lockerbie bomber may be freed
By jb78000
@jb78000 (15139)
August 5, 2009 4:53pm CST
here's a tricky one. a libyan man jailed in scotland for the lockerbie bombing could be released, or at least transfered to a libyan prison, on compassionate grounds - he is in the last stages of cancer. this would mean his appeal would be dropped. scotland is under pressure from the us to not release him.
now assuming that he is guilty do you think he should be allowed to die in his own country or not? (it gets too complicated if you also consider the possibility of innocence)
here's a link but there's bound to be articles on this elsewhere too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/05/lockerbie-bombing-megrahi-early-release
2 people like this
4 responses
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
5 Aug 09
The law allows for punishment, and for mercy. However, this was an international crime committed for political reasons. Some might argue that allowing him to return to his homeland to die would be serving not just compassion but also political ends.
The thought of someone convicted of such a heinous crime being returned to his homeland only to be hailed as a hero could bring pain to the relatives of all those innocents who were killed that day.
On the other hand, if you were in prison and ill, would you rather be in a prison in Scotland or in Libya? I can't help but believe the conditions where he is are highly superior to those where he could go. Maybe moving him isn't so compassionate after all.
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15139)
•
5 Aug 09
this is highly political - i mentioned outside pressure from the us, there is also pressure from libya going the other way. what he wants is to die in his own country, dropping his appeal in the process, it would be a compassionate move to let this happen. the questions is whether or not this is just, feel free to comment on the political aspects as well
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
6 Aug 09
For me, the man is dying, let him die in peace. But for the families of the victims, this may not be acceptable. After all, their loved ones that they lost didn't get to choose where they were allowed to die. It's no longer a matter of punishment but more a matter of closure for the victims' families. I wonder what would happen if we were to let them vote.
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
6 Aug 09
You know, it depends on what you think incarceration is for. If it's for protecting society, I'd say the guy is no longer capable of hurting anybody and should be let go. If it is for punishment, well he's dying, so how much more can you punish him? If it's for retribution or to set an example, then maybe the families should have a say. For me personally, I'd go with the first one, but then I haven't lost anybody to a violent crime either, so easy for me to say!
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15139)
•
6 Aug 09
i'd say it was both, i'd also say that this man has been punished and letting him go home to die won't change that. but like you i've never lost anyone close to something like this, i feel that sentencing should be done by people not that emotionally involved. if someone hurt or killed one of my loved ones and i met them i can't say what i would do. i think i'd try to be reasonable in a court situation but again i don't know.
@lampar (7584)
• United States
6 Sep 09
He should be allowed to serve till the end of his sentence in a country where he presumed to have committed this horrendous act of terrorism assuming he was given a fair and speedy trial, and convicted without a single reasonable doubt about his guilt. Nobody can say in certainty he will die in his own country after his release; not even his doctor. A prognosis of having a cancer isn't necessary mean he will die in a short time after he is back in Libya. This decision was make before his second appeal to the conviction reach the appeal court, doing so will prevent the whole truth to the lockerbie bombing from uncovered. 
@x_Jo_x (1040)
•
5 Aug 09
The main reason why we wouldnt want him getting out is out of fear he will comit the crime again. The second reason is that the person should be punnished. I think we should be a bit more kind to him. He did a terrible thing but the guy is about to die! He cant commit the crime again! And he is suffering! So i think he should be allowed to return to his country to die if thats what he wants!
1 person likes this
