20 Aug 09
Originally posted by generalissimoShould we let out Charles Manson when his health begins to fail? What about other murderers? Hell, maybe we should just commute all life sentences if the criminal gets terminally ill, or even really old. We'd save a lot of money and we could feel so good about ourselves.
well, the guy is dying, so I don't see why not.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by Sleepyguynot at all.
Should we let out Charles Manson when his health begins to fail? What about other murderers? Hell, maybe we should just commute all life sentences if the criminal gets terminally ill, or even really old. We'd save a lot of money and we could feel so good about ourselves.
its just that Im not entirely convinced he was guilty of what he's accused.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by MacSwainI think that's a reasonable explanation for why Scotland got jurisdiction - because he had to be handed over, and wouldn't be handed over to the US - but bogus as the (only) explanation as to why the UK sought jurisdiction. Probably the principal reason was because the airliner was blown up over Scotland and crashed on a Scottish town, simple as that.
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.
Just think about the hypothetical Air France example from earlier: what would be the (to my mind legitimate) public expectation as to who would have jurisdiction? And what would be the public reaction if jurisdiction were instead given to France, after an airliner was blown out of the sky just after leaving JFK, to try the plotters?
20 Aug 09
6 edits
Originally posted by DrKFI don't see why the location of the explosion should matter.
Probably the principal reason was because the airliner was blown up over Scotland and crashed on a Scottish town, simple as that.
Assume a Virgin Atlantic plane takes off from Mumbai, headed for Heathrow. The plane has on board 112 British citizens, 46 Indians, 12 Germans, 5 Chinese, 4, Spaniards, 3 Russians, 2 Americans and a Partidge in a Pear tree.
A bomb is planted on the plane with a crude timing device setting it to go off at some point on the trip.
It could have gone off over Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium or a few other countries, depending on its flight path.
Oh, and all the plotters live in Australia.
As it so happens, the plane explodes over Iran, killing all people on board.
Who should assert jurisdiction? Iran?
Oh; and where are the survivors buried? 🙂
21 Aug 09
2 edits
"You have shown to the international community that your government and the United Kingdom as a whole will stop at nothing to pursue the neverending and relentless acquisition of oil revenues."
From www.boycottscotland.com, a US site, apparently with no irony intended.
Worth visiting the site for the shambolic geography, if nothing else.
21 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeI like the question. So the question is, can the "wronged" be shown compassion for ignoring the wrong done to them. I say of course not. The "wrong" must be acknowledged and accounted for, therefore, a price must be payed to the person wronged.
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.
21 Aug 09
Originally posted by whodeyThis is an extreme example here. What if someone in the US had a certain amount of drugs on his person and got a mandatory minimum sentence. Before that sentence was up he got sick and they sent him home with family for his last few days. That is much different than a mass murderer. In that case I don't see how it would be bad to show some compassion.
I like the question. So the question is, can the "wronged" be shown compassion for ignoring the wrong done to them. I say of course not. The "wrong" must be acknowledged and accounted for, therefore, a price must be payed to the person wronged.
21 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Interesting example, and a difficult one I'm sure. I think it goes to show that the matter of who gets jurisdiction doesn't exist within a legal-theoretical bubble, but has to be alive to political realities and political and public expectations and attitudes.
I don't see why the location of the explosion should matter.
Assume a Virgin Atlantic plane takes off from Mumbai, headed for Heathrow. The plane has on board 112 British citizens, 46 Indians, 12 Germans, 5 Chinese, 4, Spaniards, 3 Russians, 2 Americans and a Partidge in a Pear tree.
A bomb is planted on the plane with a crude timing device setting it to ...[text shortened]... board.
Who should assert jurisdiction? Iran?
Oh; and where are the survivors buried? 🙂
You do seem to be repeatedly ducking a much simpler hypothetical, though, so I'll state it again:
An Air France airliner takes off from JFK with a majority of French nationals aboard, but also several Americans. Shortly in to its flight, a bomb goes off on board and the airliner crashes in to a town on the JFK flightpath, killing a large number of American citizens.
I can quite believe that you are consistent enough to state that you think that the French ought to be given jurisdiction, and your argument is perfectly sound.
But, realistically and honestly, can you suggest what the (to my mind legitimate) public and political expectation in the US would be? Would you not agree that, at the very least, there would be heated debate if it were to be suggested that jurisdiction would be handed to the French? That all this would be based on the fact that an airliner was brought down in American airspace and hit an American town?
21 Aug 09
Too late for an edit, but I just saw the judge from the trial again (I can see him from where I am sitting! *waves at judge*).
He completely agrees with the argument that there could have been dual jurisdiction, but also tends to agree with me over the whole British airspace, British town thing when it comes ultimately to deciding jurisdiction (and indeed with McSwain about the fact that the Libyans simply would never have handed him over to the US).
He has this to add: the great majority of the investigation had to take place in Scotland (as well as Malta), and this meant that jurisdiction coming to the UK was almost inevitable...
21 Aug 09
Originally posted by RedmikeYes. So am I.
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.
Espcially considering the kangaroo court which condemned him.
I've not seen a dodgy courtcase like that since OJ.
21 Aug 09
Originally posted by joe beyserBut what if he were a drug dealer? How many lives could he be repsonsible for taking? He too could be a mass murderer even though he may not be seen as "bad" by the aveerage joe. (No pun intended) 😛
This is an extreme example here. What if someone in the US had a certain amount of drugs on his person and got a mandatory minimum sentence. Before that sentence was up he got sick and they sent him home with family for his last few days. That is much different than a mass murderer. In that case I don't see how it would be bad to show some compassion.