INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
-
- Posts: 375
- Joined: August 3rd, 2007, 10:39 pm
Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
Well, what do people think of the currently popular trend amongst our politicians (north and south of the border) for releasing notorious convicted prisoners on compassionate grounds, when they are ill? My personal view is that Ronnie Biggs should have been let out, but Al-Megrahi not. My main reason would be the scale of the respective crimes and the unresolved nature of the Lockerbie case. The appeals process would have been the right way to close off any case against Al-Megrahi.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
Was it not the case that he was not expected to live long enough to see the result of any appeal?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
As I understand it, it was confirmed by several doctors/oncologists that Megrahi was likely to only live another three months.
There are some interesting blogs on this:
The Answer's 42: Mr MacAskill & Mr Mueller
Heresy Corner: Releasing Megrahi
Jonathan Mitchell QC >> Megrahi’s release: Kenny MacAskill was right
Skepchick » AI: We Sentence You to Life in Prison, Unless . . .
There are some interesting blogs on this:
The Answer's 42: Mr MacAskill & Mr Mueller
Heresy Corner: Releasing Megrahi
Jonathan Mitchell QC >> Megrahi’s release: Kenny MacAskill was right
Skepchick » AI: We Sentence You to Life in Prison, Unless . . .
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
Thanks for the links, Alan.
I think it was absolutly the right thing to do; to release Megrahi and allow him to die at home.
I was under the impression that the role of imprisoning people in Scotland was a) to protect the public b) to rehabilitate/reform offenders.
Keeping Megrahi in prison when he was no longer a risk and clearly not going to be amenable to any kind of rehabilitation due to his predicted short life span, would be an act of revenge.
There is no place in civilised society for revenge.
I think it was absolutly the right thing to do; to release Megrahi and allow him to die at home.
I was under the impression that the role of imprisoning people in Scotland was a) to protect the public b) to rehabilitate/reform offenders.
Keeping Megrahi in prison when he was no longer a risk and clearly not going to be amenable to any kind of rehabilitation due to his predicted short life span, would be an act of revenge.
There is no place in civilised society for revenge.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
If I were a relative of a victim, I think I would want him to die as uncomfortably as possible. Fortunately for humanity, victims or their families are rarely allowed to decide the punishment. In this case, there are a number of issues which I think are very relevant.
There is doubt about the conviction. I don't know the facts, but if some victims' support groups think there is doubt, then I'm inclined to believe them, as they have an incentive to think otherwise. Sadly because of his short life expectancy we are unlikely to find out the truth. I am also inclined to think that he did not act alone. We may never know.
I agree that compassion is appropriate in most cases, but if I were convinced of his guilt, I'd be less inclined to release him.
Getreal: I agree that revenge is not a good basis for justice, but maybe one could use the word atonement? If imprisonment was merely to protect the public and rehabilitate the prisoner, there would be no justification in imprisoning, say, Bernie Madoff. Would you release him too?
I am disappointed by the reaction of opposition SMP's, who seem out to pander to a dangerously vindictive element for party political advantage. The horse has bolted, and can't be put back in the stable. I think the Scottish Justice Minister gave a good account of his reasoning, and reached a justifiable conclusion. I don't know quite why he visited the prisoner, though....
I also think America have not come out of this well, though I imagine all the comments were intended for domestic consumption. It does not sit well with their determination to use their own laws without accepting the judgments of others, to try the 4 bankers whose 'crime' was not prosecuted in England, their treatment of the Asperger's hacker, and their deaf ears to foreign appeals for clemency for their own death row prisoners.
I am also slightly puzzled about one thing. Those who were waving flags in Tripoli: were they applauding the bombing? Maybe some were, but isn't it also likely that some were convinced of his innocence, not matter that they are likely to be biased? Could not the waving of the Saltire be an acknowledgment of gratitude to Scotland, not two fingers?
I also think there may be a greater good which comes out of this. I am not convinced that Libyans with think Scotland a softer touch because of their actions. As Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have met him and applauded his abandonment of nuclear and chemical weapons (albeit because of his fear of fundamental Islamic opposition in Libya) I wonder if compassion is not the best path to follow to keep Libya more friendly towards the West in a dangerous world.
Finally, if the US are going to alter their attitude towards the UK because of this judgment it doesn't say much for the "special relationship." It's time for them to accept that we, their kid brother, hay have done something they don't agree with, but to support us anyway.
There is doubt about the conviction. I don't know the facts, but if some victims' support groups think there is doubt, then I'm inclined to believe them, as they have an incentive to think otherwise. Sadly because of his short life expectancy we are unlikely to find out the truth. I am also inclined to think that he did not act alone. We may never know.
I agree that compassion is appropriate in most cases, but if I were convinced of his guilt, I'd be less inclined to release him.
Getreal: I agree that revenge is not a good basis for justice, but maybe one could use the word atonement? If imprisonment was merely to protect the public and rehabilitate the prisoner, there would be no justification in imprisoning, say, Bernie Madoff. Would you release him too?
I am disappointed by the reaction of opposition SMP's, who seem out to pander to a dangerously vindictive element for party political advantage. The horse has bolted, and can't be put back in the stable. I think the Scottish Justice Minister gave a good account of his reasoning, and reached a justifiable conclusion. I don't know quite why he visited the prisoner, though....
I also think America have not come out of this well, though I imagine all the comments were intended for domestic consumption. It does not sit well with their determination to use their own laws without accepting the judgments of others, to try the 4 bankers whose 'crime' was not prosecuted in England, their treatment of the Asperger's hacker, and their deaf ears to foreign appeals for clemency for their own death row prisoners.
I am also slightly puzzled about one thing. Those who were waving flags in Tripoli: were they applauding the bombing? Maybe some were, but isn't it also likely that some were convinced of his innocence, not matter that they are likely to be biased? Could not the waving of the Saltire be an acknowledgment of gratitude to Scotland, not two fingers?
I also think there may be a greater good which comes out of this. I am not convinced that Libyans with think Scotland a softer touch because of their actions. As Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have met him and applauded his abandonment of nuclear and chemical weapons (albeit because of his fear of fundamental Islamic opposition in Libya) I wonder if compassion is not the best path to follow to keep Libya more friendly towards the West in a dangerous world.
Finally, if the US are going to alter their attitude towards the UK because of this judgment it doesn't say much for the "special relationship." It's time for them to accept that we, their kid brother, hay have done something they don't agree with, but to support us anyway.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
I have mixed feelings about it. To begin with, everyone dies of something in prison if they are there for life. He is getting a hero's welcome in Libya, is that good for terrorism? Perhaps the release was political, the west would certainly like more of that Libyan oil. So is his release good or bad for society?
Libya has a poor civil rights record but their economy is growing. Libya has denounced terrorism and paid claims for terrorist activities to the US. In January, the US fully normalized relations with Libya and exchanged ambassadors.
Libya has a poor civil rights record but their economy is growing. Libya has denounced terrorism and paid claims for terrorist activities to the US. In January, the US fully normalized relations with Libya and exchanged ambassadors.
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
If someone is imprisoned for life the State must also take responsibility (on compassion grounds) for health care and funeral. No revenge here, just assumption of responsibility.
As for dealing with Mr. Gaddafi's Lybia let me just say that one of his sons was imprisoned in Switzerland two years ago, having been accused by his own maid of mistreatment; the event was verified by police. Custody only lasted 2 days but the Lybian government blocked two Swiss visitors in their Country in revenge...and they still are there.
Gaddafi claimed apologies from the Swiss government for having dared to imprison his son; it was last week that a senior member of the Swiss government went there to "express the Gov.'s apology for the circumstance" and we are now waiting for the two Swiss to be allowed to leave Lybia.
Of course we had huge popular indignation for this act of "humiliation" suffered by Switzerland.
As for dealing with Mr. Gaddafi's Lybia let me just say that one of his sons was imprisoned in Switzerland two years ago, having been accused by his own maid of mistreatment; the event was verified by police. Custody only lasted 2 days but the Lybian government blocked two Swiss visitors in their Country in revenge...and they still are there.
Gaddafi claimed apologies from the Swiss government for having dared to imprison his son; it was last week that a senior member of the Swiss government went there to "express the Gov.'s apology for the circumstance" and we are now waiting for the two Swiss to be allowed to leave Lybia.
Of course we had huge popular indignation for this act of "humiliation" suffered by Switzerland.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
Nick, what else according to you is the purpose of imprisonment, then?Nick wrote:If imprisonment was merely to protect the public and rehabilitate the prisoner,
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
Nick said
In my ignorance I had to google Bernie Madoff. I'm not clear what you are getting at. Do you mean that he cannot be rehabilitated, or made to understand why what he did was so wrong?
When I re-read this post it makes me sound rediculouly naiive. Perhaps I am
Yes, of course you are right. Atonement is very important.Getreal: I agree that revenge is not a good basis for justice, but maybe one could use the word atonement? If imprisonment was merely to protect the public and rehabilitate the prisoner, there would be no justification in imprisoning, say, Bernie Madoff. Would you release him too?
In my ignorance I had to google Bernie Madoff. I'm not clear what you are getting at. Do you mean that he cannot be rehabilitated, or made to understand why what he did was so wrong?
When I re-read this post it makes me sound rediculouly naiive. Perhaps I am
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
To act as a deterrent is the most obvious. Or did you include that in protecting the public? There is also a case for depriving people of their liberty if they have done wrong, but that's much more difficult to measure and evaluate.Nirvanam wrote:Nick, what else according to you is the purpose of imprisonment, then?Nick wrote:If imprisonment was merely to protect the public and rehabilitate the prisoner,
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
My take on this situation is severalfold: Surely there must be other prisoners who are suffering from a life-threatening illness; why is one person released and not another? Political reasons-most likely. I don't believe for one second that the act of releasing Megrahi was purely on compassionate grounds.
There is a common misperception that when one is found guilty that it must be 100%. Not true. The term 'beyond a reasonable doubt' shows that there can still be doubt-just not less than reasonable. Of course, that leads us to the question of what is 'reasonable' but it is beyond this discussion. My point is that Megrahi was convicted so there must have been more than a reasonable doubt of his guilt. He begins serving his sentence. He appeals the conviction as almost 100% of criminals do. He gets sick. Suddenly, we must feel compassion for him because the doctor says he's got three months to live? What about the family members of the Lockerbie disaster? Is it more compassionate to let sick convicted criminals out or be compassionate toward the suffering of the remaining family members? Are we not saying to the remaining families that the life of their loved one is less important if we let him out?
Also, I understand doctors tell many people every day that they have a few months to live and yet said person goes on to live for years. Doctors are not infallible; in fact, often they are just plain wrong.
Personally, I think prison is society's way of punishing those who have been convicted. I would like to believe that prison actually rehabilitates people but I suspect that jail just creates 'better' criminals.
There is a common misperception that when one is found guilty that it must be 100%. Not true. The term 'beyond a reasonable doubt' shows that there can still be doubt-just not less than reasonable. Of course, that leads us to the question of what is 'reasonable' but it is beyond this discussion. My point is that Megrahi was convicted so there must have been more than a reasonable doubt of his guilt. He begins serving his sentence. He appeals the conviction as almost 100% of criminals do. He gets sick. Suddenly, we must feel compassion for him because the doctor says he's got three months to live? What about the family members of the Lockerbie disaster? Is it more compassionate to let sick convicted criminals out or be compassionate toward the suffering of the remaining family members? Are we not saying to the remaining families that the life of their loved one is less important if we let him out?
Also, I understand doctors tell many people every day that they have a few months to live and yet said person goes on to live for years. Doctors are not infallible; in fact, often they are just plain wrong.
Personally, I think prison is society's way of punishing those who have been convicted. I would like to believe that prison actually rehabilitates people but I suspect that jail just creates 'better' criminals.
Transformative fire...
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
I am curious why you think Libyans won't think of Scotland as softer. As far as I know, Libya is a devoutly Islamic country which includes sharia as the legal code and rigidly follows the hadith. There are followers of Islam who consider non-Muslims to be infidels and happily declare open season on them. For some people, compassion is seen as a weakness to be taken advantage of; these are not the kind of people you want to invite over to reveal your soft side. Have you ever read R.A. Salvatore's: Homeland?Nick wrote: I also think there may be a greater good which comes out of this. I am not convinced that Libyans with think Scotland a softer touch because of their actions. As Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have met him and applauded his abandonment of nuclear and chemical weapons (albeit because of his fear of fundamental Islamic opposition in Libya) I wonder if compassion is not the best path to follow to keep Libya more friendly towards the West in a dangerous world.
Finally, if the US are going to alter their attitude towards the UK because of this judgment it doesn't say much for the "special relationship." It's time for them to accept that we, their kid brother, hay have done something they don't agree with, but to support us anyway.
The altering of attitudes by the US is merely a political move and I don't think the US generally thinks of itself as really 'supporting' anyone else in the sense of family (ie. kid brother). Personally, I think the US thinks of itself as an all-important, omnipotent deity requiring daily supplication. Any decisions made without its approval (ie. releasing Megrahi) are subject to instant chastisement. It would be nice if the US would accept and support though.
Transformative fire...
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
I haven't read R.A. Salvatore's: Homeland. I had a look at Amazon, but it's out of print. What's his central point?mmitchc633 wrote: I am curious why you think Libyans won't think of Scotland as softer. As far as I know, Libya is a devoutly Islamic country which includes sharia as the legal code and rigidly follows the hadith. There are followers of Islam who consider non-Muslims to be infidels and happily declare open season on them. For some people, compassion is seen as a weakness to be taken advantage of; these are not the kind of people you want to invite over to reveal your soft side. Have you ever read R.A. Salvatore's: Homeland?
My mind is open on the feelings of Libyans, but given Gaddaffi's actions I'd say that Libya is muslim, not Islamic. Ie Gaddaffi has no intention of handing overall power to Islamic leaders as in Iran. Certainly there are muslims who want war with the infidel, but there are also muslims who don't.
I don't think Scotland features much on Libya's radar. Of the 2 options, I think they are more likely to react adversely if Magrahi had died in prison, rather than having been released. I don't see his release as appeasement, but as a sign of confidence and maturity. It would definitely not be in Gaddaffi's or Libya's interests to react against Scotland now.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
I am sorry I didn't understand it well enough. Please elaborate, or let me put the question this way - What is the purpose of imprisoning a "supposed" criminal?Nick wrote:To act as a deterrent is the most obvious. Or did you include that in protecting the public? There is also a case for depriving people of their liberty if they have done wrong, but that's much more difficult to measure and evaluate.Nirvanam wrote:Nick, what else according to you is the purpose of imprisonment, then?Nick wrote:If imprisonment was merely to protect the public and rehabilitate the prisoner,
Also, in a later post you mention that Gaddafi is Muslim not Islamic...didn't quite get that. Ignoring specifics of Gadaffi, aren't people who follow Islam called Muslims? I mean I didn't quite understand your argument there...can you please explain a little more.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
Homeland uses the fantasy realm to point a finger at the madness of monotheistic religions with their obsessions and delusional thinking. The main character of the book, Drizzt, is forced into exile because of his blasphemous ways. I can really relate to Drizzt .Nick wrote:
I haven't read R.A. Salvatore's: Homeland. I had a look at Amazon, but it's out of print. What's his central point?
My mind is open on the feelings of Libyans, but given Gaddaffi's actions I'd say that Libya is muslim, not Islamic. Ie Gaddaffi has no intention of handing overall power to Islamic leaders as in Iran. Certainly there are muslims who want war with the infidel, but there are also muslims who don't.
I don't think Scotland features much on Libya's radar. Of the 2 options, I think they are more likely to react adversely if Magrahi had died in prison, rather than having been released. I don't see his release as appeasement, but as a sign of confidence and maturity. It would definitely not be in Gaddaffi's or Libya's interests to react against Scotland now.
My mind is open to people who are open-minded; I have typically found that any followers of monotheism are not when it comes right down to it. I think Gaddafi is devoutly Muslim; he was the one who brought back sharia law. (see (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/ShariaLaw.aspx) He won't hand over all power but I believe that is due to his personal strivings for that same power not because he is a moderate. I wish I could share your opinion that Megrahi's release was anything more than a political move with ties to big business. Would it be terribly cynical of me to say that I also think it is convenient that the majority of victims of the Lockerbie disaster were American so that decisions made by Scottish politicians won't really effect their chances of re-election?
Transformative fire...
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
mmmmitch says:
Many terminally ill prisoners are released early.
It's the compassionate thing to do.
I don't know how the penal system works where you are, but here "life" does not mean "till you die".Surely there must be other prisoners who are suffering from a life-threatening illness; why is one person released a
Many terminally ill prisoners are released early.
It's the compassionate thing to do.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
Really? So that's how one goes about getting early release...just get in good with the prison doctors...kidding.getreal wrote: I don't know how the penal system works where you are, but here "life" does not mean "till you die".
Many terminally ill prisoners are released early.
It's the compassionate thing to do.
There is what's called medical parole but it is not for those convicted of violent crimes; isn't bombing airplanes an act of violence?
I can see that receiving adequate medical attention and spending time with family would be the compassionate thing to do but I don't think it should apply to just anyone. If Dennis Nilson or Rosemary West were to become terminally ill, I don't think they should be released. Does this make me less than compassionate? Maybe. Perhaps all my compassion quota is filled.
Of course, I could see the US taking advantage of that policy since their prison populations continue to grow exponentially. I'm sorry, I have a terribly dark sense of humor.
Transformative fire...
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
I think some people would have been happy for compassionate release until the hero's welcome. We should not, however, confuse the two; the release was a good thing, the response in Libya was not. What a way to receive a sick man!
The purpose of imprisonment is to punish by removing liberty. Further punishment, in the form of inhumane treatment, is illegal and wrong.
I think I would rather spend my last days being cared for by the NHS than by the Libyan medical system, but that's neither here nor there.
The purpose of imprisonment is to punish by removing liberty. Further punishment, in the form of inhumane treatment, is illegal and wrong.
I think I would rather spend my last days being cared for by the NHS than by the Libyan medical system, but that's neither here nor there.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
I think some people would have been happy for compassionate release until the hero's welcome. We should not, however, confuse the two; the release was a good thing, the response in Libya was not. What a way to receive a sick man!
The purpose of imprisonment is to punish by removing liberty. Further punishment, in the form of inhumane treatment, is illegal and wrong.
I think I would rather spend my last days being cared for by the NHS than by the Libyan medical system, but that's neither here nor there.
As for the punishment/grounds for compassionate release depending on the severity of the crime, I don't see the logic. Showing compassion is about the compassionate, not about the recipient of the compassion.
The purpose of imprisonment is to punish by removing liberty. Further punishment, in the form of inhumane treatment, is illegal and wrong.
I think I would rather spend my last days being cared for by the NHS than by the Libyan medical system, but that's neither here nor there.
As for the punishment/grounds for compassionate release depending on the severity of the crime, I don't see the logic. Showing compassion is about the compassionate, not about the recipient of the compassion.
Re: Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion
I couldn't agree more, NinnyAs for the punishment/grounds for compassionate release depending on the severity of the crime, I don't see the logic. Showing compassion is about the compassionate, not about the recipient of the compassion.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.