Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a former head of security at Libyan Arab Airlines is serving a life sentence in Scotland for the murder of 270 people when Pan Am flight 103 exploded just before Christmas 1988 and fell as a fire ball on the small Scottish town of Lockerbie. He has always claimed to be innocent.

 al-Megrahi now has terminal prostate cancer.  He is not expected to live for more than six months and there are indications that the Scottish Government are about to allow him to be repatriated to Libya on compassionate grounds,

That has provoked a division between USA and Scotland as the US government and relatives of the American victims are insistent that he should be left to die in custody, while some of the Scottish relatives agree with the proposal to send him home on compassionate grounds.

The case has always been complicated as many thought that the bombing was a retaliation for the USS VIncennes*  shooting down an Iranian airbus killing 290 people a few months earlier, and that the culprits were more likely to be Iranian. The Scottish relatives are doubtful if Megrahi is the right guy.

Regards,,

Tom Berney

///// Neither.  It should be based on the law. /////

Agreed.   What you said.

>> Neither.  It should be based on the law. <<

I'm afraid that doesn't take us anywhere. Most countries' laws allow flexibility on life sentences ...

>> but in the United States it generally means the person given that sentence will remain in prison custody for as long as he or she is alive <<

I note the "generally" in the above. So aren't you accepting there is similar flexibilty in USA?    That is confirmed by wikpedia ....

"There are many states in the United States where a convict can be released on parole after a decade or more has passed. For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an "indeterminate life sentence'", while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence".^[29] Even when a sentence specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials may have the power to grant amnesty or reprieves, or commute a sentence to time served.

>>  Personally, I don't feel the need to give compassion to terrorists and mass murderers.  <<

That seems to be the general view coming from USA and, of course, it would be consistent with your having a death penalty there.  I suppose it raises the question of why we imprison people - punishment, prevention or rehabilitation? Does terminal illness never constitute grounds for commutation in USA? 

Regards,,

Tom Berney

>> What benefit would there be to commuting his sentence in that way?  Why should he be given that privilege?  What has he done to deserve it? <<

That takes us back to the thread title!  <s>

It depends on how you want to see your society.  Are we primarily vengeful or compassionate?  The man is dying. Do we want to insist on the last drop of blood  or should we never forget our bond of humanity even with our prisoners?  It would be some comfort to his family to have him home for his last days. It is highly unlikely that he will pose a risk to anyone and I think societies benefit more from acts of kindness than from cruelty.

I think it was Churchill who said  "The degree of civilisation of a society is judged not by how well it treats its best, but by how well  it treats its worst."

There is the added background point here that Megrahi's case has had a high level of exposure in Scotland over the years and the main representative group of the relatives believe he is a scapegoat. I'll expand on that if required - though the fact is, of course, that at present pending his new appeal he remains convicted as guilty and he is unlikely to live long enough to see the end of the appeal.  Some of the evidence was distinctly dodgy though.

Regards,,

Tom Berney

The case has always been complicated as many thought that the bombing was a retaliation for the USS VIncennes*  shooting down an Iranian airbus killing 290 people a few months earlier, and that the culprits were more likely to be Iranian. The Scottish relatives are doubtful if Megrahi is the right guy.

So what do you think?  Should the decision on where al-Megrahi will spend his last few months be based on compassion or vengeance? 

You seem to be conflicted in you question......do you believe is was unjustly convicted by a European court? and therefore his illness is the excuse to set him free?

You are correct most Americans do not believe mass murderers should be granted compassionate release.  Its not compassion vs vengeance as you put it.   but compassion vs justice  we are talking about a mass murderer not someone convicted of a crime committed in the heat of passion.

>> You seem to be conflicted in you question......do you believe is was unjustly convicted by a European court?  <<

It was a peculiar trial based on compromises between Scotland, USA, and Libya. It was conducted by three Scottish judges (no jury) under Scottish Law, but in a special court constructed in the Netherlands!    Much of the evidence was taken in camera for "security reasons".  A main point was identification by a shop-keeper who claimed he could identify Megrahi from the one occasion he had seen him buying a suitcase in his shop a few years previously.  The shopkeeper has since said that he had been paid ($2.7m) to say that by the CIA.  Was he lying in court, or lying now?  The CIA denies it. Who knows?

The Scottish relatives have been pressing for years for a public enquiry as they want to be convinced about who did it. 

>  Its not compassion vs vengeance as you put it.   but compassion vs justice <<

I think compassion is an integral part of justice. Which is why I oppose torture and the death penalty etc.

Regards,,

Tom Berney