Scotland Releases Convicted Lockerbie Bomber

I'm not sure how I feel.

Being someone who has someone dear to them, behind bars, I would probably appreciate anyway to get said person out. Guilty or not. Many of those people have family, children and friends who haven't seen the person in years.

No one knows if incurable is really incurable or how long one will live with such a disease, so in that way, I'm feeling it's not fair to let him out because of that reason. He could find a cure in his country or something, and then what?

But I do see your point too, about going home if you have disease, making a mockery of the judicial system.

And the families of the victims must be seething right now.

I have very strong feelings on the subject, but am too tired to discuss them in detail. But in short, my thoughts are this: Do the crime, do the time. It's a punishment and is supposed to feel like a punishment and be difficult. And that includes dying in jail, alone without the comfort of being with your family. I have no compassion for a mass murderer. He should have been executed, or at the very least received a mandatory life sentence. Instead he received a minimum 27 year sentence and was released after 8 1/2 years.
270 people murdered, and he served only 8 1/2 years. He should have died in jail. It is disgusting.

The Scottish judicial system is different from the British one. And UK lawmakers are trying to distance themselves from Scotland on this issue due to the fact that the American government opposed the release and American and British citizens are outraged.

It's all a giant clusterf*ck.

I believe that if you do the crime do the time, too.

But I've not had a lot of faith in judicial systems, even before my recent personal experience.

So many people can just buy themselves out for doing crimes, yet many who cannot afford such luxuries, even innocent people, wind up in jail.

Where's the justice in that? Where's do the crime, do the time?

My comment was limited to this particular case and Nay's question.

Dallas wrote:

My comment was limited to this particular case and Nay's question.

Yes, I realized that, but I think each has experiences and thoughts from other areas that funnel into the focus of this question.

I'm not sure what kind of terminal cancer the guy has, but maybe Scotland's judicial system sees his terminal cancer similar to those who died on the plane...the guy didn't ask to have cancer, as those who were on the plane, didn't ask to die.

Maybe there's a tendency to think that this guy having cancer is worse than being locked up; that having cancer IS his punishment.

I don't believe that, but who knows.

greyeyegoddess wrote:

Dallas wrote:

My comment was limited to this particular case and Nay's question.

Yes, I realized that, but I think each has experiences and thoughts from other areas that funnel into the focus of this question.

Which is exactly why I clarified that my comment was not doing that or should not in any way be interpretated as a comment on your particular situation, comments etc.

I'm for "an eye for an eye". That creep should have had to die in terror 270 times.

They should not have let him go, cancer or not. He served less than 2 weeks for each life he took. WTF???

How much time does a drug dealer or swindler serve in Scotland? 2 hours?