Lockerbie Bomber released

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have some sympathy for the American commentator (David Frum?) who noted that this release is a setback for those of us who believe the rule of law should be applied to deal with terrorism.

Significant penalties for such acts should be imposed and observed for the full term. Megrahi should not have been released, even for compassionate reasons.

However, the rule of law also demands that the appeal should be held quickly and thoroughly, however embarrassing to vested interests. The original trial had flawed evidence, and the verdict was delivered more on the balance of probability than beyond reasonable doubt. In these cases, appeals should be entertained properly so that if he is innocent, it is clearly proven. Until that time, he is a convicted criminal, and should stay in jail until he dies.

The law should be blind to political machinations too. Compassionate grounds for release should not apply to capital crimes. However, we love our double standards rather too much.

Mind you, I think Ronnie Biggs should have died in prison too, and this fellow recently in the news. I can't imagine how hurt the victims' families would be if the latter chap got his life sentence for mass murder commuted to three years' house arrest.

[Kralizec]

I take it that now he's been released anyway, there's no reason at all to look into what happened precisely before and during the trial

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have some sympathy for the American commentator (David Frum?) who noted that this release is a setback for those of us who believe the rule of law should be applied to deal with terrorism.

Significant penalties for such acts should be imposed and observed for the full term. Megrahi should not have been released, even for compassionate reasons.

However, the rule of law also demands that the appeal should be held quickly and thoroughly, however embarrassing to vested interests. The original trial had flawed evidence, and the verdict was delivered more on the balance of probability than beyond reasonable doubt. In these cases, appeals should be entertained properly so that if he is innocent, it is clearly proven. Until that time, he is a convicted criminal, and should stay in jail until he dies....

I think the problem with the approach of handling it as a legal issue is nicely embodied in this example. It is going to be VERY difficult to get admissable evidence that cannot be made suspect by a good defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt favors the defense -- as it should -- but convictions will be difficult and rare (especially of those engaged in cospiracy to plan/support acts of terror).

[Kralizec]

Banquo, I'm sure you know about the Guildford Four. Some might not...

One of the convicted died a few months before their conviction was squashed, after his request to be released on compassionate grounds was denied. By that time the police, and presumably the prosecution was well aware that most of evidence they had was either tainted or fabricated. To top it, by then the true culprit had already confessed his guilt.
Maybe this MacAskill bloke knows something that we don't.

I have a bachelor in law so I probably should agree with the notion that convicts should be treated as convicts as long as they're not acquitted, but denying compassionate release under such circumstances is absurd (IMO).

[Don Corleone]

This is one of those times I have to resist the rush to judgment and freely admit I don't know enough about the facts of the case to form an opinion on the merits against the convicted and will have to keep quiet on the matter.

However, I will say that if this was done either 1) on humanitarian grounds or 2) to keep an appeal from exposing poor or possibly even unethical case presentation by the prosecutors, the prosecutors or the Scottish officials ought to finish the guy's term for him.

The only possible reason I can see for letting a mass murderer out of jail early is credible evidence of his innocence. Cases like this make it all the harder to sway people away from the death penalty.

[Kralizec]

2) to keep an appeal from exposing poor or possibly even unethical case presentation by the prosecutors, the prosecutors or the Scottish officials ought to finish the guy's term for him.

He's expected to die within 3 months, so this is not very likely.

The only possible reason I can see for letting a mass murderer out of jail early is credible evidence of his innocence.

A subtle point, but I assume you mean if it turns out there was never credible evidence of his guilt in the first place?
I'm not sure I agree.

[econ21]

Cases like this make it all the harder to sway people away from the death penalty.

Reading the article Idaho linked to gave me the opposite conclusion - that cases like this make the death penalty look suspect even for the most heinous crimes (like this) because establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is so hard. Even when a jury does reach such a verdict, the conviction may well later be proven unsound.

The only possible reason I can see for letting a mass murderer out of jail early is credible evidence of his innocence.

On the issue of letting dying people out of jail on compassionate grounds, I confess I had never heard of the idea until it was applied recently to the UK train robber, Ronnie Biggs. I guess this goes to the issue of what is the purpose of punishment. If one takes a purely utilitarian point of view (punishment is to prevent, deterr or rehabilitate), then the case for compassionate release does sound strong. The man is no longer a threat and cannot be rehabilitated, so that leaves only deterrence. But I can't see terrorists, still less a terrorist state, being influenced one way or another by what happens to terminally ill prisoners. However, if one sees punishment as partly retribution, then one would agree with the Don. I used to have a purely utilitarian view of punishment, but this case makes me question that. Some crimes are just too heinous to show compassion. Biggs's release, I could swallow - he was a small time villain - but this crime is about as bad as it gets.

Like almost everyone except the prisoner and the politicians, I would much prefer this to have gone to appeal.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo, I'm sure you know about the Guildford Four. Some might not...

One of the convicted died a few months before their conviction was squashed, after his request to be released on compassionate grounds was denied. By that time the police, and presumably the prosecution was well aware that most of evidence they had was either tainted or fabricated. To top it, by then the true culprit had already confessed his guilt.
Maybe this MacAskill bloke knows something that we don't.

I have a bachelor in law so I probably should agree with the notion that convicts should be treated as convicts as long as they're not acquitted, but denying compassionate release under such circumstances is absurd (IMO).

I accept your point, though my view would be that the appeals process should be much quicker. In terrorism cases, the political considerations often interfere with the judicial timing.

The Guildford Four is a good example: confessions obtained by torture and political opposition to holding an early, comprehensive appeal because of the embarrassment that would ensue. If I recall correctly, there was some pressure to apply the death penalty (there were still a couple of crimes where capital punishment applied in the UK at the time) which of course, would have been as politically expedient as in the Megrahi case.

I don't think denial of compassionate release is absurd at all. As I have noted before, for criminals that are going to be released after sentence, a rehabilitation of high standard is necessary to protect and enhance the society taking them back. For capital crimes, rather than the death penalty which is so flawed and ethically wrong, imprisonment for life should mean just that, ideally with hard labour, until buried in a prison plot and forgotten. No compassion shown to the victim, thus none to the perpetrator.

[Slyspy]

I don't think denial of compassionate release is absurd at all. As I have noted before, for criminals that are going to be released after sentence, a rehabilitation of high standard is necessary to protect and enhance the society taking them back. For capital crimes, rather than the death penalty which is so flawed and ethically wrong, imprisonment for life should mean just that, ideally with hard labour, until buried in a prison plot and forgotten. No compassion shown to the victim, thus none to the perpetrator.

Which begs the question why give prisoners the right to appeal, or even why not have the death penalty? No compassion etc etc

[KukriKhan]

Mind you, I think Ronnie Biggs should have died in prison too, and this fellow recently in the news. I can't imagine how hurt the victims' families would be if the latter chap got his life sentence for mass murder commuted to three years' house arrest.

I must have been living under a rock; I totally missed the LT Calley story. Thanks for the link.

Calley should still be breaking rocks in Leavenworth, alongside his chain of command, and Platoon Sgt. In my personal opinion.

[Furunculus]

i doubt we'll ever know the truth of whether he was responsible or merely a convenient set-up, however the yanks appear to be p*ssed which begs two questions:

1) how much damage will the affair do to US trade/tourism with Scotland?
2) how much damage will the affair do to US/UK intelligence cooperation?