Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber can live on for a decade.

[shoehorn]

There is no law that people serving life sentences are to be released if they are terminally ill.

There is in Scotland; on the order of the Scottish justice secretary, any prisoner who is deemed to have three months or less to live can be (and very often is) released on compassionate grounds.

A life sentence means they are expected to remain in prison until they die.

I have no idea how similar situations work in the US, but this isn't true in the UK; nor, for that matter, is it true in most of Europe. Prisoners serving life sentences are often released from prison having served at least the minimum prescribed term of incarceration. The important point is that even though they have been released from prison, they are still "serving their life sentence". More specifically, they are released under a life tariff, meaning that they have to abide by the terms laid out in their release from prison for the rest of their lives. Typically, this means that any criminal offence or breach of the terms of their release will see them returned to prison.

As to the more general point of his release, a considerable amount of evidence has come to light in the UK over the past ten years or so to suggest that the original conviction of Megrahi would be deemed unsafe were it to be presented to an appeals court. (In particular, BBC Newsnight and Private Eye have given genuinely excellent coverage to this.)

The fact that Megrahi's release had the helpful consequence of ending his then-extant second appeal, at which much of this evidence was presented, probably should not go unnoted by those who believe he was truly guilty of the crime.

 

[russ_watters]

There is in Scotland; on the order of the Scottish justice secretary, any prisoner who is deemed to have three months or less to live can be (and very often is) released on compassionate grounds.

Though you say you disagree with Evo, your statement does not. As others did, you missed a key phrase in her quote and a key part of the issue: the words "are to be" (I prefer just using the words "must be"). Those words make the release mandatory, making it sound like the judge had no choice in the matter. That is not the case as she said and you confirmed by using the word "can be" instead of "must be". As the judge said, compassionate release is allowed, which makes it entirely the judge's decision whether to do it or not, if the criteria is met.

And that last part is key to why it can be correctly said - in hindsight - that he made the wrong choice. The criteria for compassionate release has been shown to not be met: the prisoner did not die within 3 months. The source of that error is now what is being questioned. Did the doctor know this and lie? Did the judge consult other experts? Was he gullible? Overzealous? Part of a conspiracy? What the judge did was legally allowable in that he had information available to him to justify the action, but it was still against the criteria of the law and morally wrong.

 

[Gokul43201]

The criteria for compassionate release has been shown to not be met: the prisoner did not die within 3 months.

If the criterion is that the prisoner not be (medically) expected to live for more than 3 years, then his living beyond 3 years does not imply that the criterion is not met. Only a revelation that this was not a truthful expert estimation can do that.

 

[madness]

He was under the jurisdiction of Scottish law and was treated accordingly. The decision had the support of many of the victims' families in Scotland.

 

[Office_Shredder]

He was under the jurisdiction of Scottish law and was treated accordingly. The decision had the support of many of the victims' families in Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Passengers_and_crew

Nearly the entire flight's passengers and crew were American, so I'm not sure what the purpose of this is supposed to be.

It would be bizarre for a parole board or similar organization to take into account victims' opinions, but discriminate who should be listened to based on their nationality

 

[Evo]

He was under the jurisdiction of Scottish law and was treated accordingly. The decision had the support of many of the victims' families in Scotland.

And how many families was that? As stated, the overwhelming number of passengers were American. Please post the article that backs up your statement before you post in P&WA again. I need to see that

Thanks.

 

[madness]

And how many families was that? As stated, the overwhelming number of passengers were American. Please post the article that backs up your statement before you post in P&WA again. I need to see that

Thanks.

Sorry it's hard to find now. In the articles in Scottish newspapers at the time of his release there were some opinions from victims' families and many of them supported the decision.

 

[madness]

Nearly the entire flight's passengers and crew were American, so I'm not sure what the purpose of this is supposed to be.

It would be bizarre for a parole board or similar organization to take into account victims' opinions, but discriminate who should be listened to based on their nationality

I don't think they took the victims' families into account at the time. Like I said, the decision was based on Scottish law.

 

[shoehorn]

The crime happened in Scotland and hence investigation and prosecution fell under Scottish jurisdiction. It matters not a whit where the majority of the victims were from.

 

[Evo]

Sorry it's hard to find now. In the articles in Scottish newspapers at the time of his release there were some opinions from victims' families and many of them supported the decision.

I did a search and the only family member of a victim that claims to be ok with him being released as long as he dies soon was an American. That was back when he was going to die in a few weeks. I wonder how they feel now?

The victim's families were appaled by his release. From the official victim's families website -

We, the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc, are devastated and outraged following the recent release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi from the Scottish prison in Glasgow. This man is the convicted mass murderer of our loved ones – 270 innocent victims in all. He showed no compassion to them or their families when he placed a bomb aboard Pan Am 103, killing all 259 on board the plane and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988. Since that time, he was tried and found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison in Scotland. His first appeal was denied; and he withdrew his second appeal. He has shown no remorse or regret or asked forgiveness. We deplore the fact that Scottish Minister Kenny MacAskill decided to release him on any grounds – compassionate or otherwise. He should have been required to serve out his sentence in Scotland – ill or not – as we were promised when he was tried and found guilty in January, 2001.

http://www.victimsofpanamflight103.org/

 

[Evo]

The crime happened in Scotland and hence investigation and prosecution fell under Scottish jurisdiction. It matters not a whit where the majority of the victims were from.

Courts here in the US take into account the victim's feelings when it comes to sentencing. The victims or their families are allowed to speak to the court. I would hope it is the same in Scotland.

The victims are also allowed to speak when the criminal tries to get released.

 

[arildno]

The crime happened in Scotland and hence investigation and prosecution fell under Scottish jurisdiction. It matters not a whit where the majority of the victims were from.

No, after all, modern day criminology has already found out that victims are rather pathetic creatures, with utterly irrational and futile emotions towards the perpetrators.

Those relatives do not hold the benign&rational that the perpetrator was the real victim..(perhaps that is why they were attacked in the first place?)

 

[shoehorn]

Courts here in the US take into account the victim's feelings when it comes to sentencing. The victims or their families are allowed to speak to the court. I would hope it is the same in Scotland.

There is no equivalent in Scottish law. A victim statement scheme was introduced in 2009 but is very different from victim impact statements in US law.

The victims are also allowed to speak when the criminal tries to get released.

Of course. But there seems to be a worrying undercurrent that the feelings of victims' families should be given undue weight largely because they are American, not because they are victims. This is quite bizarre.

 

[madness]

No, after all, modern day criminology has already found out that victims are rather pathetic creatures, with utterly irrational and futile emotions towards the perpetrators.

Those relatives do not hold the benign&rational that the perpetrator was the real victim..(perhaps that is why they were attacked in the first place?)

The main purpose of the trial is to find out whether or not the perpetrator actually is the perpetrator. Having the victim interfere unnecessarily will only interfere with this process and could serve to make an innocent person into a victim.

 

[arildno]

The main purpose of the trial is to find out whether or not the perpetrator actually is the perpetrator. Having the victim interfere unnecessarily will only interfere with this process and could serve to make an innocent person into a victim.

And whatever relevance should this have for the process of compassionate release??

 

[shoehorn]

The main purpose of the trial is to find out whether or not the perpetrator actually is the perpetrator. Having the victim interfere unnecessarily will only interfere with this process and could serve to make an innocent person into a victim.

To be fair, that's not how victim impact statements work. They are usually (always?) delivered to the court orally or in written form after a guilty verdict but before sentencing has taken place. I have difficulty seeing how this risks producing an incorrect verdict.

 

[Evo]

Of course. But there seems to be a worrying undercurrent that the feelings of victims' families should be given undue weight largely because they are American, not because they are victims. This is quite bizarre.

I don't think the nationality should make a difference, I think the point was that there were considerably more of them. I believe that a member claimed that some Scottish victim's families thought the release was ok, as if them being Scottish gave them more weight in the matter.

 

[shoehorn]

I don't think the nationality should make a difference, I think the point was there were considerably more of them. I believe that a member claimed that some Scottish victim families thought the release was ok, as if them being Scottish gave them more weight in the matter.

Some of the Scottish victims' families did indeed say they were okay with the release; largely this was to do with the fact that they didn't actually believe the original verdict was safe. (As before, see previous editions of BBC Newsnight or Private Eye.)

As to whether or not this lends more credence to their opinions, I don't know. One could possibly make the case that it's their country, their legal system, and their tax revenue that paid for the trial, incarceration, and subsequent appeals. One could also make the case that there's still a large degree of resentment in Scotland and the UK more broadly about the interference of the US state department and law enforcement in the case. Whether these are convincing arguments I doubt any of us can say.

 

[madness]

Better late than never - I found one of the news stories from the time with Scottish families' opinions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8199574.stm

Some British relatives of the victims believe Megrahi was only a small part of the terrorist plot, while others believe he should not have been convicted at all.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing, said he had never been convinced that Megrahi had carried out the bombing.

"The sooner he is back with his family, the better," he said.

"On reasonable human grounds it is the right thing to do.

"If it's true that he is to be returned on compassionate grounds, then that would be more to Scotland's credit than returning him under the prison transfer agreement."

Martin Cadman, who lost his son Bill, would also support Megrahi's release.

He said: "I think he is innocent and even if he were not innocent, I still think it's the right thing to do on compassionate grounds."

Lockerbie resident Maxwell Kerr, who witnessed the devastation caused by the bombing, said he was also in favour of Megrahi being freed.

"As far as I'm concerned he should be released on compassionate grounds," he told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme.

 

[Evo]

So 2 relatives that thought Magraghi wasn't the right man to begin with. The third was just a bystander, so doesn't count.

That's not the many that you claimed. We've moved past that, but I really appreciate that you took the time to find it. Thank you.

 

[madness]

So 2 relatives that thought Magraghi wasn't the right man to begin with. The third was just a bystander, so doesn't count.

That's not the many that you claimed. We've moved past that, but I really appreciate that you took the time to find it. Thank you.

That's not really a fair assessment - the article says that the release would provoke mixed reactions from victims' families. It gives the opinion of 2 families who would be against, 2 families who would be for, and 1 witness who would be for his release. Of the two relatives that wanted his release one said they wanted his release whether or not he was guilty and the other simply didn't believe he was guilty.
The article does not in any way portray the Scottish families who are for his release as a minority or fringe group.

 

[russ_watters]

If the criterion is that the prisoner not be (medically) expected to live for more than 3 years, then his living beyond 3 years does not imply that the criterion is not met. Only a revelation that this was not a truthful expert estimation can do that.

That's months, Gokul, not years.

And you're splitting hairs. Again, I'm not claiming the judge knowingly did anything wrong: as far as the information in front of him said, the criteria was met. But the fact that the prisoner has lived much longer than 3 months means that the prediction was wrong. It's logically the same as making any other decision based on a wrong fact. Whether the judge knew it was wrong or not isn't really relevant: it was still wrong.

 

[NeoDevin]

That's months, Gokul, not years.

And you're splitting hairs. Again, I'm not claiming the judge knowingly did anything wrong: as far as the information in front of him said, the criteria was met. But the fact that the prisoner has lived much longer than 3 months means that the prediction was wrong. It's logically the same as making any other decision based on a wrong fact. Whether the judge knew it was wrong or not isn't really relevant: it was still wrong.

Just because he has lived this long, does not mean the diagnosis was wrong. Statistics: There are always outliers.

 

[Gokul43201]

But the fact that the prisoner has lived much longer than 3 months means that the prediction was wrong. It's logically the same as making any other decision based on a wrong fact.

No, it's not, Russ (that is, going by my best guess of what a "wrong fact" is). These are probabilistic models we are talking about. Whatever the determined time period was, is usually associated with some confidence level (at least in principle). One can only predict expectancies to say, a 90% confidence, or a 99% confidence or whatever. The nature of such a situation requires that some percentage of any sufficiently large sample set outlive the prediction.

Or, as NeoDevin puts it:"Statistics: There are always outliers."

 

[Cyrus]

No, it's not, Russ (that is, going by my best guess of what a "wrong fact" is). These are probabilistic models we are talking about. Whatever, the determined time period was, is usually associated with some confidence level (at least in principle). One can only predict expectancies to say, a 90% confidence, or a 99% confidence or whatever. The nature of such a situation requires that some percentage of any sufficiently large sample set outlive the prediction.

Or, as NeoDevin puts it:"Statistics: There are always outliers."

While what you are saying is correct, I feel like you are looking at the trees and missing the forest. The Judge was in no way obligated to let him go (as far as my understanding goes), and therefore this was a horribly poor political decision by the Judges.

 

[madness]

While what you are saying is correct, I feel like you are looking at the trees and missing the forest. The Judge was in no way obligated to let him go (as far as my understanding goes), and therefore this was a horribly poor political decision by the Judges.

Politics shouldn't come into it. This is a legal court, and the judge is obliged to make an unbiased decision based on Scots law. The only question (in my opinion) is whether it was the correct decision in the context of Scots law.

Edit: And from a more cynical point of view - if the release was politically motivated (as some have suggested), then it was probably not a poor political decision. If this were the case then presumably the oil deals with Libya were considered more important than some negative press in America.

 

[Evo]

Politics shouldn't come into it. This is a legal court, and the judge is obliged to make an unbiased decision based on Scots law. The only question (in my opinion) is whether it was the correct decision in the context of Scots law.

Edit: And from a more cynical point of view - if the release was politically motivated (as some have suggested), then it was probably not a poor political decision. If this were the case then presumably the oil deals with Libya were considered more important than some negative press in America.

Which makes me wonder if the Scottish Judge would have been so quick to cut a deal if Scots had been the target and the majority of victims had been Scottish? It was not an act of terrorism against the Scots. Their only involvement was that the plane crashed in Scotland. There were only 12 Scottish victims on the ground

 

[Gokul43201]

While what you are saying is correct, I feel like you are looking at the trees and missing the forest. The Judge was in no way obligated to let him go (as far as my understanding goes), and therefore this was a horribly poor political decision by the Judges.

I'm not arguing for or against the broader case at all. And you are right: I am missing the forest. But I'm doing that intentionally; the forest doesn't interest me as much as the trees.

 

[Cyrus]

Politics shouldn't come into it. This is a legal court, and the judge is obliged to make an unbiased decision based on Scots law. The only question (in my opinion) is whether it was the correct decision in the context of Scots law.

Edit: And from a more cynical point of view - if the release was politically motivated (as some have suggested), then it was probably not a poor political decision. If this were the case then presumably the oil deals with Libya were considered more important than some negative press in America.

This ain't America, what SCTOUS has no role here, and, BTW, SCTOUS does not make law, so "SCOTUS LAW" is meaningless.

 

[madness]

This ain't America, what SCTOUS has no role here, and, BTW, SCTOUS does not make law, so "SCOTUS LAW" is meaningless.

Lol took me a while to work out what you were talking about here. You might find this helpful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law.

 

[Cyrus]

Lol took me a while to work out what you were talking about here. You might find this helpful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law.

LOL. My bad!

 

[mheslep]

Unbelievable:

LONDON — The oil giant BP faced a new furor on Thursday as it confirmed that it had lobbied the British government to conclude a prisoner-transfer agreement that the Libyan government wanted to secure the release of the only person ever convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing over Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans.

The admission came after American legislators, grappling with the controversy over the company’s disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, called for an investigation into BP’s actions in the case of the freed man, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi...

And why? Libyan oil lease:

BP’s statement on Thursday repeated earlier acknowledgments that it had promoted the transfer agreement to protect a $900 million offshore oil-and-gas exploration deal off Libya’s Mediterranean coast. The British justice minister at the time, Jack Straw, admitted shortly after Mr. Megrahi was repatriated and freed that the BP deal was a consideration in the government’s review of his case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/europe/16britain.html?_r=2&hp

Both Shaw and the BP execs responsible need to take a specially prepared airplane trip.

 

[Gokul43201]

Distasteful as it may be, I can't imagine that lobbying the government for a prisoner exchange is illegal.

 

[russ_watters]

Presidents and Congressmen (PMs and Parliaments) take actions based on lobbying and it is perfectly legal. For a judge to make a ruling in a court of law would be illegal and would be an enormous affront to the rule of law*. Do we have any evidence for this truly extrordinary claim that the judge rendered his decision based on the influence of lobbyists (or government officials who were influenced by lobbyists)?

*Yes, it would be much worse than if the PM just granted clemancy and released him.

 

[rootX]

It is not clear yet that BP acknowledged this.

15 July 2010
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south+scotland-10645909

BP has denied making any representations over his case.

BP has confirmed it did press for a PTA because it was aware that a delay might have "negative consequences" for UK commercial interests.

However, it said it did not express a view about the specific form of the agreement which was a matter for the UK and Libyan governments.

It added that it had not made representations over the Megrahi case, which was solely a matter for the Scottish government.

The Scottish government said BP did not lobby its ministers, and insisted Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds alone.

I believe PTA and lockerbie bomber are not related.