lockerbie bomber to be released

[ QUOTE ]
that is disgusting the amount of people he murder and he has to be released

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda ironic I think - him wanting compassion........
 
What surprises me more than anything is Britain going against the wishes of the Americans. I still can't believe he was the sole perpetrator and there maybe goings on that we'll never have in the public domain.
 
Actually I am delighted we are going in the face of the Americans! How dare they! He is in Scottish custody and its their decision. Hilary Clinton has a cheek. The Americans do whatever they like, fine! but the rest of us are suposed to roll over as told. Don't think so. Feel that there is an awful lot more going on than we will ever know about. Some of the victims families aparently feel this guy is actually innocent.He is a scapegoat.They wanted his appeal to go ahead to try and find out more.But at the end of the day, whats wrong with a bit of compassion.He has a family who are innocent.
 
I had no idea there was an doubt as to his guilt - when was that established? After such a lengthy trial I thought there was more than enough evidence to convict. In this particular case I don't think this man should be released on compassionate grounds. He showed none to the people he killed, and didn't think of his family at that time. No doubt he was working in collusion with others, but that doesn't make him any less guilty. I agree with you about the Americans - they are showing such a keen interest in terrorism now, after funding it over here for decades. Funny that... *disclaimer - not all Americans of course, particulary those I am related to*
 
[ QUOTE ]
In this particular case I don't think this man should be released on compassionate grounds. He showed none to the people he killed, and didn't think of his family at that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does denying him release on compassionate grounds on the basis he showed no compassion not make 'us' as bad as him though? I am not convinced that this argument can be right on moral grounds. There may be many reasons and perfectly valid arguments to keep him in jail, not least the fact that he was sentenced to life for multiple murders and should therefore serve out that sentence, but the fact he showed no compassion does not, IMO, mean none should be shown to him. If that is the only argument for keeping a terminally ill person in jail, then I'm afraid I think they should be released.
 
I simply do not think this man is deserving of compassion. I rarely think that of anyone, but in this case I do. This is only relevant because he is being released on compassionate grounds; I do not think he should be released at all.

I think he should be shown compassion in the form of palliative care in his last months, and that is more than any of his victims received.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In this particular case I don't think this man should be released on compassionate grounds. He showed none to the people he killed, and didn't think of his family at that time

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why I think it's ironic that he has made such a request. However, it's what sets us aside from the fanatics, thankfully. And I actually am rather of the opinion that to release him is a positive thing to do.
 
I agree that he should not be released, but I do not think the 'because he showed no compassion' argument is the correct one to use as I think it portrays society in an equally bad light. I think there should be many more compelling reasons to keep someone in jail, and I do not think you can expect people to adhere to a moral code which society is not prepared to apply equally. In this case I think there are plenty of reasons to keep him in jail, thus the 'because he showed no compassion' argument does not need to be used. IMO, for reasons stated above, I think it is a flawed argument anyway, and not a particularly flattering one for society to use.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for keeping him locked up, but I deeply dislike all the talk in the media there has been of not showing him any compassion because he did not show any to his victims. I think it is a retrograde step in any developed civilisation to employ 'eye for an eye' type punishments/arguments. There should be a better reason for keeping someone locked up in this situation than 'you did it so we're going to do it to you'.
 
The thing is, it wasnt as though he woke up one day, and there and then decided to blow up a hundred or so innocent people, and decimate a community in the process.
No, he thought about it for a long time, laid plans, and aimed for absolute maximum destruction and loss of life.
So why SHOULD he be shown any mercy now?
I certainly dont think we should EVER bow to another country's wishes, but I do think that given the terrible nature of his crimes, he shouldn't be allowed release now, ill or not.
When a man/woman can premeditatedly kill so many innocent people, life really ought to mean life. The only way they should leave is in a wooden box.
 
Because it shows we are a decent, humane society who apply the rules we expect others to live by fairly and equally. If there is NO other reason to keep him in jail in Scotland than the fact that 'he showed no compassion and therefore none should be shown to him', to keep him jailed makes us as a society no better than him, hypocritical, and as having very little to separate us from the fanatics who think acts of terrorism are acceptable. Just because he is only one person is irrelevant IMO - if the bomb had only killed one person, he would still be a terrorist, so the numbers involved don't really come into my argument.

What I am saying is not that he should be released, but that if our society chooses to keep him locked up in Scotland only because he showed no compassion so none should be shown to him, then I feel we are no better than he is. You cannot expect people to live by a moral code if you do not live by it yourself as a society.
 
I just cannot accept this argument at all although I appreciate the sentiment. This man had a choice about his actions and the likely consequences. The victims had none.

The other thing I have issue with is that you don't seem to realise these sorts of people don't think like you and I. They ridicule us for our ' compasssion' which they see as weakness. They are not like normal rational right minded people who would appreciate being shown compassion, how can they be ? You have to be sub human to plan and carry out these attacks in the name of god knows what.
 
couldn't have put it any better myself. life should have been life after all he did kill 270 people he should have died in greenock prison after all myra hindley died in prison and she never killed as many people as him. did she deserve to die in prison i think she did but so did he the justice system is a bloody disgrace and has let its own people down
 
I think people have to be deserving of compassion, and IMO, he is not. He has cancer - the only positive thing is that he won't be costing the taxpayer vast sums to keep in prison once he is dead. Has he shown any remorse? Not that I have heard. Having seen what was left of Lockerbie after the plane dug a hole in it I find it hard to care about the man who was so cavalier about other peoples' lives. As a society, we have displayed our humanity and civilisation by not hanging him from a crane, or allowing his cancer to go untreated. We have more than stepped up to the mark; he was clever to choose the UK as his victim and eventual host.
 
Just because someone ridicules you for what you believe to be morally right does not mean they should be shown less compassion/treated differently. Society must take the moral high ground in these cases in order to maintain the degree of civilisation and the moral code we wish others to live by.

There are many compelling reasons to keep him locked up, but him showing no compassion so none should be shown to him is not one of them IMO. If that were the case, it would be morally acceptable to horrifically torture him and leave him to die in extreme pain, or, more pertinently, to deny him appropriate medical care for his terminal cancer.

I do not believe it is the actions of a civilised society to keep someone locked up only because they showed no compassion. I do believe he should be kept locked up, but not for this reason alone.
 
The decision to let him out is what sets Britain apart from other countries. I abhorr what this man and his fellow fanatics did. But I like to think on this occasion we have done what is right.
 
QR: I've just read the BBC news report which quotes the Scottish Justice Secretary. I agree with his sentiments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8197370.stm

I don't 'care' about him, I care about society behaving in a morally acceptable way, and if they have no other grounds to deny his release than compassion, and it is written into the statute book that compassion must be considered, I am glad they were not swayed by pressures from the USA or anywhere else.
 
You beat me to it Sooty - I was about to say that we have already showed him compassion by giving him a trial according to the law of the land in which he perpetrated this atrocity, putting him in a place which is warm and comfortable and where he recieves food, facilities to keep himself clean and comfortable and all necessary medical care. A humane civiliation should do no less but he was tried here, sentenced here and he should serve out his sentence in the way that was decreed.

However - Spotted Cat, I do totally agree that the sole reason for preventing him being released on compassionate grounds cannot reasonably be because he showed no compassion himself. I don't think for one minute that makes us as bad as him, but it does make it a bad decision!
 
[ QUOTE ]
You beat me to it Sooty - I was about to say that we have already showed him compassion by giving him a trial according to the law of the land in which he perpetrated this atrocity, putting him in a place which is warm and comfortable and where he recieves food, facilities to keep himself clean and comfortable and all necessary medical care. A humane civiliation should do no less but he was tried here, sentenced here and he should serve out his sentence in the way that was decreed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree with that - he should not have been released because he had not served out his sentence and no new evidence had been presented to cast doubt over his conviction.
 
I think that seems to be the consensus - certainly as far as the people I've spoken to are concerned. Back to the old "life should mean life" argument. My personal feeling is that backtracking on a sentence makes law enforcement weak.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think that seems to be the consensus - certainly as far as the people I've spoken to are concerned. Back to the old "life should mean life" argument. My personal feeling is that backtracking on a sentence makes law enforcement weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, in this case, it is not backtracking on a sentence as Scottish law provides for this scenario and forces compassionate issues to be considered if the defendant chooses to apply for release on those grounds. It would be backtracking if either no application had been made or no such provision existed, but when in this situation, the Scottish Justice Minister had little choice IMO. It is the law which is the problem, not the application of it.
 
I've not had the chance to read widely on this issue - once returned to his home country will he be at liberty?

My initial thought was dreadfully negative - suicide bomber material with nothing to lose!

Scary, but I am sure there will be something in place to monitor his movements.
 
Okay, that's fair comment Spotted Cat. I'm not up to speed on Scottish Law but I quite accept if that is the situation. I agree that it is the law here which is the issue, not the application. I disgree with the provision in the law, I have to say, but as I'm a southerner I don't have a say in changing it!
 
I just feel for all the families of the victims today. The majority of them are upset about all this, they didn't ask to have their loved ones taken away and now they see the man who killed them going free.
My thoughts are with 270 families today.
I only wish the Minister who released this murderer had these families in his thoughts rather than the one family of a murderer.
Or is there a deeper reason for his release.......?
 
If he had walked around a busy shopping centre with a machine gun and gunned down 270 people, we would not be having this discussion as he would have been locked away for ever. Why does the chosen method of his mass-murder make his crime seem (to some people) to be on the level of a parking violation? Answers on a postcard...
 
I lost my friend and her whole family in the Lockerbie Bombing the crater it left wiped out her house - IMO this man deserves no compassion he should rot and suffer.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I lost my friend and her whole family in the Lockerbie Bombing the crater it left wiped out her house - IMO this man deserves no compassion he should rot and suffer.

[/ QUOTE ]

How awful for you and the wider family and friends.
And how sad that you have to go through the grief and sadness again as well as the anger that no doubt you feel.
It doesn't make any sense to me why 270 families should be upset all over again to show that we are a compassionate nation.
I don't think that's very compassionate.
frown.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top