Should the Lockerbie bomber have been released?

[bullmoose88]

Einzige,

Let me just ask you a hypothetical since my simple mind is having trouble appreciating where you stand here

Supposing the recently freed was factually guilty of the crime (actually did it), his conviction was proper (no prejudicial and reversable error under Scottish Law) and supposing further that there was either no compassion policy in Scotland/he did not qualify for it (no terminal disease)

Now with those assumptions in hand, would you still be advocating his release? 

[bullmoose88]

Einzige,

Let me just ask you a hypothetical since my simple mind is having trouble appreciating where you stand here

Supposing the recently freed was factually guilty of the crime (actually did it), his conviction was proper (no prejudicial and reversable error under Scottish Law) and supposing further that there was either no compassion policy in Scotland/he did not qualify for it (no terminal disease)

Now with those assumptions in hand, would you still be advocating his release? 

Absolutely. The State has no business whatsoever in holding a monopoly of force, which extends to imprisonment (i.e. the deprivation of liberty) of individuals convicted of a crime. Of course, since that's not what happened here - the fellow in question was convicted under dubious circumstances - your point is moot.

I don't expect you to be capable of being anything but a hypocrite on this issue. Your entire political reality relies on your being a Statist here.

Now now, there's no need to start flinging insults...that seems just a tad premature in my view...you've called me a hypocrite and a statist...wow man...let me at least do something in our discussion first before you dish out the verbal beating.

I think for better or worse, the particular facts of this matter have been beaten like a dead horse, regardless of what "hypocrites" like myself think about the man, his trial, release etc...there isn't a goddamn thing we can do about it now...other than bitch and moan of course.

I'm more interested in your response...I guess I could understand it more in the context of a person convicted of a non-violent crime...or even a habitual five-finger-discounter...but supposing you had someone who actually committed what I'd believe to be murder (of the first degree in the US)...the intentional, premeditated killing of another (well 270 or so)...and was fairly convicted...

You'd let them go free.  Ok, the state you say doesn't have a monopoly to deprive one of liberty...

So in your hypothetical world, what happens next...if the state can't deprive him of his liberty...can anyone?  Does he get to walk free...does he get the mark of cain and get to walk free?  Can vigilantes extract their own punishment? 

You gotta tell me more man.

[bullmoose88]

Let the relatives take their vengeance, if they want it. And let his do likewise. Someone will, eventually, realize that the cycle must be broken, and do so accordingly. It is of no concern of mine.

Well, that settles the retributive purpose (if one could call it a legitmate purpose) of state imprisonment...

But what about the notion of protecting its citizens.  The state often puts people behind bars to prevent them from committing further crimes...and for this one, I don't mean those bullsh**t crimes...take a serial killer for instance...you put him behind bars, perhaps execute him in some states, so that they cannot kill again.  I think I know the answer to this question already but I'll ask it nonetheless...does the state have the right/authority to incarcerate based upon the protection of its citizens?  If not, do we simply revert back to vigilante justice here (or private actors neutralizing the threat).  Or under the state, is every citizen guilty and thus no innocent lives to protect?

[bullmoose88]

.does the state have the right/authority to incarcerate based upon the protection of its citizens?

No. And that's not what it does today, anyway. It imprisons those who offend the precious moral sensibilities of its citizens, to give them the primal feeling of justification.

Surely, in most cases.  But whether in the remaining cases it intends to or not, its imprisonment of some does serve the protective purpose, at least in part.



 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Seriously, tone it down some.  I realize that generally, I'm a pretty big asshole, but don't remind me of it.   The mirror does it plenty.

2. That's a tougher question.  Assuming the whole process was fraudulent (as you and many posters have said or seem to), my first thought would be that he was convicted because of his nation of origin, not his religion.  I don't know if I'd make the leap (perhaps you wouldn't call it a leap, but a mere step...its not unreasonable to do) to say Libyan=Muslim and thus he was convicted because he was a Libyan...Muslim.

3. Now others have said, both on the boards and persons in the real world stating the convicted was innocent that this could have been an Iranian plot.  So perhaps you might be correct in that someone ultimately would have been convicted, and that person or persons would have been Muslim.  That brings me to a fork in the road...on one side is the path that because of the West's actions (or Anglo-American, or just American actions) someone from the Muslim world would have been fired up to do this, the other seems more nebulous to me...the American need for a constant cause of war in that region dictated that the patsy was always to be a muslim.  I'm much more inclined to go with the simpler, first path, but if there's a road I'm missing, I'm sure you or another poster will point that out.