organised by the Libyan government.
As I read the story - it expresses the values of the Scottish people, and that one of those values is compassion. According to such values, when a man has a month to live, the time for recriminations is over.
Addressing the values of a people is instructive. Scotland sends a much better message to Libya through compassion than through vengeance.
Post a Comment