20 Aug 09
By coincidence, I know one of the High Court judges who presided over the case when it was first heard in a professional capacity.
Speaking to him yesterday, he had a few things to say:
- There were some procedural irregularities surrounding the case with which he was unhappy at the time, and with which he remains unhappy.
- Although, were he to be presented with exactly the same case today he would reach the same verdict, were he to be presented with the case with all subsequent information now available, he is not sure a conviction would stand.
- Kenny McAskill, the current Scottish Justice Secretary, has the real benefit of a grounding in Scottish law. there is substantial precedent for compassionate release in circumstances such as these.
I tend to agree with him on all three counts and, accordingly, think that the Justice Secretary has done the right thing.
I just saw him, McAskill, on the news: see if you can get the video, or a transcript, and see what he has to say about how he reached his decision.
The whole case is more nuanced than some people seem to think.
20 Aug 09
1 edit
Maybe it's the result of living in a Scottish bubble, but I thought it was common knowledge that Meghrahi's trial was dodgy in terms of the evidence presented (and withheld). It's perhaps telling that he recently dropped his appeal. Letting him go home is far better for the USA than letting the truth come out - remember that when you see the US crocodile tears over the coming days.
20 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeI think you have the right to show compassion to people who have wronged YOU. Indeed, it is laudable to do so.
Are the 2 compatible?
Personally, I'm proud that Scotland looks likely to show some compassion to a dying man and allow him home to die.
To show "compassion" (and by that I mean release an offender from what would otherwise be just and legal punishment) for people who have wronged others without the victim getting a say in the matter is wrong and arrogant.
In any case, "compassion" for a person who intentionally, deliberately and with premeditation, murdered hundreds of innocent people, is misplaced.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76I think that the victims' families did have a say. Did you mean that they alone should make the final call on compassionate release? If so, I disagree.
I think you have the right to show compassion to people who have wronged YOU. Indeed, it is laudable to do so.
To show "compassion" (and by that I mean release an offender from what would otherwise be just and legal punishment) for people who have wronged others without the victim getting a say in the matter is wrong and arrogant.
In any case, "compassion ...[text shortened]... ly, deliberately and with premeditation, murdered hundreds of innocent people, is misplaced.
And, as has been pointed out, there is a reasonable case to be made that this person may not have done that of which he is accused, but that's a different topic entirely...
20 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Rest assured loads more in Scotland, than you may be led to believe, are opposed to this "compassionate" release. Don't forget most of this madman's victims were not Scots and those nations are yet to be fully heard from.
I think you have the right to show compassion to people who have wronged YOU. Indeed, it is laudable to do so.
To show "compassion" (and by that I mean release an offender from what would otherwise be just and legal punishment) for people who have wronged others without the victim getting a say in the matter is wrong and arrogant.
In any case, "compassion ly, deliberately and with premeditation, murdered hundreds of innocent people, is misplaced.
This terrorist has prostate cancer. Perhaps you don't know it is the slowest acting cancer of all? In fact, many men over 60 years of age who are first diagnosed with start of prostate cancer are advised not to bother with treatment because the cancer is so slow acting.
Before you say it...Yes, I have read doctors have given him 3 months to live, lets wait and see. If he is still around next year it will be the most important hoax ever perpetrated on Scotland.
ps - There will be celebration in Lybia...count on a hero's reception.
20 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFDid they have a say? I must have missed that part. If the families voted to release him or something to that effect, then that makes it a bit more palatable.
I think that the victims' families did have a say. Did you mean that they alone should make the final call on compassionate release? If so, I disagree.
And, as has been pointed out, there is a reasonable case to be made that this person may not have done that of which he is accused, but that's a different topic entirely...
As you said, the issue of his innocence is entirely separate. If he's innocent, then he should not only be freed, but the conviction should be expunged and he should be compensated. But "Well, he's dying, and there were some procedural issues anyway" doesn't really hold water. Either he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or he's not. If he is, then there should be no issue regarding his innocence and if he's not, he should never have been convicted.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by MacSwainYes, I understand that this was the decision of a handful of bureaucrats, not a referendum voted on by the Scottish people.
Rest assured loads more in Scotland, than you may be led to believe, are opposed to this "compassionate" release. Don't forget most of this madman's victims were not Scots and those nations are yet to be fully heard from.
This terrorist has prostate cancer. Perhaps you don't know it is the slowest acting cancer of all? In fact, many men over 60 years of ...[text shortened]... ted on Scotland.
ps - There will be celebration in Lybia...count on a hero's reception.
I still don't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place. It was an American airline flight en route from London to New York with mostly American passengers.
The US should have had jurisdiction.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Opinion is indeed mixed on the issue of temporary release. And yes, it seems you did miss the input of victims' families in to MacAskill's decision. As I said previously, get a transcript of his speech or watch a video of it - he explains the input the victims' families had.
Yes, I understand that this was the decision of a handful of bureaucrats, not a referendum voted on by the Scottish people.
I still don't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place. It was an American airline flight en route from London to New York with mostly American passengers.
The US should have had jurisdiction.
Just as in the US (so far as I am aware), over here we don't hold referenda on such matters.
Scotland had jurisdiction because the crime (the detonation of the device) was committed in Scotland. I'm incredulous that you would suggest America should have had jurisdiction, just because a numerical majority of the victims were American.
If I were to visit the USA and be shot there, would you expect the murderer to be tried under Scots law?
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Because Muammar Qaddafi would only turn the perpetrator over to a country he approved of. First criteria was the country could not have capital punishment.
I still don't see why Scotland asserted jurisdiction in the first place. It was an American airline flight en route from London to New York with mostly American passengers.
The US should have had jurisdiction.
Surely you've heard his family is powerful and highly connected directly to Muammar Qaddafi.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by MacSwainThat, and, as just above, the clincher:
Because Muammar Qaddafi would only turn the perpetrator over to a country he approved of. First criteria was the country could not have capital punishment.
Surely you've heard his family is powerful and highly connected directly to Muammar Qaddafi.
British airspace. Crashed onto British territory. British people killed on the ground.
The suggestion the US should have had jurisdiction is ridiculous in the extreme.
20 Aug 09
3 edits
Originally posted by DrKFYou obviously don't know the first thing about criminal jurisdiction. I don't blame you for that as you are not an attorney. But, before you become incredulous about anything, know this:
Opinion is indeed mixed on the issue of temporary release. And yes, it seems you did miss the input of victims' families in to MacAskill's decision. As I said previously, get a transcript of his speech or watch a video of it - he explains the input the victims' families had.
Just as in the US (so far as I am aware), over here we don't hold referenda on such visit the USA and be shot there, would you expect the murderer to be tried under Scots law?
Criminal Jurisdiction is based on where the elements of the crime are committed and on the location of the intended victims. If I am sitting in my office in New York and run a confidence scheme on victims in Utah, I am subject to Utah jurisdiction and/or New York jurisdiction. Similarly, if I sit in New York and plot to attack France, I would be subject to French jurisdiction.
If I shoot a British tourist in New York, only New York would have jurisdiction because the locus of the entire crime was in New York.
However, the location that an airplane happens to go down is, at most, tangentially related to the location that the crime was committed. The crime of plotting to blow up a plane occurs where the conspiracy was hatched and where the intended victims are.
If the plane went down in the middle of the Atlantic, would you then tell me that only the fish have jurisdiction because the plane went down in the water?
I took Conflicts of Laws in law school. The general rule is that the state that a crime or tort took place is the state that has jurisdiction. The classic example of the exception that is used routinely is the example of the plane crashing, where it is clear that the location that the plane went down is NOT necessarily the location of the tort or the crime.
Oh, and US law on this subject (and most other subjects as well) is based originally on the British common law principles. As such, although I make no guarantees that British law would take the same position, my educated guess is that they would.
Clearly, if Scotland were, say, Kansas, and the plane were filled with California residents flying from NY to LA, both NY and CA would have jurisdiction ahead of Kansas.
The US government didn't make a stink over asserting jurisdiction because it trusted the British authorities to do the right thing in this case and did not want to spend diplomatic capital to fight a battle that it deemed unnecessary and that it might not be able to win in any case.
I hope this lessens your incredulity.
Edit: Your suggestion that my suggestion is "ridiculous in the extreme" is based on sheer ignorance of the applicable law. I wish Scriabin were still here to back me up on this. But, as he is not, you are either going to have to take my word for it, do your own research, or simply ignore it and continue to be ignorant. Your choice.
Second Edit: I'm not saying the British did NOT have jurisdiction. I'm saying the US ALSO has jurisdiction. For example, if Libyan agents arrest this fellow once he returns home to Libya and extradite him to the US, the US courts would assert jurisdiction over him. That is not even an opinion. It is a FACT
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by MacSwainBy adding the second sentence I obviously made subject my post too difficult for some to recognise. I will try a more simplistic version.
Because Muammar Qaddafi would only turn the perpetrator over to a country he approved of. First criteria was the country could not have capital punishment.
Surely you've heard his family is powerful and highly connected directly to Muammar Qaddafi.
Muammar Qaddafi had the fellow in hand. Muammar Qaddafi would NEVER turn him oner to ANY country that had capital punishment. There was NO chance of the perpetrator being turned over for trial to the US.