Compassion v. the law

[andy-hughes]

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?

[Bobbisox]

allegedley it is the Scottish constitution that on the grounds of compassion, a prisoner would be released if he/she was teminally ill...in this horrific case, an appendature should have applied
"Uness of cause he/she knowingly and with out mercy, blows a plane full of innocent people out of the sky"
I feel nothing for Gaddaffi and Mr M, callous mindless murderer with a leader who has condoned it!!!

[jno]

andy, I think you're talking about 'the law' rather than 'justice'? Megrahi was convicted and sentened under tthe law, so the sentence should stand?

'Justice' is a pretty elastic and subjective concept at the best of times, and as I said has always co-existed with compassion. A jury might acquit someone who is technically guilty - not just in the 18th century, either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting

- a judge might reduce a sentence for compassionate reasons, and a politician may intervene later and alter the sentence. Remember, the law allows him to do so. It's not just a whim. I have no way of reading the minister's mind and knowing whether he wanted to get jobs for Scots in the Libyan oil industry or wanted to stick two fingers up to Washington, or whatever. But on the face of it, releasing someone who is dying seems reasonably compassionate, and that looks like a proper application of the law.

[rov1200]

The prison authorities are usually the best judges of determining guilt or even mental illness. After 9 years in carceration they would know whether that person had committed the crime or not. Who's to say their knowledge has not been fed back to the bureaucrats. After all this time he still says he was innocent of the crime and it was a stitch up. He is due to write a book soon about it. We know from experience how innocent people have been locked up for decades and to have this slur about your neck of such a serious crime does not bare thinking about.