Misdirected Compassion?

Scotland freed the terminally ill Lockerbie bomber last week so he could die at home in Libya. "Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown," a Scottish official said. Did Scotland do the right thing? Should we have any mercy for mass murderers who are terminally ill?

Compassion is a powerful and important force in most cultures and in most religious traditions. At the same time, expecting people to take responsibility for their actions is just as important for many, and this is why there are laws, correctional systems, and prisons. Thus, in order to answer the question about the Lockerbie bomber, several factors have to be considered. [Although there are those, including al-Megrahi himself, who continue to claim his innocence, my answer here is based on the court finding of guilt.]

One should begin by understanding what compassion actually means. Most definitions of the term refer to an awareness of the suffering of others and a desire to end or minimize that suffering. There are a variety of correctional systems in the U.S. and in other countries that have instituted some form of compassionate release program for the terminally ill, but in almost all cases, they only apply to non-violent offenders. One program in Australia, as enacted in the Prisons Act of 1981 in the state of Western Australia, states that a "Prisoner in the last stages of their life may be considered for placement in a non-custodial setting prior to death and be managed having regard to their sentence, the community, victims, the intention of the sentencing court, the prisoner's family and the prisoner." This is a reasonable and compassionate approach. It is not a freedom per se, and the views of the victims of the crime are considered in any planned release.

Al-Megrahi, the only person convicted for the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, is the one at the center of the present debate. Freeing him from prison at this time may well be an expression of compassion for him and his loved ones. However, it has increased rather than minimized the suffering felt by hundreds of family members of his victims, as well as countless others who sympathize with the families and see the release as a serious affront to justice. After all, al-Megrahi was not incarcerated because he had hurt or even killed a single individual in the commission of a crime. He was there for a consciously planned attack that killed hundreds of innocent people, one that even the man who released him, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, acknowledged was "the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on U.K. soil."

Al-Megrahi's actions were pre-planned and intentional, he specifically targeted innocent people, he never expressed any remorse, and he continued to characterize himself as the victim. Subsequent to his release, he was welcomed back into Libya as a hero. Also subsequent to his release, Dr Richard Simpson, a medical doctor and member of the Scottish Parliament, said that there is "sufficient doubt" that al-Megrahi's illness is as serious as the government claimed. This suggests that, with proper medical treatment, he may live as a hero in Libya for many more years.

I wonder if Scotland releases all its murders who are said to have a terminal illness? Would they release someone who brutally killed several hundred Scottish youth? If so, how many people would someone have to kill in order to get more than 11 days in prison for each death? The fact that al-Megrahi was not executed and that the treatment he received in prison was far better than most other inmates there show compassion...and probably some politics as well. Had al-Megrahi been found guilty of multiple murders in his own country, he would have most likely been killed rather quickly by a firing squad.

While I personally support the UK's banning of capital punishment, the Scottish legal system needs to rethink what compassion means and to whom it should be directed. Did MacAskill ever consider the effect that his releasing of al-Megrahi would have on the families of the 270 innocent people who were slaughtered? Maybe he should have considered directing his compassion toward them. I wonder if MacAskill would have overlooked the families feelings if his own child had been one of the victims.

Call me a cynic, but I definitely believe that some kind of political maneuvering went on in the background that resulted in the release. Although the officials involved continue to deny any, Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi's own son has suggested otherwise. Politicians rarely do anything that does not provide some political advantage or personal benefit. If there were other motives behind the release, I would be curious to know how much money or power it took to convince MacAskill and the others involved to sell their souls.

By Ramdas Lamb  |  August 26, 2009; 5:25 AM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Compassion, Politics and Senator Kennedy | Next: Ignorance About Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Posted by: jeannietomlin | August 29, 2009 11:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: nberwick | August 27, 2009 7:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.