Does compassion have any part to play in a criminal justice system?

(by Geoff Seeff <geoffseeff@cix.co.uk> on 2nd September 2009)

In recent weeks we have seen the release from prison of two high profile convicted criminals on grounds of their terminal illnesses, Ronald Biggs the Great Train robber, and Abdul al-Megrahi, the "Lockerbie Bomber", responsible for the murder of 270 persons by blowing a up a Pan Am airliner.

These two cases were vastly different. Biggs, whose crime was of a lesser order but nonetheless serious, cocked a snook at the system by absconding from its jurisdiction and then, when he needed medical care, returning to England. We were right to have shown compassion and offered that care - but he and it should have been contained within prison walls. We should offer nothing but contempt for those who show contempt to us regardless of their age and, unfortunately in this instance, quasi celebrity status.

As concerns the decision to release al-Megrahi, the Scottish justice minister appears to have taken leave of his senses. Any person proven to be involved in an act of premeditated indiscriminate murder when there are reasonable democratic means available for them to make their case, has cut themselves off from civilised society and therefore forfeits all human rights - except perhaps one, to existence. Our compassion should extend only to allow them the time to spend in contemplation of the enormity of the crime they have committed. That does indeed mean that they will die in prison either of old age or, if they are lucky, prematurely of cancer or other terminal disease. It is plain daft to use medical condition either as a defence or grounds for early release - if a man who already has a terminal illnesses commits a serious crime, shall he be acquitted immediately on the grounds that he is certain to die during his sentence. And, as for the celebrations on Megrahi's arrival back in Libya, what on earth did anyone think would happen? Watch for the celebrations on the anniversary of his release and the amazing remission of his cancer.

Of course there is a strong suspicion that the release had nothing at all to do with compassion. I am not entirely sure why this country is so anxious to see Libya rehabilitated into the community of nations under its present regime. al-Megrahi could not have been acting alone when he planted the bomb and was likely to have had support and encouragement from senior figures in Libya's hierarchy. However, I suppose that the world has to keep turning and it is necessary to reach accommodation on matters such as prisoner exchange. From everything that we read, agreements on trade and prison transfers were linked, albeit the question of al-Megrahi's release was specifically excluded under the original terms. That exclusion was dropped a couple of years ago, for reasons that have not been disclosed, but Jack Straw's pathetic attempt to distance himself from the decision on release, on the grounds that "removing the exclusion is not the same as authorising the release", is precisely the sort of weasel words we have to come to expect from this entirely unprincipled government. Clearly the removal of the constraint enabled the decision on release to be implemented.

Write a new message

Reply to this message.

Start a new thread in this forum.

Browse the forum

Question Time.