Should we have compassion for killers?

[David Cain]

The only man convicted in the Lockerbie bombing, which killed 270 people, was released last week on "compassionate grounds." He has cancer and has been given less than 3 months to live, so the Scottish justice secretary let him go free to die with his family.

There was a lot of anger about the release, people are really divided.

It's a tricky issue, so here's my take on it:

Should We Have Compassion for Killers?

Everyone seems to have an opinion on this, I'd love to hear yours.

[Daffy Duck]

In the grand scheme of things, this isn't really a big deal. Right now, somewhere, there's probably some young kid being beaten up by a rival gang on the streets. One hundred women were probably just smacked across the face in the past 10 seconds. These things are more disturbing to me than this Lockerbie story, a man who will die from cancer soon and have to face his afterlife and any consequences it holds. If I murdered 270 people, I wouldn't be looking forward to meeting them...

Well, it might be nice if the government was more authentic about the whole thing. What is their real agenda for letting this man out? Is there some political advantage?

Why him? Why let a man out who likely killed 270 people, and yet the man who killed only one or two stays locked up forever?

This wasn't on "compassionate grounds." They didn't just feel like being extra nice that day. Decisions like this aren't made because someone felt like being nice.

And is it "nice" to begin with? As we saw from the public reaction, many people don't think it was nice OR compassionate.

There is a hidden agenda.

Compassion doesn't mean we get rid of justice. They both work together well in my mind. I can love and have compassion for someone, while at the same time holding them accountable for what they do, which might mean spending the rest of their human life in prison.

I'm happy we have jails. I prefer to not have child rapists doing what they want without consequence. I think if we didn't have jails, we'd see more people being killed. Rob my house? Touch my kids? Here's a bullet in your head. However, it would be best if our prisons were a better environment and actually had more programs for rehabilitation, instead of just being a holding block. Taking a bunch of mentally ill and/or violent people and sticking them in close quarters is not a good idea.

I think that's all I have to say. I discussed this in length on another forum and I'm not looking to debate it again.

[ar81]

Lockerbie bomber: 270 dead.
Osama Bin Laden: 3000 dead in WTC, 9/11.
Curtis LeMay: 300,000 Japanese dead in incendiary and nuclear raids during WWII.

Who deserves what?

[MidasGirl]

You asked "should we have compassion for killers"? And my answer is yes. But to me compassion doesn't equal letting them go. You can still have compassion for them while they serve their time.

I don't see compassion as the reason they should give for releasing him, and I'm not convinced it was. Getting rid of a cancer-ridden prisoner who's fixing to die in a few months probably makes more financial/resources sense than compassion.

[ssandra]

Somewhere in your article you write:

I understand the outrage, I really do. The urge to punish is part of human nature. We’ve all felt that desire: the impulse to hurt someone who has hurt others.

I don´t understand this. I mean, I understand that apparently other people have these feelings, but I just don´t have them, nor can I remember ever having them.

I must add to this that thank God! I have never had anything serious happen to me. But even if I imagen having my husband or family in that airplane, I still don´t get the feeling for revenge or justice.

For me, I understand the need for law and to imprisen people. You do it for the reasons mentioned in the article, to make sure they get away from society, they don´t do it again and get help, to have consequenses for your actions.

I do not understand the feelings of revenge.

I have already accepted that I am probably the only one who feels like this, I have never ever heard from anybody else who has this same opinion.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I do not understand the feelings of revenge.

Revenge comes out of hate.
Hate is a rotten sadness that people could not vent on time.
Hate is a poison that tortures those who hate.
The solution is to forgive.
But first the wounds must heal, rotten waters or emotions must be drained.

It is good you do not understand revenge.
But if you meet someone who does, you may tell that person what is posted here.

[Brutha]

Lockerbie bomber: 270 dead.
Osama Bin Laden: 3000 dead in WTC, 9/11.
Curtis LeMay: 300,000 Japanese dead in incendiary and nuclear raids during WWII.
Khmer Roughe: More than 2 million. Carter administration called it the worst violator of human rights and voted to keep its representation in UN.

Bush administration: 1 million plus in Iraq and who knows how my elsewhere in the world.

Well, it might be nice if the government was more authentic about the whole thing. What is their real agenda for letting this man out? Is there some political advantage?

From reading wikipedia, there's definitely politics involved.
On 14 September 2008, the Arab League Ministerial Council passed a resolution calling for the 'political hostage' Megrahi to be released from prison in Scotland. The resolution demanded that the UK government should hand to Megrahi's lawyers the documents which the SCCRC had identified, adding that Britain's refusal to do so represented a 'miscarriage of justice'.
[...]
On 14 August 2009, Megrahi withdrew his appeal. South of Scotland SNP MSP Christine Grahame said, "There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal continuing as they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie.... In the next days, weeks and months new information will be placed in the public domain that will make it clear that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103." Tam Dalyell, the former Labour MP for West Lothian has long believed Megrahi is the victim of a catastrophic miscarriage of justice, and has publicly stated that Megrahi is merely a scapegoat

Maybe they made a trade with the Libryian government and got something in return for letting him go.
Maybe they didn't want the appeal going to court because it would have revealed some information about the MI6 that they want to keep disclosed.

Compassionate grounds simply means that the don't want to tell the exact grounds in this case.

I also don't see a problem in trading the release for someone like him for some benefit with Lybia.

[Dreamline]

We should have compassion for everyone. But that doesn't mean crime goes unpunished.

Criminals are let out all the time when they are close to death. Big whoop? You should be happy your tax dollars stop supporting him the day he gets pushed out the door of that prison on his gurney, barely alive.

Jennifer

[aggie]

i guess i pretty much agree with almost everything that was posted.

everyone, even the victims in this case will all have to deal with their revenge seeking and forgiveness in this life.

the thing that actually bugs me about it all is how some right wingers tried to blame obama for this too!

oops, sorry guys...wrong thread

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by aggie

the thing that actually bugs me about it all is how some right wingers tried to blame obama for this too!

Hahahah, I bet you're right, even though this is the wrong thread!

[WanderingOak]

I've heard tell that the best care that he could receive would have been in Scotland, rather than Libya. If that were the case, then the most compassionate thing to do would have been hospice care in Scotland, with his family being flown in. The political repercussions would have been very different if that had been done...

[wachusettgirl]

I think it's probably the hardest in this case for the family members of the victims of the Lockerbie flight. For them this may be a hard pill to swallow.

[WelfarestateChild]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Bush administration: 1 million plus in Iraq and who knows how my elsewhere in the world.

Deaths due to Obamas continued "Bush administration" policy and Pakistan intrusion, including the continuing impoverishment of the american people due to cost of war: Unknown but certainly rising.

On the OP.
What does "should" mean? Where does it come from... Who makes these rules what people "should"? I really dont think your post makes any sense. And there is even a "we" in there. Nothing but another contaminating, suicidal, nonsense collectivist ideal

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by David Cain

Should We Have Compassion for Killers?

I'm sorry but, I don't understand. If we don't have compassion, then what exactly makes us different from the killers?

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I have already accepted that I am probably the only one who feels like this, I have never ever heard from anybody else who has this same opinion.

You are not the only one. If only there were more people like us.

And keeping someone in a cage has nothing to do with keeping them away from society. If it was so, then why is there so little freedom in prison, even when such freedoms would present no danger of escape?

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I have already accepted that I am probably the only one who feels like this, I have never ever heard from anybody else who has this same opinion.

You are not the only one. If only there were more people like us.

And keeping someone in a cage has nothing to do with keeping them away from society. If it was so, then why is there so little freedom in prison, even when such freedoms would present no danger of escape?

And why is a failed attempt to commit a crime punished less than a succeeded one? Because when someone succeeded in committing a crime, he must be punished in revenge, while the other person, identical, except not as skilled in his art, must not be punished, cause there's no one to avenge (yet). And why is a drunk driver who causes an accident punished more than a drunk driver who got lucky and hurt no one? There must be someone to avenge first, otherwise compassion is possible.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

You are not the only one. If only there were more people like us.

Good to know there are more...

Originally Posted by bluedragon

And keeping someone in a cage has nothing to do with keeping them away from society. If it was so, then why is there so little freedom in prison, even when such freedoms would present no danger of escape?

I understand the need to punish somebody... this is to learn, to provide an example for other would-be killers etc.
You also "punish" a child if it does something you do not want it to do. This is how they learn.

Being put on a nice tropical island with white beaches and a blue sea keeps people away from society, but will lead to more crimes commited, not less.

So, yes, I see why we lock people up (although we could do more in the area of personal development of prisoners, in order for it not to happen again).

I don´t see why, as you said, attemt is punished less than success.. or drunk driving with somebody killed more than without somebody killed.