Scotland released Pan Am 103 bomber

[Barrister]

A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".

Doesn't it declare them innocent?

No.  It declares there is not sufficient proof to convict.  They may or may not be innocent.

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine.  People may try and claim an aquittal as some kind of vindication, but that is not the intent.

[Darth Wagtaros]

A not guilty verdict was never intended to "clear someone's name".

Doesn't it declare them innocent?

No.  It declares them not guilty.  The state couldn't prove its case.

[citizen k]

I think it's more of a case of "selective compassion". 

I've a number of points about this.


He has a month or so to live,

That remains to be seen. For Macaskill's sake I hope it's soon.

...Though I think when someone has a terminal illness that will kill them very shortly that a degree of compassion on the part of the justice system is no bad thing.

So why doesn't it happen more often? It's selective compassion and misplaced at that.

[Eddie Teach]

Actually, the "not proven" thing would be very helpful- in the US, we're bound by double jeopardy, so if a premature verdict of innocent is given, there's no recourse but to escalate the case in a superior court; a judge can dismiss a case without prejudice, but I'm not sure until what stage of the trial process they can do so. The possible "not proven" verdict closes a lot of "reasonable doubt" loopholes that trial lawyers in the US exploit- for example, they could have reopened the OJ Simpson case, as it was cleared strictly on reasonable doubt.

So you're suggesting that prosecutors should get to try a suspicious looking person until they get it right?

[Barrister]

Actually, the "not proven" thing would be very helpful- in the US, we're bound by double jeopardy, so if a premature verdict of innocent is given, there's no recourse but to escalate the case in a superior court; a judge can dismiss a case without prejudice, but I'm not sure until what stage of the trial process they can do so. The possible "not proven" verdict closes a lot of "reasonable doubt" loopholes that trial lawyers in the US exploit- for example, they could have reopened the OJ Simpson case, as it was cleared strictly on reasonable doubt.

So you're suggesting that prosecutors should get to try a suspicious looking person until they get it right?

Yeah, I'm not quite sure where he's coming from, or why he wants to get around double jeopardy.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Getting rid of double jeopardy would be a great blow to the rights of US citizens.

[Sheilbh]

That remains to be seen. For Macaskill's sake I hope it's soon.

Well it could turn out otherwise though I don't know why doctors in the Scottish prison system would lie about his inoperable prostate cancer.

So why doesn't it happen more often? It's selective compassion and misplaced at that.

It is selective.  I think MacAskill made an error in his reiteration of Scottish 'values' because in Scotland lots of prisoners die while serving their sentences.  Personally I'd have no problem with prisoners with just a few months or weeks left to live being released if they had family who wanted them.  I don't think anything is gained by someone dying in prison and I think by that point the penalty has been imposed and served.

Having said that, the reasons I gave earlier make me think it is okay to be selective in this case.  I dislike the idea of a man who could have suffered a miscarriage of justice and who is, even if guilty, a largely symbolic prisoner not being given compassion or mercy by the justice system.

No.  It declares there is not sufficient proof to convict.  They may or may not be innocent.

But surely that would mean if you're arrested and go to trial for something and are acquitted, that in the eyes of the law you're still not not guilty.  That just seems perverse.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure where he's coming from, or why he wants to get around double jeopardy.

In Scotland I think they only have it for 'not guilty', if the case is 'not proven' it can be retried and in England cases can be retried if significant new evidence comes to light.

[Admiral Yi]

FWIW the dude looked like he was ready to croak stepping off the plane.

[citizen k]

Scots law is now 'laughing stock of the world'
Published Date: 21 August 2009
By David Maddox and Tom Peterkin


US PRESIDENT Barack Obama last night demanded that Libya put the Lockerbie bomber under house arrest as anger at his release grew in the United States.
In a radio interview, the president said the US administration had been in contact with the Scottish Government to register its objection to the move, which Mr Obama called "a mistake".

His comments came as concern grows about the effect the decision to free the one man convicted of murdering 270 people on 21 December, 1988, will have on Scotland's relations with the US. CBI Scotland has raised fears about an impact on trade and tourism and US politicians have joined American relatives in condemning justice secretary Kenny MacAskill who made the decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

Stephanie Bernstein, the widow of Michael Bernstein, a prosecutor who tracked down Nazi war criminals, said: "He is flying back to Tripoli on Gaddafi's private plane. He is going to be greeted like a hero by Gaddafi.

"MacAskill talks about showing compassion and mercy. This is weakness. This is how it will be seen by Gaddafi. This is how it will be played within Libya and this is how it will be seen by every single person that wants to do harm to people all over the world."

Susan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora was one of many students killed on the flight, said: "I think this has been despicable. He was convicted of mass murder, but you've let him out on the most sickening grounds possible. Shame on Scotland. We were told about this proud little country, but you are still in the grip of the British Empire."

She warned that the pictures of Megrahi leaving Scotland would be remembered forever.

The issue has once again highlighted the divide between the British and American relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing.

British relatives, most of whom believe Megrahi is innocent, welcomed the decision to release him. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was on Pan Am Flight 103, said: "I don't believe for a moment that this man was involved in the way that he was found to have been involved."

But Dr Swire reiterated his regret that Megrahi's appeal against his conviction had been dropped. "I feel despondent that the West and Scotland didn't have the guts to allow this man's second appeal to continue, because I am convinced had they done so, it would have overturned the verdict against him."

However, there was anger from Lockerbie over Megrahi's release. The self-styled "Baby of Lockerbie" described the decision as "quite disgusting".

Aimee Guthrie was born within an hour of the disaster to a couple who ran a hotel in the Borders town. Now approaching her 21st birthday, she said she would have preferred it if Megrahi had been left to die in jail.

There was also a fierce debate over how Mr MacAskill's decision had affected the reputation of Scotland's legal system. Despite his claims to support the original verdict on Megrahi's guilt, some claimed the justice secretary had caved in to those who said that Scottish judges, police and prosecutors had got it wrong. Leading QC Paul McBride said: "This has left the Scottish justice system a laughing stock in the world." He said it is the first time a convicted criminal had been allowed to return to his country of origin. "I have dealt with these cases for foreign nationals and they have always been sent to a home or hospice in Scotland," he said.

But Scottish Law Society president Ian Smart said the decision had upheld the reputation of the legal profession. He said the doubts were only over evidence, not process.

Retired judge Lord McCluskey said: "There is no reason for us not to show compassion – apart from revenge, which isn't the sweetest of virtues."

In Libya, Youssef Sawani, director of the Gaddafi International Charity, said: "It shows justice can be done and that the issue is not one of revenge."

[Neil]

Unrelated question, in the US is it known as the Pan Am 103 disaster?

At least in Canada it's always been called 'The Lockerbie Bombing'.

[Neil]

Scottish officials said the former Libyan intelligence officer's prostate cancer was advancing and that they were bound by Scottish values to release him.

Scottish values do not include justice it seems.

Drunkeness, idiocy and damning England while being totally dependent on handouts.

[dps]

No.  It declares there is not sufficient proof to convict.  They may or may not be innocent.

But surely that would mean if you're arrested and go to trial for something and are acquitted, that in the eyes of the law you're still not not guilty.  That just seems perverse.

It's simply a byproduct of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".  The accused don't have to prove their innocence;  rather, the state has to prove their guilt.  If the state doesn't prove its case, the accused are found not guilty, but that doesn't mean that they didn't commit the crime, merely that the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did.

In the eyes of the courts, it does mean that they are considered to be innocent.

[Richard Hakluyt]

This is blowing up to be something of a scandal. The Scottish parliament is being recalled to discuss the matter :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8216897.stm

Meanwhile the national press is speculating that Brown or Mandelson have been doing shady deals with Libya.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208530/Libya-After-Lockerbie-bombers-release-heats-Mandy-hes-forced-deny-deal-Gaddafi.html

IMO Brown/Mandelson have probably been making deals with Libya, meanwhile they have managed to allow the opprobrium to fall on the ScotNats, who have been shown up as silly buggers. Brown can't run the bloody country properly but he's pretty good at the political infighting; it's no accident that Private Eye's spoof of him as Stalin2 works so well.

Another link, this time to the Telgraph :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6076926/Lockerbie-bomber-release-pressure-mounting-on-Gordon-Brown.html

(edit : Brown is a unionist of course, so humiliating the ScotsNats is useful from his pov).

[Sheilbh]

Meanwhile the national press is speculating that Brown or Mandelson have been doing shady deals with Libya.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208530/Libya-After-Lockerbie-bombers-release-heats-Mandy-hes-forced-deny-deal-Gaddafi.html

IMO Brown/Mandelson have probably been making deals with Libya, meanwhile they have managed to allow the opprobrium to fall on the ScotNats, who have been shown up as silly buggers.

I just don't buy that Kenny MacAskill is going to do Westminster's bidding on this without shouting about it from the rooftops.

Sadly in Scotland the argument's divided along partisan lines so far as I can see.  The SNP vs the rest.

[Agelastus]

Good. Showing compassion to a deadly ill man is what any good Christian or Humanist should do.

Compassion? We're talking about the SCOTS here, for deity's sake. It's cheaper to give him a plane ticket than pay for medical care for a dying man.