Personally I would let him go and stay with his family if he really was/is terminal and had a few months left. It's probably common policy anyway, for all sorts of criminals, to release them from prison when they are terminally ill and don't have much time left, so it's not that they just do it for this fella. Your average murderer doesn't get that much press.

Having said that, I can sympathize with what you guys are saying, but in the end what's it gonna serve anyone to let him die in prison? His victims won't spring back to life, and his family that, presumably, has nothing to do with his crimes is barred from a proper goodbye.

And it's not like there are criminals all over Scotland are now suddenly going "awesome! If they put me away for life I can still get out a few months before I'm gonna die! Time to murder some people."

The 'pro' may be very weak, but there are no real 'cons'.

I say let him die. If it had been in America (in a state that allows it) he would've been sentenced to death. To me that would have been more appropriate. Act like a rabid animal, be put down like a rabid animal. But I don't have any patience for people that target civilians. Ultimately, a civilian is the same, regardless of if they live in London, Dallas or Tehran. Targetting them is inexcusable.

Myeah. In some ways I feel it is our responsibility as first-world nations who pride ourselves on our rationalism and justice system and whatnot to show the sort of 'compassion' that they would never show to the victims they make. If you know what I mean. An eye for an eye rarely leads to resolutions.


(Am I the only one who finds it highly ironic that I, full-blown sadistic psychopath in every game I play, am the the one defending the Scots' pov here? )

I think you're crazy. Showing "compassion" to us is showing "weakness" to the animals that think it's ok to kidnap some poor oil worker and chop off his head in front of a video camera. I don't think we should go out of our way hunting the crazies, but if we get them, I think mercy is the last thing we should show.

But then again, my tendencies are more toward violence than Ox's girlish european sensibilities.

It's an immense disgrace and injustice to the families of those killed.

Think about it. If one day we discover the technology to detect when people will die of old age, does that mean life sentences no longer exist?

The severity of the sentence doesn't come within a mile of the severity of the crime, so why are we cutting it short? All it proves is weakness and dishonour.

Re: what I said about an eye for an eye, the Lockerbie incident was the result of an American bombing of Tripoli, which in turn was sparked by a terrorist bombing of a German disco back in the eighties, presumably carried out by the Libyans. And so forth. It's a pointless and sad excercise, walking in circles through history.

There is no weakness in being humane, in fact having the moral high ground is a powerful weapon, PR- or otherwise. There's a reason why in most wars both parties make such a big deal about supposedly sticking to the Geneva Convention and covering up evidence of excessive violence by their troops.

Of course you don't have to let everything just slide, but there is a point where it just gets pointless. Do you guys really believe the families of the deceased are benefitting from him spending the last few months of his life dying in prison as opposed to home?

Regardless of how you think on the whole issue, I think we can agree that the American military foreign policy of the past 10 years is a perfect example of how striking back with excessive force ultimately leads to very little. Afghanistan is a lost cause, all allied parties involved agree on that. Saddam is gone, but Iraq is a country in shambles, a safehaven for terrorists and not likely to really come on its feet in any desirable way any time soon. I wouldn't exactly say that things have gotten safer since Saddam. And what is the nett cost for the US? An increased hate of America in the Middle East and a huge ginormous financial investment (tax payer dollars) in a lost cause, not to mention thousands of men cut down in their prime, handicapped and/or fucked up in the head.

Yay for retaliation.

You guy sall know me by now, particularly you Ox. I'm all for second chances, being nice to people even when they're assholes to me and I take the moral high ground 99% of the time, usually to my own disadvantage... but I don't agree in life sentences being cut short. I disagree with the death penalty coz 1. no way to reverse it if it turns out they were innocent and 2. it's an easy escape for them. Yes, it sucks but hey, it's a few days/weeks of 'oh shit i'm gonna die' and then that's it.

I'm sorry but at the end of the day if you kill one person deliberately, let alone plan a huge murder like the bombing, you deserve to never see anyone you care for or who cares for you again. You don't 'accidentally' do such a thing. You can't do it without realising you're going to hurt someone. It's nothing more than a full-blown, malicious, evil act and so no, you don't deserve any compassion.

It has nothing to do, for me, with the families of the deceased. They're not gonna benefit from his death, his suffering, if we give him a huge bouquet of roses... nothing will change anything for them anyway. It has everything to do with punishing him. One of the cruelest things you can do is take away someones life and to deliberately do that to so many people is just pure evil.

Murderers and rapists should be put away permanently. They're nothing but scum, they don't deserve any kind of life and they certainly shouldn't be given the chance to commit such a crime again. A life sentence is usually only about 20 years which is crap (how is that 'life') and 9 times out of 10 they're let out on good behaviour early, only to repeat their crimes.

Actually he should've been killed long time ago. Because the families of the deceased paid (tax) for his visit to the jail.

Well it appears I am on my own in this whole thing (and derf is going to shoot me, too, apparently).

One thing will always stay the same though: the people who're really responsible, ie the ones who gave the bomber(s) to blow up the flight, are still living large in luxurious palaces around Libya. Col. Khadafi is receiving world leaders and drinking coffee with them, while his sons are buying Italian and English football teams and/or putting themselves in the starting 11.

Why is Khadafi not paying for his crimes?

The illusion of America's moral high ground exists only within America and the homes of their friends. America is just as immoral as anyone else when it comes to killing civilians.

I'm certain that 95% of world leaders are guilty of murdering civilians but this doesn't mean it's acceptable. They should all get locked up, but they don't because it's accepted as normality.

[minirant]
In early human history, when the first agricultural settlements were formed, the ruling class suddenly realised they were able to wield considerably more influence over more people and resources. Thanks to the power of imagination and delusions of grandeur, they took this opportunity to expand beyond what was necessary. This was and remains our greatest error which remains unchecked to this day. Surely letting these people get away with it is our greatest mistake too.
[/minirant]

Edit: In that respect, compassion is more brutal than carrying out the full sentence. Which is no surprise given your savage reputation Ox.

well, large structures of social organization are good... they've helped us evolve as a race. Without nations, there's no way we'd have the resources for things like space exploration or particle accelerators.

On the other hand, if we could cooperate on a global level without having our megalomaniac leaders, that would be perfect. However, I think most people are too stupid to govern themselves... they need someone to think for them.

There may be a chance that the costs of technology outweigh the benefits. E.g. Tragic, environmental, physchological. How many people died in wars? To what state have we ridden nature? How many people these days are mentally ill? I'd be tempted to give it all up for a nomadic or village lifestyle.

Oh and globalisation would be pretty cool but obviously, it requires as you say, no douchbags.