"Compassionate Grounds"

[Ruby]

Again, as I said less bluntly to Lorem, from time to time we all want to torture nasty people for torture's sake, but that doesn't mean we should.

 

[Aethelstan]

...Don't, like, a lot of people get terminal cancer? You know, non-murderer people? Apparantly 1 in 3 people get cancer, so that would mean 1 in 3 prisoners. Which, though it would save a lot of cash, would see a third of all murderers be released. Of course, I know that's skewed, not all cancer is terminal/qualifies for release, but basically, by letting him out they're sorta... I don't know, they're forgiving him, I guess. Which a government is not allowed to do. There are no exceptions to the law, so why they let a plane hijackery guy out, I don't know.

Um, your logic is actually really messed up here. If one out of three non-murderer people are terminally ill with cancer, then it would not be every one out of three people let out of jail because most of those terminally ill people weren't in jail in the first place.

Also, everyone is saying that he won't be able to kill anyone because he's going to die in a few days anyway. But if that's true, why bother letting him out of jail anyway? It's a matter of principal as was said earlier. If he's going to die anyway, keeping him in jail for a few more days hardly seems overly cruel, and he technically deserved the time in jail anyway.

 

[ultraviolet]

...Don't, like, a lot of people get terminal cancer? You know, non-murderer people? Apparantly 1 in 3 people get cancer, so that would mean 1 in 3 prisoners. Which, though it would save a lot of cash, would see a third of all murderers be released. Of course, I know that's skewed, not all cancer is terminal/qualifies for release, but basically, by letting him out they're sorta... I don't know, they're forgiving him, I guess. Which a government is not allowed to do. There are no exceptions to the law, so why they let a plane hijackery guy out, I don't know.

Please explain how enabling a terminally ill man die from pancreatic cancer in his home 'forgiving' him of anything? It's exercising pity, which is something all governments should do; what use is there for him to die from it in jail? What difference does it make, exactly?
Not to mention that pancreatic cancer is (iirc) one of the most slow and painful deaths.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

The big thing here is that it's not like he just went to prison last Wednesday, he's been there a good eight years iirc and his guilt was called into question after an extensive review by Scottish authorities. One of the men who represents the victims (and who lost his daughter there) is absolutely convinced he's innocent, for instance, because a lot of things were hidden from the government during the trial.
Plus, if you want him in prison to suffer atrociously then I've got good news: his form of cancer is excruciatingly painful and has the added benefit of killing him in three months. Then we he dies we can have a massive party and hang his head on the Tower of London.

 

[Valerunner]

Also, everyone is saying that he won't be able to kill anyone because he's going to die in a few days anyway. But if that's true, why bother letting him out of jail anyway? It's a matter of principal as was said earlier. If he's going to die anyway, keeping him in jail for a few more days hardly seems overly cruel, and he technically deserved the time in jail anyway.

Exactly.

I never said that the man was to be thrown in brutally. I suggested that if Scotland wants to look clean, they should give him healthcare during his sentence. Simple.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Oh, a matter of principle, a matter of principle. It'd be a waste of money and everyone's time and resources anyway, I really don't see why they should have to bother. Don't see the harm in an old guy with cancer being shipped off to die in his country.

Also until Gaddaffi gives Megrahi a medal, Americans don't get to complain

George Bush gave Cpt. Will Rogers the fucking Legion of Merit for murdering 270 innocent people.

This isn't directed at you, Grimdour, just throwing it out there.

 

[Ruby]

Also, everyone is saying that he won't be able to kill anyone because he's going to die in a few days anyway. But if that's true, why bother letting him out of jail anyway?

Because a minimum of one person benefits, whereas nobody benefits by keeping him locked up.

 

[Valerunner]

This isn't directed at you, Grimdour, just throwing it out there.

Bah, it's a debate so no worries.

Also, it is simply the law. And as Ipsum said earlier, Megrahi may have much more protection from public fury if he stays incarcerated. It would be better if he were in either house arrest in Libya or in jail with the sufficient healthcare. Remember that the public had mixed views and there are people out there who want to see him burn, and there are even some in the government such as Cameron and even your beloved Obama. If people like them are strictly against the man's release, imagine those who are still bitter about the deaths and would willingly murder him.

 

[Ruby]

Also, it is simply the law. And as Ipsum said earlier, Megrahi may have much more protection from public fury if he stays incarcerated. It would be better if he were in either house arrest in Libya or in jail with the sufficient healthcare. Remember that the public had mixed views and there are people out there who want to see him burn, and there are even some in the government such as Cameron and even your beloved Obama. If people like them are strictly against the man's release, imagine those who are still bitter about the deaths and would willingly murder him.

But it doesn't look as if these people are in Libya.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

But Cameron's awful and Obama's gotten crappier so eh. I don't really care what America has to say about our affairs. They never listen to us, anyway.

 

[GiratinaGiratina]

But Cameron's awful and Obama's gotten crappier so eh. I don't really care what America has to say about our affairs. They never listen to us, anyway.

This x1000.

IIRC, He has about three months to live. I understand that eight years isn't even on the same level as life sentence, but karma bit him in the ass and he's gonna die a slow, excruciating death. My inner cynic wonders if the primary reason he was released was to improve relations with Libya.

 

[Ruby]

My inner cynic wonders if the primary reason he was released was to improve relations with Libya.

Probably! I don't trust their motives either.

 

[goldenquagsire]

apparently Whitehall did some dodgy deals about Megrahi's release. so yeah.

frankly I don't see what the issue here is. arguments in favour of sending him back to Libya:
a) he's going to die soon anyway
b) if he stayed, he'd drain resources and money away from the British taxpayer
c) he's old AND he's got terminal cancer - he's not likely to commit more crimes
d) supposedly, if he had died in a British prison, it'd piss off the terrorists and we'd have some serious shit to deal with
e) it's uncertain as to how guilty he actually is

releasing him was a logical, sensible choice, and I wish the Scottish authorities would point this out rather than making claims about "compassionate grounds" which just seems to piss off everyone.

 

[Ruby]

They say that Scotland has ruined her reputation, whereas - they all know this - the fastest way to a good reputation is to do the opposite of what the Americans want you to.

 

[Tarvos]

idk i don't think being anti america per se is a shortcut to a good rep

 

[Ruby]

Yes, I know. I was exaggerating for effect. I'm really not especially anti-American.

 

[jimmyboyacreman]

...Don't, like, a lot of people get terminal cancer? You know, non-murderer people? Apparantly 1 in 3 people get cancer, so that would mean 1 in 3 prisoners. Which, though it would save a lot of cash, would see a third of all murderers be released.

they should be, if they're no longer a threat...