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

[Ziggy Stardust]

I posted that as a response to:

"Again, how would you feel if a plane with your family in it was blown? Would it please you to have the guy go free?"

Which was an appeal to emotion, and an ironic one since some of the families were indeed happy. I didn't use that statement as an argument whether it was a good or bad thing he was released. I do not know whether it was a good or bad thing, since they decided to not have a second appeal after "a review board ruled in 2007 that there might have been a miscarriage of justice..."

That is what I would be mad about.

 

[Skwink]

Alright. I am tired. It's 1:00 am now, and I need to get some sleep. We will debate again later.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

G'night

 

[Skwink]

See yah later!

 

[Karalysia]

But the Americans were the victims too.

So what?

 

[JollyRoger]

The longer he lives and does not commit another act, the stronger case that can be made that he has reformed and letting him go free didn't really harm anyone - unless we are going to accept some sort of touchy-feely emotional claim as harm.

 

[MobBoss]

The longer he lives and does not commit another act, the stronger case that can be made that he has reformed and letting him go free didn't really harm anyone - unless we are going to accept some sort of touchy-feely emotional claim as harm.

So are you saying that we should release our death row inmates and those serving life without parole sentences based upon their simple claim they have been reformed?

 

[JollyRoger]

So are you saying that we should release our death row inmates and those serving life without parole sentences based upon their simple claim they have been reformed?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that each necro-bump of this thread while the guy is alive, free, and law-abiding makes an implicit point that there really is no harm done by his freedom, save for touchy-feely emotional gibberish.

 

[Godwynn]

I can only assume he is still alive because his time left was estimated by Britain's socialist health care industry.

 

[MobBoss]

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that each necro-bump of this thread while the guy is alive, free, and law-abiding makes an implicit point that there really is no harm done by his freedom, save for touchy-feely emotional gibberish.

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.

And no one is making you read these 'touchy-feely' necro bumbs are they?

 

[JollyRoger]

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

Until there is any indication that he has not been law abiding, I will presume that he has been.

 

[MobBoss]

Until there is any indication that he has not been law abiding, I will presume that he has been.

Rofl, pics or it never happened, eh?

Do you likewise presume he was guilty as charged as per his trial and failure of his appeal? Or does your presumption only travel one direction?

 

[JollyRoger]

I'll take your word for it that the Scottish system of justice is more accurate than the U.S. military's system of justice and for that crime, I will presume he was guilty. As for post-release crimes, I will need to see some indication that he has not been law abiding before I think otherwise.

 

[frekk]

Does it help protect society if a convicted terrorist is let free?

No. That's why I argued against letting him off the hook just because the families do.

 

[frekk]

The longer he lives and does not commit another act, the stronger case that can be made that he has reformed and letting him go free didn't really harm anyone - unless we are going to accept some sort of touchy-feely emotional claim as harm.

]

Preventing recidivism is great, but, it isn't the end-all be-all of protecting society when a crime has occurred. Even if that individual isn't ever going to commit a crime again, if he gets away with it or gets off lightly, he sets an example for others.

 

[JollyRoger]

he sets an example for others.

That even though you have made past mistakes, you can live a law abiding life if given a second chance?

 

[MobBoss]

I'll take your word for it that the Scottish system of justice is more accurate than the U.S. military's system of justice

Again, a point I never made or claimed.

and for that crime, I will presume he was guilty.

Then I guess we dont have anything to argue about in this case. Welcome to the team.

 

[JollyRoger]

Then I guess we dont have anything to argue about in this case. Welcome to the team.

I presume Scooter Libby was guilty too, yet he has been free and presumably law abiding since W showed compassion to him.

 

[frekk]

That even though you have made past mistakes, you can live a law abiding life if given a second chance?

That's what parole is for, not cheating your way into a release on compassionate grounds by exaggerating the severity of a medical condition. There are legitimate mechanisms in the system for redemption, and redemption is an important part of justice. In fact it is key to a properly functioning justice system to be able to redeem criminals and allow them to rejoin society. But this isn't redemption. It's the exploitation of a loophole in the system by a convicted mass murderer, who isn't rejoining the society, but fleeing to be sheltered and pampered by a dictator in another country.

The problem with just letting people off even if recidivism isn't an issue, is that it might encourage others to commit the same crime.

I presume Scooter Libby was guilty too, yet he has been free and presumably law abiding since W showed compassion to him.

So you support Libby's pardon? You don't think he should be in jail? Or is this a two wrongs make a right argument? Those are your only two choices . . .

If you're convicted, you should be in jail until and unless you win an appeal or get paroled. It's that simple. Libby is another example of the same problem. He should be in jail too.

All this partisan defence of criminals for political purposes is a load of bull.

 

[JollyRoger]

The problem with just letting people off even if recidivism isn't an issue, is that it might encourage others to commit the same crime.

Every day that goes by without his crime being duplicated by someone else tends to deflate your point there.

So you support Libby's pardon? You don't think he should be in jail? Or is this a two wrongs make a right argument? Those are your only two choices . . .

If you're convicted, you should be in jail until and unless you win an appeal or get paroled. It's that simple. Libby is another example of the same problem. He should be in jail too.

At least this guy did some significant time incarcerated. Libby got virtual immediate release, despite the anonymous star at Langley likely attributable to the outing he was a part of.