This thread worries me.
We consider how to try a case, argue debate and finally agree, the same for which jurisdiction we'll apply, in which country we'll hold the trial, the scope of legislation that all the parties want to apply, then, we finally manage to convene a Court, the Court listens to all the evidence the parties want to introduce, the Court makes sure that all parties are satisfied that they've no more to say, the Court is invited to give us its judgement.
Then, we get the Judgement, and if we don't like it, we criticise the process and the Judgement. (I didn't agree with his conviction, but that isn't my point here).
I am assuming he is guilty as he has been found guilty under Scots law and will die a guilty and condemned man. People seem to forget that last bit. He is guilty and will die guilty. Justice has still been done. He has not been pardoned.
Exactly! we agreed that he would be tried under Scottish law. And that allows for such pardons. We can't now complain that we want a different legal framework becaused we don't like the outcome. We chose which Laws would apply and now we want to change our minds because we don't like the Judement? If we carry on like this then no case would ever be decided in law!
As I understand it, there was no legal reason to deny the compassionate release. International relations and economic issues have no standing in this. Indeed, I don't think you can deny the compassionate release solely on the grounds of foreign relations.
Correct. Scottish law is not the same as English or US law. As I've said, we had the chance to debate which jurisdiction would apply and we made that decision.
And again . . you're correct that foreign policy and commercial dependancies do not apply. In fact, I have a hunch that the track record of the Scottish Executive might be slightly less tainted by such perversion than that over some other nations involved in this incident.
Scotland has made a tough decision, and in a sense I'm proud that they had the guts to stand up and make a controversial decision, and they can back it up.
Tough? yes. But quite consistent with the law.
If us Scots don't like our laws then we should lobby to change them, but it would seem a shame to do so in retrospective response to this unique, exeptional and controversial case rather than the careful and long-fought argument that won this humane exception from more draconain English legislation. Lets remember why we wanted to introduce the concept of "compassion". Is there
anyone on here who wouldn't suddenly want to invoke the element of "compassion" if their friend, relative or other partner was imprisoned (rightly or wrongly) and was rapidly dying?
Its different depending on which side you look on.
Quite right. But there seems to be a few "extra" sides, provoked by media reports. There are actually a lot of sides here, and the number seems to be growing!
If a friend or relative of mine died in it...I would never want him to come out! But as they didn't and it happened before I was born it doesn't really have such an effect on me (although I wouldn't mind kicking his ass)
Hmm. Have you chatted much recently with folks in Lockerbie who've lost friends and rellies? Those I've spoken with are impatient to move on - none of this media noise is of any consolation or help to them.
(
And for what my opinion is worth - I am completely convinced that the man was NOT responsible for that explosion in 1988. Among other reasons, the deliberate omissions in the prosecution evidence (particularly omitting Frankurt baggage handlers) point to political or other perversion of the prosecution.)
