So the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people has been released on compassionate grounds due to him dying of prostate cancer
( Read more... )
I think the conviction is entirely unsafe and am entirely unconvinced of either his guilt or innocence - and therefore believe in extending the benefit of the doubt.
I generally think it's a bad idea to believe the courts all the time without at least some research, especially in cases with heavy political overtones such as this. They're composed of people, people are fallible, they will make mistakes - it's the attitude of assuming the court must be right that leaves miscarriages unchallenged for too long.
Frankly, if he's about to die, I've moved around to the opinion that the release on compassionate grounds is quite reasonable. He doesn't have time (or means) to do anything else big and nasty, and it doesn't exactly send out a lenient message to criminals: "commit a terrible crime and we'll lock you up until you're almost dead, then let you out so you can crawl away and die somewhere reasonable."
The stance of everyone who's opposing it seems to be motivated around revenge ('we must maximise the suffering of this guilty person to atone for his crime') rather than justice.
I'm 100% with you on the wish that other juristictions would stop meddling.
Totally agree. It's not like there's a chance he's going to reoffend - the medical evidence given at the hearing by independants suggests he's got days left really. We can hardly bleat on about other nation's treatment of prisoners if we didn't let someone out purely so people could watch him die in prison.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the conviction was unsafe either.
I generally think it's a bad idea to believe the courts all the time without at least some research, especially in cases with heavy political overtones such as this. They're composed of people, people are fallible, they will make mistakes - it's the attitude of assuming the court must be right that leaves miscarriages unchallenged for too long.
Frankly, if he's about to die, I've moved around to the opinion that the release on compassionate grounds is quite reasonable. He doesn't have time (or means) to do anything else big and nasty, and it doesn't exactly send out a lenient message to criminals: "commit a terrible crime and we'll lock you up until you're almost dead, then let you out so you can crawl away and die somewhere reasonable."
The stance of everyone who's opposing it seems to be motivated around revenge ('we must maximise the suffering of this guilty person to atone for his crime') rather than justice.
I'm 100% with you on the wish that other juristictions would stop meddling.
Reply
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the conviction was unsafe either.
Reply
Leave a comment