Compassionate Release from Prison - Lockerbie Bomber

CON ARGUES: ""1. A government has the inherent authority to temper justice with mercy" Just because the government has the authority to do so does not mean it should" PRO RESPONDS: I thank CON for agreeing with my first argument which implicitly also means: Scotland has the inherent authority to temper justice with mercy. CON ARGUES: "Just because the government has the authority to do so does not mean it should. The government is acting on emotions (compassion as stated) rather than reason. He did now show compassion to his 270 victims: http://www.victimsofpanamflight103.org...; PRO RESPONDS: Regarding CON'S statement "Just because the government has the authority to do so does not mean it should.", a government must first act in accordance with its LAW. Scotland did act according to due process of law. The Scottish official, Mr. MacAskill, who acted for the government stated in an interview Mr. Blitzer: "But in Scotland, our justice system is not predicated on vengeance, but on bringing people to account. And equally, our value system is predicated on seeking to treat people in a matter that is merciful and compassionate, even if they do not show to us as we would wish to show to them. Blitzer: Do you... MacAskill: So I'm so heartfelt sorry for Mrs. Cohen and every other victim for the Scottish, UK, American or wherever else. But equally, we are adhering to the values that we have and are following the due process of law that we possess." http://www.cnn.com... Further, in his official statement, http://www.firmmagazine.com... , MacAskill states in part: ______ "I now turn to the issue of compassionate release. Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds. The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005." ___________________________ Clearly, the prisoner was eligible to apply for a compassionate release. He met the criteria of the government's policy ( a terminal illness likely to cause death soon). His compassionate release was justified on legal grounds. CON'S statement ""Just because the government has the authority to do so does not mean it should. The government is acting on emotions (compassion as stated) rather than reason" is INCONSISTENT with HIS AGREEMENT with PRO'S ARGUMENT: " A government has the inherent authority to temper justice with mercy" CON both concedes and denies that a government can act on an emotion, such as mercy (compassion). His argument is self-contradictory. CON ARGUES: "He did now show compassion to his 270 victims: http://www.victimsofpanamflight103.org...... " PRO RESPONDS: The argument is not relevant to the question: "Should the Lockerbie Bomber have received the compassionate release from prison?: The question is primarily a question of law. CON ARGUES: "Giving freedom to someone responsible for the deaths of 270 is not serving justice. This man was given a punishment in the intention of serving justice. Given a life sentence, his death in jail was definite anyway." PRO RESPONDS: The argument is not relevant to the question stated immediately above. CON ARGUES: "Giving freedom to such a criminal was not the only way of showing compassion. Freedom =/= Mercy. He could have been given special conditions while incarcerated, and made his last months comfortable." PRO RESPONDS: Prison authorities do try to provide prisoners with the care and treatment that their medical condition requires. Indeed, they have a legal duty to do so. But, the prisoner in this case applied for a COMPASSIONATE RELEASE FROM PRISON under the existing law and policy. The authorities were required by law to consider his petition regardless of his crime and sentence. Mr. MacAskill mentioned the equal protection of the laws: "Equal Protection of the Laws, constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same safeguards provided by law as are enjoyed by others under its jurisdiction." http://encarta.msn.com... He met the relevant criteria under the government's policy: 1. He suffers from a terminal illness (prostate cancer), and 2. which is likely to cause his death within three months. Thus, he was initially eligible to be released from prison. CON ARGUES: Against PRO'S ARGUMENT "2. Releasing a prisoner facing an imminent death from prostate cancer is a justified act of justice tempered by mercy. 1" , CON ARGUES: "Why is it justified?" PRO RESPONDS: Here is Mr. MacAskill's reasons for his decision: "Having met the criteria, it therefore falls to me to decide whether Mr Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. I am conscious that there are deeply held feelings, and that many will disagree whatever my decision. However a decision has to be made. Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep and the wounds remain. However, Mr Al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die. In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live. Mr Al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them. But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days. Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated. For these reasons - and these reasons alone - it is my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die. "http://www.firmmagazine.com... I argue that the decision to release the prisoner was justified because it was not unreasonable. CON: What of the families and friends of the 270 victims? Minister McAskill speaks of forgiveness, but it is not up to him to forgive. He has not been affected by Al-Megrahi's crimes. Frankly, it is an insult to those truly harmed PRO: Not REL.