Lockerbie guy - when is he going to kick the bucket?

[Formaldehyde]

@Form. I think his point was GWB didnt lie nearly as much as he was accused of. Which I think is an entirely fair point.

We will probably never find out how much of the mountain of false statements made during Bush's tenure was due to either incompetence or lying. But one thing is certain. Many of those statements were indeed deliberate lies.

And no, you don't make that point by insinuating that he never lied.

 

[MobBoss]

Do you have evidence thatthe Lockerbie guy has committed a crime since his release? Are you saying man is no more capable of positive change than an animal?

I dont care if he has changed. He was found guilty and complicit in the murder of almost 300 people. He remains guilty of that and thus held responsible no matter how much he feels bad about it down the line.

@Form. I never said he didnt lie since just about everyone lies in one way or another. I merely said he certainly didnt lie as much as you accuse him of.

 

[JollyRoger]

I dont care if he has changed. He was found guilty and complicit in the murder of almost 300 people. He remains guilty of that and thus held responsible no matter how much he feels bad about it down the line.

He received punishment to the point of apparent rehabilitation. Since he has been released, no one has copied his crime. Seems like the system worked.

I would think you would be focusing on forgiveness rather than punishment after hearing of this reformed man.

The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[f]

23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."


Footnotes:
Matthew 18:22 Or seventy times seven
Matthew 18:24 That is, millions of dollars
Matthew 18:28 That is, a few dollars

 

[Formaldehyde]

@Form. I never said he didnt lie since just about everyone lies in one way or another. I merely said he certainly didnt lie as much as you accuse him of.

Since you don't have any possible way of knowing how much I actually "accuse him of", I'd say your personal opinion on the matter is hardly credible. I fully admit many of the cases are quite likely gross incompetence on his part and that of his appointed advisors instead of deliberate lying. But many of the cases were obviously baldfaced lies on his part. Nobody who became president not once but twice could be that stupid.

 

[MobBoss]

He received punishment to the point of apparent rehabilitation. Since he has been released, no one has copied his crime. Seems like the system worked.

No, you are in error since he was not released due to rehabilitation, apparent or not.

I would think you would be focusing on forgiveness rather than punishment after hearing of this reformed man.

And I think since you earlier stated he was indeed guilty of his crime, that you would think he should have served the sentence given him.

Since you don't have any possible way of knowing how much I actually "accuse him of", I'd say your personal opinion on the matter is hardly credible.

Given your post history on the matter I have a pretty good idea. 'Course that could always be simply the tip of the iceberg....

I fully admit many of the cases are quite likely gross incompetence on his part and that of his appointed advisors instead of deliberate lying. But many of the cases were obviously baldfaced lies on his part. Nobody who became president not once but twice could be that stupid.

Your right, which is why I tend to think your wrong about the man.

 

[MobBoss]

More calls for investigations into why he was released. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/13/bp.release.connection/index.html?hpt=Sbin

 

[sonorakitch]

We will probably never find out how much of the mountain of false statements made during Bush's tenure was due to either incompetence or lying. But one thing is certain. Many of those statements were indeed deliberate lies.

And no, you don't make that point by insinuating that he never lied.

I wonder how many of those 935 false statements were echoed in a chorus with the likes of Chirac, Blair, Jintao, Putin, etc.

 

[Disgustipated]

He received punishment to the point of apparent rehabilitation. Since he has been released, no one has copied his crime. Seems like the system worked.

by that reason any criminal who rehabilitates should be released. So if a child molester who rapes your child rehabilitates in one day, and never does it again, is that okay?

This is where the liberals are wrong. Prison isn't about rehabilitation (which almost never happens in our rough prisons anyways), it's about punishment for the crime they committed. Criminals must, and should be punished.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This is where the liberals are wrong.

I'm guessing you mean left-wing when you use the word "liberals"?

I am left-wing, so would that include me?

 

[GinandTonic]

This is where the liberals are wrong. Prison isn't about rehabilitation (which almost never happens in our rough prisons anyways), it's about punishment for the crime they committed. Criminals must, and should be punished.

This perhaps explains the abject failure of the US penal system in one sentence better than any critic could.

 

[Disgustipated]

This perhaps explains the abject failure of the US penal system in one sentence better than any critic could.

how so?

You don't think maybe it's because we have the most freedom, and the most money, and therefore attract the worst of what the world has to offer?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How much units of freedom per capita does the US have?

Oh, oh, and how many did you have during Bush? I hear Obama has been taking some of your freedums, so it would be interesting to compare them. If you have year by year figures that would be excellent. We could make a graph.

 

[Cereal Killer]

I am very dissappointed that Obama has not 'dealt' with this individual already. For Pete's sake.

 

[Truronian]

by that reason any criminal who rehabilitates should be released. So if a child molester who rapes your child rehabilitates in one day, and never does it again, is that okay?

He should certainly be given the minimum possible sentence allowed within the law. It's a silly hypothetical at any rate... rehabilitation simply does not take one day.

This is where the liberals are wrong. Prison isn't about rehabilitation (which almost never happens in our rough prisons anyways), it's about punishment for the crime they committed. Criminals must, and should be punished.

Prison is about both punishment and rehabilitation. Without the former prison won't serve as a disincentive for (potential) criminals while without the latter the prison system will become overcrowded (sound familiar?) and prisoners will be more likely to re-offend upon release.

 

[El_Machinae]

In my opinion, prison has 3 goals. It has four goals for some people, but I don't agree with the fourth.

Deterrence, protection of society, rehabilitation, and then (for others) punishment.

I don't agree with 'punishment' merely as an end goal. It has value as a deterrence, though: to the criminal, and to others. Punishment can even be part of rehabilitation, I suppose.

I have no problem with a prison being unpleasant, but any policy towards the prisoners should be biased towards a weighting of deterrence, protection of society, and rehabilitation. I think that focusing on 'punishment' unfairly weights deterrence and thus protection and rehabilitation suffer.

 

[Truronian]

Protection of society... good point. I'd forgotten about that.

 

[GinandTonic]

how so?

You don't think maybe it's because we have the most freedom, and the most money, and therefore attract the worst of what the world has to offer?

The US ranks 6th, 9th or 10th gdp per capita, depending on which report you choose. CIA has them tenth. All the countries rated as richer by any of the reports have lower crime rates, lower murder rates and lower incarceration rates.

Heritage Foundation/ Wall Street Journal rates the US as 8th for economic freedom. All the countries more economically free have lower murder and incarceration rates.

The Economist lists the US as the 18th for democratic freedom. The countries rated as "more free" than the US are in the main notable as countries with low crime rates, low incarceration rates etc.

The Press Freedom Index has the US sharing the 20th spot for free press with the UK and Luxembourg. Most of the more free countries have lower crime rates, though I'm not sure about the Baltic states.

The US therefore neither has the most money or the most freedom, and further there is an inverse correlation between money/ freedom and crime.

 

[kosiosko 1]

by that reason any criminal who rehabilitates should be released. So if a child molester who rapes your child rehabilitates in one day, and never does it again, is that okay?

This is where the liberals are wrong. Prison isn't about rehabilitation (which almost never happens in our rough prisons anyways), it's about punishment for the crime they committed. Criminals must, and should be punished.

your releasing 6-700,000 prisoners a year in the US, most are probably not child molesters, they have been punished, would it maybe be wise to try a little rehab or skills training while they are there, even if its only slightly useful ... that's still a lot of future people that don't become victims of crime
they are not all bank robbers/murders... just stupid people in for drink driving/drug use/ bar fights, etc
forget the deterrent factor, most crims just don't think they will get caught, or they just don't think

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Scottish first minister Alex Salmond calls for all UK and US documents relating to the release to be published.

He also says the US administration preferred a release on compassionate grounds to transfer to a Libyan jail to serve the rest of his sentence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10754690

Hopefully Groovy Dave will order an inquiry.

 

[Smidgey]

That changes nothing about my question. The person I am arguing with is happy this murderer is going free. I would like to know what he would think if a man killed his family. Besides, if the page stated that everyone was not convinced, that would be way different. The Americans and jury decided he was guilty.

There was no jury, as that was part of the agreement for the transfer of the prisoner from Libya. Sadly, this became the first solemn Scots criminal law case in over 200 years that had no Jury.

It is also important to point out that at the crash site in Lockerbie, American secret service were spilling all over the crime scene in a way that was described by Strathclyde police as completely unacceptable to standards of evidence gathering of Scottish police.

The American authorities should have kept their noses out of all criminal and legal procedings from the start. The case stank of American involvement above and beyond what it should have been right from the start.

But the Americans were the victims too.

I'm not sure how it happens in America, but in Scots law the victims do not involve themselves in the investigation or the trial (thankfully). The crime was comitted in Scotland and was tried according to Scots law, therefore Scots law of compassionate release applies. These facts are inescapable.

But in truth, you have no idea whether he is being law abiding or not.

The point is, and still remains, that this guy was released upon the premise that he had 3 months or less to live and was terminal. This was found to be false. Those that approved his release were irresponsible, and in error.

No, it means one of two things:

a) Those that approved his release are only in error, as they followed the guidelines perfectly - as according to Scots law.
b) Those that approved his release, if they knew anything otherwise, most likely believed him to be innocent (as a great many people over here do) and believed that Scots law would be embarassed and sullied by an appeal that the vast majority of legal experts in Scotland believed would acquit him.

As for any Scottish minister giving evidence before an American Senate committee - there is no reason why that should happen. The idea that an American Senator, or even the president would come over to a Scottish committee to give evidence is laughable. Our politicians are accountable to the Scottish electorate and the Scottish parliament, not John Kerry and his ilk.

Moderator Action: Please use the Edit or Multi-Quote functions rather than make 4 posts in a row.