Should Al-Magrahi have been freed?

[Marcus]

Ali Al-Magrahi, who was convicted of the biggest mass murder in British history in blowing up an airliner over Lockerbie, was recently freed on compassionate grounds (he is dying of cancer and has months, if not weeks, to live) to allow him to retun to Lybia to be with his family. Although this decision is allowed by Scottish law, it is not mandated by it - it was a choice made by the devolved Scottish government.

Do you think the Scottish government made the right decision in freeing him? Although there have been doubts cast on his guilt, for the purposes of the poll please make your decision assuming he's guilty of the crime for which he was convicted.

I'll weigh in with my own opinion in a while. I hope I've managed to phrase this neutrally enough that my answer isn't clear!

ETA: A possibly pertinent fact that I omitted is that al-Magrahi's parents are also unwell, though not terminally so, and their illness means that they would have been unable to travel to Scotland to visit him in prison.

 

[WolfAU]

Depends what you see as the point of prison.
Some argue the point is as a punishment, a place where unpleasant things happen to you if you displease us. If thats the case then no, he shouldn't have as this crime is obviously deserving of the full sentence.

Some argue the point is simply to keep those who are a danger to us (ie risk of reoffending) from being able to do so, if thats the case I doubt he's a huge risk of reoffending.

Also the question of "why'd we let him go?", one could argue it was a bleeding heart move of "OMG CANCER!!!" and that pulls at our heart strings, some would argue it was internal politics (to try to make the person passing the law seem compassionate) or external politics (a gesture of goodwill to those who want to blow the shit out of us).

for the purposes of the poll please make your decision assuming he's guilty of the crime for which he was convicted.

Erm... why? If theres a strong possibility that he didn't do it, that would effect my answer.

Anyway, I see it as somewhat hypocritical that they let someone dying out of prison, yet people die in prison frequently, or get the death penalty, or are locked up for life, but at the same time I am not one of those psycho's crying for vengeance. My only interest is in preventing further attacks, I really have no desire to see him punished either way.

 

[scalyblue]

IIRC he was convicted under Scottish law, thus the same Scottish law regarding sick inmates applies to him. If the law that frees inmates that are terminally ill doesn't apply to this one prisoner, then neither does the law that was used to convict him, anything else would be a double standard. You can't pick and mix which of a country's laws you would prefer to apply and which ones you don't, it's an all or nothing game. If they didn't want him to have a chance of being released early, they should have convicted him under the purview of a country that doesn't have a law like that.

These idiots can go "BAWWWW he killed so many people" all they want, holding him in prison would make Scotland worse than a terrorist regime because they're supposed to be above that sort of thing.

 

[WolfAU]

IIRC he was convicted under Scottish law, thus the same Scottish law regarding sick inmates applies to him. If the law that frees inmates that are terminally ill doesn't apply to this one prisoner, then neither does the law that was used to convict him, anything else would be a double standard. You can't pick and mix which of a country's laws you would prefer to apply and which ones you don't, it's an all or nothing game. If they didn't want him to have a chance of being released early, they should have convicted him under the purview of a country that doesn't have a law like that.

These idiots can go "BAWWWW he killed so many people" all they want, holding him in prison would make Scotland worse than a terrorist regime because they're supposed to be above that sort of thing.

Thats all well and good, but SHOULD they have released him? given they are not obligated to under law. And how the hell do you get from "not letting him go free just because he's dying" to comparing that to a group that intentionally and arbitrarily targets large groups of civilians for no other reason than to produce a body count...

 

[Marcus]

for the purposes of the poll please make your decision assuming he's guilty of the crime for which he was convicted.

Erm... why? If theres a strong possibility that he didn't do it, that would effect my answer.

Because I want to try to probe people's ideas about what constitutes justice, and it makes it a starker choice if we pretend his guilt is beyond question. Or, to put it another way, if he didn't actually do it, there's no dilemma at all, so let's say he did and try to figure out the reasoning based on that assumption, as it makes for a more interesting conversation.

 

[Marcus]

IIRC he was convicted under Scottish law, thus the same Scottish law regarding sick inmates applies to him. If the law that frees inmates that are terminally ill doesn't apply to this one prisoner, then neither does the law that was used to convict him, anything else would be a double standard.

I tried to make it clear in the OP without being too verbose, but I may not have been sufficiently succinct. The law in Scotland allows prisoners to be freed on compassionate grounds if they have a terminal prognosis with less than three months to live. It does not require that they be freed, and the decision rests with the Justice Minister in each individual case. What this means is that, whilst freeing him was not some sort of special exception made for this one case, neither would keeping him in jail have been such an exception. There were a number of factors potentially affecting the Minister's choice, but I don't want to list them for fear of giving away my position through the language I use to lay them out.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Because I want to try to probe people's ideas about what constitutes justice, and it makes it a starker choice if we pretend his guilt is beyond question. Or, to put it another way, if he didn't actually do it, there's no dilemma at all, so let's say he did and try to figure out the reasoning based on that assumption, as it makes for a more interesting conversation.

Except that maybe the fact that he might have won on appeal was a factor in the decision? Imagine the bad PR if he won on appeal, and then died before he could make it home.

 

[Marcus]

Except that maybe the fact that he might have won on appeal was a factor in the decision? Imagine the bad PR if he won on appeal, and then died before he could make it home.

He had withdrawn his appeal (on pragmatic grounds, as the Prisoner Transfer Agreement he was also asking for requires the absence of active appeals), and would likely have been dead before any renewed appeal hit the courts. In terms of my own motivation for asking the question, treat it as a hypothetical if you like. I'm just more interested in finding out what people think would be the relative merits in the more tendentious case of someone whose guilt is clear.

 

[WolfAU]

Because I want to try to probe people's ideas about what constitutes justice, and it makes it a starker choice if we pretend his guilt is beyond question. Or, to put it another way, if he didn't actually do it, there's no dilemma at all, so let's say he did and try to figure out the reasoning based on that assumption, as it makes for a more interesting conversation.

Ok, well my instinct is to factor in an estimated probability of guilt, but for arguments sake, if he's definately guilty, and we ignore other factors like remorse and political ideology, then the only matter of interest to me is in the time between now and his death, is he likely to commit considerable harm (ie perform a terrorist act, plan an act or inspire one), that would not have been committed otherwise, in which case I would vote that is not likely to be the case.

The other side of the coin from "what is risked" is "what is gained", and I have no idea how I or another would go about evaluating the importance of such an act to an individual, a family or a society.

Though I don't presume to speak for everyone or from any kind of relatively objective standpoint, but I would probably support the action. I don't believe that mass murderers are this less than human entity that deserves nothing but pain and misery for the rest of their life, though I don't really feel as passionate about defending their rights as I would someone else. I do not revel in his pain and am disgusted by anyone who does.

 

[Ciraric]

I voted no, because murderers shouldn't be available for compassionate leave of prison.

I'm from Scotland and this is just one more reason not to vote SNP (although I'm a Tory so that was going to be unlikely).

 

[WolfAU]

I voted no, because murderers shouldn't be available for compassionate leave of prison.
I'm from Scotland and this is just one more reason not to vote SNP (although I'm a Tory so that was going to be unlikely).

Well for starters, obviously the person who made the law that this was an option thought otherwise. Secondly its a slippery slope to dehumanise murderers, given that a) we endorse murder on a regular basis (*cough*armedforces*cough*), and b) we all have our limits to how far we'd be pushed before we'd kill, either in self defense, pre-emptive action, or even politcal attacks (ie I would bomb government buildings if the Australian government turned tyrannical). To me people who argue such harsh punishments against crims do so out of fear, and having no desire to understand WHY people do these things, given they don't want to understand, they like to make claims like "they're just evil" which help us sleep at night, but don't help us stem the tide of these types of people being created.

 

[Sloth]

An update:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece



I think offering compassionate leave for a convicted terrorist is silly. Although, I am from the states and we have different laws here.

Lets just hope he doesn't want to go out with a bang. :|

 

[WolfAU]

Lets just hope he doesn't want to go out with a bang.

1. He will undoubtedly be being watched VERY carefully.
2. He's very ill, probably not that able to move about on his own, I doubt he could physically pull it off, and I think people would notice if a man barely able to walk came into a building strapped with explosives.

 

[stratos]

Depends what you see as the point of prison.
Some argue the point is as a punishment, a place where unpleasant things happen to you if you displease us. If thats the case then no, he shouldn't have as this crime is obviously deserving of the full sentence.

Some argue the point is simply to keep those who are a danger to us (ie risk of reoffending) from being able to do so, if thats the case I doubt he's a huge risk of reoffending.

QFT.

And I seem to fall into the second category. I see no issue with letting that man see his family and friends.

 

[Juuso]

If they weren't gonna let him out they should have brought his family to him, it'd be horrible to die alone.

But as I said in another thread, I don't think he did it or if he did he did something tiny like getting the suitcase or driving them there or something.

 

[Ciraric]

I think offering compassionate leave for a convicted terrorist is silly. Although, I am from the states and we have different laws here.

Indeed.

I don't disagree with the idea of compassionate release but I think it should be restricted in use for certain crimes.

Crimes such as terrorism and mass homicide.

 

[Marcus]

If they weren't gonna let him out they should have brought his family to him, it'd be horrible to die alone.

Not possible, his parents' own health prevented them from travelling to Scotland.

 

[scalyblue]

I think offering compassionate leave for a convicted terrorist is silly. Although, I am from the states and we have different laws here.

Indeed.

I don't disagree with the idea of compassionate release but I think it should be restricted in use for certain crimes.

Crimes such as terrorism and mass homicide.

Granted, but even were such a law to be passed isn't there some sort of limit on ex post facto that would still have grandfathered this guy in?

 

[Ciraric]

Granted, but even were such a law to be passed isn't there some sort of limit on ex post facto that would still have grandfathered this guy in?

Well yes, of course. My point was that the Justice Minister of Scotland had the final say. It was a subjective call (and depending on who would be Justice Minister different crimes would be treated differently).

If I was the minister I would have let Megrahi go to appeal and let the courts decide.

 

[Sloth]

Lets just hope he doesn't want to go out with a bang.

1. He will undoubtedly be being watched VERY carefully.
2. He's very ill, probably not that able to move about on his own, I doubt he could physically pull it off, and I think people would notice if a man barely able to walk came into a building strapped with explosives.

1. Well, I'd like to know how carefully he is being watched. I think we are just assuming he is going to be watched closely.
2. He can instruct someone else to do it for him. I'm sure a loon like him has a couple of followers. As for him being to frail to make a bomb, don't underestimate the power of pain medication. :lol:

I think offering compassionate leave for a convicted terrorist is silly. Although, I am from the states and we have different laws here.

Indeed.

I don't disagree with the idea of compassionate release but I think it should be restricted in use for certain crimes.

Crimes such as terrorism and mass homicide.

I agree. I'm not against all compassionate releases, just this one.