Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Compassion v. the law
23 Answers
The current debate about the Lockerbie bomber release hinges on the Scotish legal system, which has a 'compassion' clause built into it, and which the Justice Minister believes he has exercised on ths occasion.
My view is that compassion and the law are mutually exclusive. The law works on a system of checks and balances, and although flawed, presents a frameowrk of trial and punishment based on statutory legislation.
Compassion on the other hand is a moveable feast. By definition, it must depend on the circumstances of each case, and more importantly, the moral and emotional view of the Justic Minister at the time, so wheras the current Minister freed the prisoner, another Minister may not have seen fit so to do.
I believe therefore that using a 'compassion' clause to free a man convicted of the most heinous crime of the last hundred years opens floodgates to any lesser (and they must be lesser) criminal demanding the same treatment.
Any thoughts?
My view is that compassion and the law are mutually exclusive. The law works on a system of checks and balances, and although flawed, presents a frameowrk of trial and punishment based on statutory legislation.
Compassion on the other hand is a moveable feast. By definition, it must depend on the circumstances of each case, and more importantly, the moral and emotional view of the Justic Minister at the time, so wheras the current Minister freed the prisoner, another Minister may not have seen fit so to do.
I believe therefore that using a 'compassion' clause to free a man convicted of the most heinous crime of the last hundred years opens floodgates to any lesser (and they must be lesser) criminal demanding the same treatment.
Any thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
British justice already has compassion for heinous criminals built into it by virtue of the fact that they don't get executed. I think that's plenty enough compassion to show them - letting them out early isn't necessary.
Putting aside all the conspiracy type theories about trade deals etc etc, and taking it on face value it's just a bad decision which only serves to insult the victims and make alot of people angry.
It's as if we're being given some kind of patronising morality lesson 'Look children - this is what makes us better than the bad guys - compassion'. No it doesn't. what makes us better than the bad guys is not committing the crime in the first place. People are right to be angry about this.
Putting aside all the conspiracy type theories about trade deals etc etc, and taking it on face value it's just a bad decision which only serves to insult the victims and make alot of people angry.
It's as if we're being given some kind of patronising morality lesson 'Look children - this is what makes us better than the bad guys - compassion'. No it doesn't. what makes us better than the bad guys is not committing the crime in the first place. People are right to be angry about this.
Andy....I have seen your opinion before on previous posts re. compassion.
I think that you are saying and forgive me if I am wrong, that each misdemeanor has a pre-determined penalty on conviction. The judge looks at the conviction, his fingers cross the book for the correct penalty and it is as simple as using a railway timetable.
You may well be right.
However. surely age, degree of crime, social aspects , mental and health considerations must come into play and that is my definition of "compassion"
I hope that that is the case.
I think that you are saying and forgive me if I am wrong, that each misdemeanor has a pre-determined penalty on conviction. The judge looks at the conviction, his fingers cross the book for the correct penalty and it is as simple as using a railway timetable.
You may well be right.
However. surely age, degree of crime, social aspects , mental and health considerations must come into play and that is my definition of "compassion"
I hope that that is the case.
I've already made my view known in a number of posts - although Scottish law indictes that he should have been released and we should not make decisions based on what should or should not upset Americans, this is a special case for many reasons not least the special legal basis on which he was surrenderred and tried
I very much doubt that the compassion clause is as wide and loose as Andy makes out. I hardly think releasing someone who is terminally ill will "release the floodgates" unless there is a sudden increase in terminal cancer in prisons in Scotland.
Ludwig points out that people are angry about this.
I think we all know what sort of justice makes decisions on how angry people are don't we?
Personally I'd have preferred to see him transferred to Lybia to die there under house arrest. This is not because of Public anger but simply because of how little of the sentence was actuallyu served.
BTW it is interesting to compare and contrast with the pair of French Agents convisted of Manslaughter ( that's a laugh ) in the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior .
Especially when great words are being spoken about how we don't commit such crime
I very much doubt that the compassion clause is as wide and loose as Andy makes out. I hardly think releasing someone who is terminally ill will "release the floodgates" unless there is a sudden increase in terminal cancer in prisons in Scotland.
Ludwig points out that people are angry about this.
I think we all know what sort of justice makes decisions on how angry people are don't we?
Personally I'd have preferred to see him transferred to Lybia to die there under house arrest. This is not because of Public anger but simply because of how little of the sentence was actuallyu served.
BTW it is interesting to compare and contrast with the pair of French Agents convisted of Manslaughter ( that's a laugh ) in the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior .
Especially when great words are being spoken about how we don't commit such crime
Sqad - it may be possible for elements such as those you have suggested to be taken into account at the sentencing stage, but that is not the case here.
The sentence of life imprisonment was passed, and the 'compassion' element was invoked on the discovery that the criminal in question has a terminal illness.
I fail to see why the prospect of a life sentence being shortened by illness constitutes a rason to wipe out the sentence altogether. The implication is surely that a convicted criminal servies his sentence, unless someone makes a personal decision based on their approach to illness, and the appropriate way for a criminal to spend his remaining time.
My issue is with the twin problems raised - one which makes a decision based on one person's perception of 'compassion' at the time, which is not how laws are made and enforced, and the other which appears to confirm that terminal illness, while tragic in and of itself, appears to offer a 'get out of jail free' card, which totally flies in the face of the sentence handed down by legal process, and the imbalance of 'compassion' offered to the families of the Locerbie tragedy, whose only scant solace must have been the thought that the convicted individual who kille dheir loved ones, had received justice under the law.
The sentence of life imprisonment was passed, and the 'compassion' element was invoked on the discovery that the criminal in question has a terminal illness.
I fail to see why the prospect of a life sentence being shortened by illness constitutes a rason to wipe out the sentence altogether. The implication is surely that a convicted criminal servies his sentence, unless someone makes a personal decision based on their approach to illness, and the appropriate way for a criminal to spend his remaining time.
My issue is with the twin problems raised - one which makes a decision based on one person's perception of 'compassion' at the time, which is not how laws are made and enforced, and the other which appears to confirm that terminal illness, while tragic in and of itself, appears to offer a 'get out of jail free' card, which totally flies in the face of the sentence handed down by legal process, and the imbalance of 'compassion' offered to the families of the Locerbie tragedy, whose only scant solace must have been the thought that the convicted individual who kille dheir loved ones, had received justice under the law.
Jake,
So because governments have done bad things in the past we should all go easy on terrorists..sort of 'Look mate, we've all committed mass murder - I know I have - so on your way and keep your nose clean in future'.
It's a strange way of easing our conscience about past crimes committed on our behalf to go soft on other criminals. Sounds like a case of two wrongs not making a right.
You do agree that he shouldn't have been released early though.
So because governments have done bad things in the past we should all go easy on terrorists..sort of 'Look mate, we've all committed mass murder - I know I have - so on your way and keep your nose clean in future'.
It's a strange way of easing our conscience about past crimes committed on our behalf to go soft on other criminals. Sounds like a case of two wrongs not making a right.
You do agree that he shouldn't have been released early though.
jake - you may well have a valid point about the prospect of many cases replicating the circumstances here under the 'compassion' argument but -
in this instance it has been used to favour a man conviceted of the worst case of mass murder ever tried in the UK, and the fact that even one prisoner is released from his sentence for murder under this system is one too many.
in this instance it has been used to favour a man conviceted of the worst case of mass murder ever tried in the UK, and the fact that even one prisoner is released from his sentence for murder under this system is one too many.
alive and - finally - repentant, I see, brionon.
Justice tempered with mercy has always seemed to me to be better than justice alone. All cases are decided at least partly on the basis of the emotions of judge and jury; home seretaries always had the power to commute death sentences as they saw fit. At the simplest end of the scale - say, points on your driving licence - justice can be mostly done by robots. At the top end, it needs to be much more flexible.
It should also be remembered that this particular case has always been political. First they blamed Syria, then Libya. Not people - the countries were blamed. It was assumed that the deed was carried out as an act of government policy, similar to war. On that basis, the person convicted is on the same footing as an individual soldier, and they don't get imprisoned for killing enemies, even innocent enemies, in war.
Other, lesser criminals might like the same sort of preferential treatment made available to agents of the Libyan state; tough, they won't get it, just as you and I aren't free from parking fines the way diplomats are. Corners are always cut in the interests of foreign policy. That's what has happened in this case. We used to be sort of enemies with Libya. Now we're sort of friends. So policies change.
At the end of world war one, everyone wanted to seek 'justice' from Germany; and harsh reparations were imposed. All that led to was world war two. At the end of world war two, a much more cautious policy of national rehabilitation without revenge was followed. What that led to was 60 years of peace in western Europe. Justice with mercy: the best, most successful policy.
Justice tempered with mercy has always seemed to me to be better than justice alone. All cases are decided at least partly on the basis of the emotions of judge and jury; home seretaries always had the power to commute death sentences as they saw fit. At the simplest end of the scale - say, points on your driving licence - justice can be mostly done by robots. At the top end, it needs to be much more flexible.
It should also be remembered that this particular case has always been political. First they blamed Syria, then Libya. Not people - the countries were blamed. It was assumed that the deed was carried out as an act of government policy, similar to war. On that basis, the person convicted is on the same footing as an individual soldier, and they don't get imprisoned for killing enemies, even innocent enemies, in war.
Other, lesser criminals might like the same sort of preferential treatment made available to agents of the Libyan state; tough, they won't get it, just as you and I aren't free from parking fines the way diplomats are. Corners are always cut in the interests of foreign policy. That's what has happened in this case. We used to be sort of enemies with Libya. Now we're sort of friends. So policies change.
At the end of world war one, everyone wanted to seek 'justice' from Germany; and harsh reparations were imposed. All that led to was world war two. At the end of world war two, a much more cautious policy of national rehabilitation without revenge was followed. What that led to was 60 years of peace in western Europe. Justice with mercy: the best, most successful policy.
jno - I don't believe your argument stands up because responses against a nation after a war do not in any equate with the actions of a terrorist against civilians in peace time.
I can only reiterate my view, that 'compassion' is a matter of perspective, and law is a matter of legislation, and the two do not belong together.
I can only reiterate my view, that 'compassion' is a matter of perspective, and law is a matter of legislation, and the two do not belong together.
the point I'm making is that, right from the start, this was never seen as an act of individual terrorism, but as an issue between nations and their agents - unlike al-Qaida and 9/11, say, where the Afghan government was only peripherally involved (but we still invaded them). The way we treat representatives of foreign governments has always been different from the way we treat others - even down to parking fines.
Do you think we - and our government - were right to suppose this man was acting for Gadaffi's government? If we were, then we must accept that he is not to be treated as an ordinary terrorist-in-the-street, because he isn't one.
Do you think we - and our government - were right to suppose this man was acting for Gadaffi's government? If we were, then we must accept that he is not to be treated as an ordinary terrorist-in-the-street, because he isn't one.
jno - the involvement of mutual governments and Megrahi is a peripheral issue which clouds the simplicity of my point. Megrahi was tried, convicted and sentenced under due legal process. Anything involving 'scapegoating', unter-the-table deals, acting-for-others and any other issue dragged into the argument is spurious, the fact is, he was tried, convicted and sentenced.
My point remains the use of 'compassion' as a legal processs, when it is patently not a legal process, involving as it does the opinion of one individual, arrived at, and acted upon without consultation with any other interested parties.
I continue to believe that freeing a convicted criminal because he is going to die does not serve the process of law, or the concept of 'compassion' as I understand the term. Compassion shold not be offered to the one at the expense of the many - it makes a mockery of the entire notion - and that is what I believe has happened here.
If 'compassion' is a part of the Scottish legal process - and I do not believe it should be, but that is another debate - it must be applied appropriately when possible - this application came nowhere near the area of appropriate application - if nedeed such a notion can exist.
My point remains the use of 'compassion' as a legal processs, when it is patently not a legal process, involving as it does the opinion of one individual, arrived at, and acted upon without consultation with any other interested parties.
I continue to believe that freeing a convicted criminal because he is going to die does not serve the process of law, or the concept of 'compassion' as I understand the term. Compassion shold not be offered to the one at the expense of the many - it makes a mockery of the entire notion - and that is what I believe has happened here.
If 'compassion' is a part of the Scottish legal process - and I do not believe it should be, but that is another debate - it must be applied appropriately when possible - this application came nowhere near the area of appropriate application - if nedeed such a notion can exist.
Compassion is not 'at the expense of the many' - nobody actually suffers if Megrahi is sent home. Relatives of the victims may feel angry - but then so do you, even though it's not your business (I mean that literally, not offensively). Conversely, Jim Swires, who was affected, said he approved.
But regarding your wider point - compassion and justice have had to co-exist for ever, and mostly seem to rub along pretty well; justice is not and should not be administered by computers. Juries in the 19th century were always acquitting people who were plainly guilty, rather than see them hanged for stealing bread. Are you sure you would rather have had them executed - quite legally and correctly - had you been on such a jury at the time?
But regarding your wider point - compassion and justice have had to co-exist for ever, and mostly seem to rub along pretty well; justice is not and should not be administered by computers. Juries in the 19th century were always acquitting people who were plainly guilty, rather than see them hanged for stealing bread. Are you sure you would rather have had them executed - quite legally and correctly - had you been on such a jury at the time?
jno - I am not angry actually, just a little confused.
Your point about justice in times gone by - although well made - does not address the issue I have raised.
The issue is not whether or not the sentence should have been lenient or not -as in the cases of bread / sheep stealers. Ths issue is that the sentence was handed down as life - meaning at least twenty years. It is only Megrahi's terminal cancer that has given rise to the 'compassion' aspect of the legal process in Scotland.
My argument is that if you start eliminating sentences given under due process because one person chooses to exercise his concept of 'compasion', albeit under the auspices of Scottish law, then you are setting a seriously dangerous precident in motion.
If Megrahi had been given a shorter, or no sentence, based on terminal illness, that is one issue, but here, the law was applied, and one man has overuled it based on his understanding of the term 'compassion; and that starts bringing emotion into the legal process.
No, laws should not be made by computers, but they should be made by concensus and democracy, and having been made and applied, they should not be set aside by one man's decision based on his interperetation of a nebulous emotional concept.
Where do we stop? Releasing criminals because they are old and infirm - as with Biggs, or dying as with Megrahi. Maybe potential lifers will avoid committing crimes until their late sixties, on the basis that infirmity and illness are more, not less likely with the passing of their sentence, and with that, the prospect of 'compassion'.
The decision made a mockery of the law, and of justice as seen by most right thinking people. It was ill-thought-out, with little apparent thought as to the consequences. That is my issue.
Your point about justice in times gone by - although well made - does not address the issue I have raised.
The issue is not whether or not the sentence should have been lenient or not -as in the cases of bread / sheep stealers. Ths issue is that the sentence was handed down as life - meaning at least twenty years. It is only Megrahi's terminal cancer that has given rise to the 'compassion' aspect of the legal process in Scotland.
My argument is that if you start eliminating sentences given under due process because one person chooses to exercise his concept of 'compasion', albeit under the auspices of Scottish law, then you are setting a seriously dangerous precident in motion.
If Megrahi had been given a shorter, or no sentence, based on terminal illness, that is one issue, but here, the law was applied, and one man has overuled it based on his understanding of the term 'compassion; and that starts bringing emotion into the legal process.
No, laws should not be made by computers, but they should be made by concensus and democracy, and having been made and applied, they should not be set aside by one man's decision based on his interperetation of a nebulous emotional concept.
Where do we stop? Releasing criminals because they are old and infirm - as with Biggs, or dying as with Megrahi. Maybe potential lifers will avoid committing crimes until their late sixties, on the basis that infirmity and illness are more, not less likely with the passing of their sentence, and with that, the prospect of 'compassion'.
The decision made a mockery of the law, and of justice as seen by most right thinking people. It was ill-thought-out, with little apparent thought as to the consequences. That is my issue.
-- answer removed --
SEnewsKD - I cannot answer that question, and I suspect that those who can have a vested interest in keeping those facts to themselves.
My point is not concerned with the perceived guilt or otherwise of the defvendent, or the involvement, or not of governments, organisations, or individuals known or unknown.
My point is that a legally appointed punishment has been overturned by one man's interperetation of a particular aspect of Scottish law - the concept of 'compassion', and my belief that compassion needs to be applied fairly to all involved parties - which is not possible, and therefore should not be applied at all.
My point is not concerned with the perceived guilt or otherwise of the defvendent, or the involvement, or not of governments, organisations, or individuals known or unknown.
My point is that a legally appointed punishment has been overturned by one man's interperetation of a particular aspect of Scottish law - the concept of 'compassion', and my belief that compassion needs to be applied fairly to all involved parties - which is not possible, and therefore should not be applied at all.
