Should terminally ill murderers be released from prison?

Pan Am Flight 103 was Pan American World Airways' third daily scheduled transatlantic flight from London's Heathrow Airport to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. On Wednesday, the 21st of December 1988, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 747-121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas—was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members. Eleven people in the town of Lockerbie in southern Scotland, were also killed as large sections of the plane fell in and around the town, bringing the total fatalities to 270.

Imagine if you will, the terror and agony that the passengers and crew underwent when their plane exploded 33,000 feet in the air over Scotland. Since the plane disintegrated after the explosion, a great many of the passengers and some of the crew would have been blown out of the plane, some severely burned by the flaming jet fuel and all of them gasping for air that wasn’t there to begin with because of the plane’s height above land and later as they headed towards the ground, their skin being rasped by the friction of air as they headed towards the ground to be smashed into a mixture of guts, bones and flesh.

Mr. Al-Megrahi and an associate were brought to trial in May 2000 as part of a complex deal with the Libyan government. The U.S. and Britain whose citizens died as a result of the terrorist act agreed to drop sanctions against Libya and Libya in turn agreed to pay compensation to the families of the murdered. Libya also agreed to surrender the two men identified as suspects by U.S. and U.K. intelligence. After an agreement by the Scottish and Libyan governments, a Scottish court comprising of a panel of three jurists would try the two accused Libyans at Camp Zeist, a former U.S. base in the Netherlands with the bombing of the plane and the 270 deaths that resulted from the bombing.

In 2001, Al-Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer was convicted of his involvement in the bombing of the Pan Am plane and the deaths of the 270 people both in the plane and on the ground. It was previously established that a bomb had been placed in a suitcase that was in the hold of the plane. He was convicted largely on the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper, who identified al-Megrahi as having bought a shirt – scraps of which were later found wrapped around the bomb.

Mr. al-Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum of 27 years before he could apply for parole. The other defendant was acquitted. Megrahi was taken to Scotland to serve out his life sentence.

Whether or not Mr. al-Megrahi actually played a role in the attack, it was clear from the beginning that the bombing was the responsibility of the Libyan regime. The U.S. was so sure of that, former president Ronald Reagan ordered an air strike on Tripoli that hit close enough to President Moammar Gadhafi’s home that it killed his adopted baby daughter.

In spite of the recognition of the Libyan government’s involvement, the West accepted Mr. al-Megrahi as an offering, sentenced him to life in prison and began granting concessions to gain access to Libya's oil and gas. Given the clear hypocrisy of the national leaders involved in this case over the years, perhaps the most significant role Mr. al-Megrahi was to play was in exposing the conduct of these nations.

On the 20th of August 2009, the Scottish Government released the convicted terrorist after him only serving eight years in prison on compassionate grounds to return to Libya because he was suffering from what was believed to be terminal prostate cancer with a life expectancy of less than 3 months. When this mass murderer arrived in Libya on a luxury Libyan government jet on the same day he was released, that country’s leader, Moammar Gadhafi was at the Libyan airport in Tripoli hugging him as hundreds also greeted al-Megrahi and cheered him. Then Gadhafi thanked British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and the Queen and royal family for influencing the deal.

I don’t know if Brown and/or the Queen and her family had anything to do with this terrorist’s release but I do know (as everyone else does) that Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill was instrumental in setting this terrorist free.

Mr. MacAskill has said he based his decision to release al-Megrahi on the opinions of a range of medical experts. But this was contradicted by a decisive report sent to Mr. MacAskill on the 10th of August 2009. While it noted that four prostate cancer specialists – two oncologists and two urologists – were consulted, the summary said: "Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say so." It later was learned that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live. The others did not necessarily agree. There have been some raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi's legal team, which could have influenced the judgment of the government to release the terrorist. There was also a suggestion that Megrahi might not be as ill as had been claimed. The report said: "Clinicians who have assessed Mr. Megrahi have commented on his relative lack of symptoms when considering the severity and stage of the underlying disease."

It said that a professor from Libya had been involved in Megrahi's care and the medical officer who wrote the report had been "working with clinicians from Libya over the past ten months".

What follows is most of what MacAskill had to say about his decision to set free the Lockerbie terrorist. He made this statement on August 20th 2009.

“On the evening of 21 December 1988 a heinous crime was perpetrated. It claimed the lives of 270 innocent civilians. Four days before Christmas, men, women and children going about their daily lives were cruelly murdered. They included 11 from one small Scottish town. That town was Lockerbie - a name that will forever be associated with the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on UK soil.

“A prisoner transfer application has been submitted by the Government of Libya seeking the transfer of Mr. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi. The man convicted of those offences in the Scottish courts. He has also now sought to be released on compassionate grounds due to his prostate cancer that is terminal.

“This crime precedes both the election of our Government and even the restoration of a Parliament in Scotland. I now find myself having to make these decisions. However, the applications have been lawfully made, and I am obliged to address them. Final advice from my officials was given late on Friday 14 August 2009. I have now had an opportunity to reflect upon this.

“Let me be absolutely clear. As Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland it is my responsibility to decide upon these two applications. These are my decisions and my decisions alone.

“In considering these applications I have strictly followed due process, including the procedures laid down in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and in the Scottish Prison Service guidance on compassionate release. I have listened to many representations and received substantial submissions.

“Let me be quite clear on matters on which I am certain. The Scottish police and prosecution service undertook a detailed and comprehensive investigation with the assistance of the US and other authorities. I pay tribute to them for the exceptional manner in which they operated in dealing with both the aftermath of the atrocity and the complexity of a world-wide investigation. They are to be commended for their tenacity and skill. When Mr. Al-Megrahi was brought to justice, it was before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. And I pay tribute to our Judges who presided and acted justly.

“Mr. Al-Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people. He was given a life sentence and a punishment part of 27 years was fixed. When such an appalling crime is perpetrated it is appropriate that a severe sentence be imposed.

“Mr. Al-Megrahi has since withdrawn his appeal against both conviction and sentence. As I have said consistently throughout, that is a matter for him and the courts. That was his decision. My decisions are predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed.

“I realize that the abandonment of the appeal has caused concern to many. I have indicated that I am grateful to and proud of those who have served in whatever capacity in bringing this case to justice. I accept the conviction and sentence imposed. However, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.

“This is a global issue, and international in its nature. The questions to be asked and answered are beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the restricted remit of the Scottish Government. If a further inquiry were felt to be appropriate then it should be initiated by those with the required power and authority. The Scottish Government would be happy to fully co-operate in such an inquiry.

“I now turn to the matters before me that I require to address. An application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and an application for compassionate release have been made. I now deal with them in turn.

“Firstly, the prisoner transfer agreement.

“The Libyan Government applied on 5 May 2009 for the transfer of Mr. al-Megrahi. Prisoner Transfer Agreements are negotiated by the United Kingdom Government.

“Throughout the negotiations and at the time of the signing of the PTA with Libya, the Scottish Government's opposition was made clear. It was pointed out that the Scottish Prison Service had only one Libyan prisoner in custody. Notwithstanding that, the UK Government failed to secure, as requested by the Scottish Government, an exclusion from the PTA for anyone involved in the Lockerbie Air Disaster. As a consequence Mr. Al-Megrahi is eligible for consideration for transfer in terms of the agreement entered into by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Libya.

“I received numerous letters and representations, and recognized that a decision on transfer would be of personal significance to those whose lives have been affected. Accordingly, I decided to meet with groups and individuals with a relevant interest.

“I met with the families of victims: those from the United Kingdom who had relatives on board the flight, as well as those whose kinfolk were murdered in their homes in Lockerbie; a lady from Spain whose sister was a member of the cabin crew; and I held a video conference with families from the United States. I am grateful to each and every one of them for their fortitude on a matter which I know is still a source of great pain.

“I also spoke to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder. I met Minister Alobidi and his delegation from the Libyan Government to hear their reasons for applying for transfer, and to present to them the objections that had been raised to their application.

“I have noted and considered all the points presented, and also relevant written representations I received.

“Prior to ratification of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, it was scrutinized by the Westminster Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which Jack Straw, UK Secretary of State for Justice, gave a commitment that in cases where applications were not submitted personally by the prisoner, the prisoner must be given the opportunity to make representations. Mr. Al-Megrahi had the opportunity to make representations, and he chose to do so in person. Therefore I was duty bound to receive his representations. I accordingly met him.

‘It was clear that both the United States Government and the American families objected to a prisoner transfer. They did so on the basis of agreements they said had been made, prior to trial, regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted.

‘The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was in fact deputy Attorney General to Janet Reno at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. He was adamant that assurances had been given to the United States Government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in Scotland. Many of the American families spoke of the comfort that they placed upon these assurances over the past ten years. That clear understanding was reiterated to me, by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“I sought the views of the United Kingdom Government. I offered them the right to make representations or provide information. They declined to do so. They simply informed me that they saw no legal barrier to transfer and that they gave no assurances to the US Government at the time. They have declined to offer a full explanation as to what was discussed during this time, or to provide any information to substantiate their view. I find that highly regrettable.

“I therefore do not know what the exact nature of those discussions was, nor what may have been agreed between Governments. However, I am certain of the clear understanding of the American families and the American Government.

“Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.

“It is for that reason that the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer for Abdelbasit Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi I accordingly reject.

“I now turn to the issue of compassionate release.

“Section three of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds. (see my comment on this further in this piece)

“The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005.

“On 24 July 2009 I received an application from Mr. Al-Megrahi for compassionate release. He was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer in September 2008. I have been regularly updated as to the progression of his illness. I have received numerous comprehensive medical reports including the opinions of consultants who have been treating him. It is quite clear to the medical experts that he has a terminal illness, and indeed that there has recently been a significant deterioration in his health.

“In order to consider the application for compassionate release, I was provided with reports and recommendations by the Governor of Greenock Prison, the doctors and prison social work staff. Also, as laid out in statute, I have consulted the Parole Board. This is the normal process for consideration of an application for compassionate release and my decision is in accordance with all the advice given to me.

“It is the opinion of his Scottish Prison Service doctors who have dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and having seen him during each of these stages, that his clinical condition has declined significantly. Assessment by a range of specialists has reached the firm consensus that his disease is, after several different trials of treatment, "hormone resistant" ---- that is resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. Consensus on prognosis therefore has moved to the lower end of expectations.

“Mr. al-Megrahi was examined by Scottish Prison Service doctors on 3rd of August. A report dated 10th of August from the Director of Health and Care for the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a 3-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The advice they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner ---- he may live longer. I can only base my decision on the medical advice I have before me. That medical advice has been made available to the United States Government at their request and has been published on grounds of public interest.

“It has been suggested that Mr. al-Megrahi could be released from prison to reside elsewhere in Scotland. Clear advice from senior police officers is that the security implications of such a move would be severe. I have therefore ruled that out as an option.

“Having met the criteria, it therefore falls to me to decide whether Mr. Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. I am conscious that there are deeply held feelings, and that many will disagree whatever my decision. However a decision has to be made.

“Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep and the wounds remain.

“However, Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.

“In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.

“Mr. al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.

“But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

“Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.

“For these reasons ---- and these reasons alone ---- it is my decision that Mr. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die. unquote

Let me comment on his second to last statement, “Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.” unquote

Is justice served when mercy is shown to a mass murderer who is released prematurely from a sentence of life simply because he wants to die in his own bed in his own home? Justice doesn’t just apply to murderers; it also applies to their victims and their victim’s families. Did it apply to all the families of the 270 victims who died at the hands of this mass murderer?

He also said, “Therefore it appears to me that the American families and Government either had an expectation, or were led to believe, that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in Scotland.” unquote

There is no doubt in my mind that that both the American families of the American victims and the American government expected that the man responsible for so many deaths would serve the rest of his natural life in a Scottish prison so it follows that they are indeed very unhappy with the decision to set him free after him having only served eight years of a life sentence, irrespective of the fact that he is supposedly dying of prostate cancer.

FBI Director, Robert Mueller has sharply criticized Scotland's justice minister for releasing the Lockerbie bomber, an act that he said "gives comfort to terrorists" all over the world. The angry tone of the letter is out of character for the normally reserved Mueller, indicating his outrage is personal as well as professional. He also sent copies to the families of the Lockerbie victims.

Before he became FBI director, Mueller spent years as a U.S. Justice Department lawyer leading the investigation into the 1988 airplane bombing that killed 270 people, most of them Americans. In his letter, he said in part;

“Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991. And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of ‘compassion.’

“Your action is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. (It) gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of ‘compassion.’

“Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation; the prosecutors who worked for years –-- in some cases a full career –-- to see justice done.

“But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21st, 1988. You could not have visited the wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification –-- the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children. unquote

Mueller also said that the murderer’s release was "as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.'' unquote

A statement from Scotland's government yesterday noted Mueller "should also be aware that while many families have opposed Mr. MacAskill's decision, many others have supported it." The head of Scotland's government also said that FBI director Robert Mueller was wrong to criticize the decision to free the Pan Am Flight 103 bomber --- insisting there was public support for the release of the terrorist on compassionate grounds.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio that Mueller was wrong in assuming that all those affected by the bombing were opposed to al-Megrahi's release. He said in part;

"I understand the huge and strongly held views of the American families, but that's not all the families who were affected by Lockerbie," Salmond said. "As you're well aware, a number of the families, particularly in the U.K., take a different view and think that we made the right decision. No one I think seriously believes we made any other decision except for the right reasons. I think it was the right decision. I also absolutely know it was for the right reasons." unquote

Who really cares if many of the families of the victims of this terrorist supported the terrorist’s release? It is certainly beyond my comprehension as to why they are so willing to forgive the man who brought such misery upon them. They certainly weren’t speaking for the others who wanted their loved one’s murderer to spend the rest of his life in prison. Further, if there was public support for the release of this mass murderer, how much support was there? Are we talking about millions, hundreds of thousands, thousands or merely a few hundred? They certainly weren’t speaking for the rest of us.

Yes, we were all victims of that terrible and horrific event in history. Let me quote from a speech I gave in 1985 at a United Nations conference in Milan, Italy when I was speaking about victims of terrorists. I said in part;

“When someone dies at the hands of a terrorist, that person becomes the primary victim. When that victim’s family and friends learn of that victim’s death, they become the secondary victims. When the rest of us learn of the victim’s death, we become the peripheral victims. That is because when an innocent person dies at the hands of a terrorist, a little of each of us dies also.” unquote

Salmond also said that al-Megrahi's release was consistent with Scotland's legal system, which allows for the release of prison inmates who are terminally ill. The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 says only "The Secretary of State may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence."
unquote

As in the case of all prisoners released on licence, Megrahi will be subject to conditions regarding place of residence, travel and behaviour which will be monitored by a senior social work official from the relevant local authority.

As Megrahi's last address was given as Ailsa Drive in Newton Mearns in Scotland, the task of supervising the licence of release has fallen to the East Renfrewshire Council. Although he never lived in a family home, it was given as an address in the event he was to have been released on bail pending an appeal.

In his role as the council's criminal justice manager, Jonathan Hinds will be involved in monthly video conferencing with Megrahi and ensure the terminally-ill Libyan abides by seven conditions. Megrahi is also supposed to give monthly updates on his medical condition.

The Scottish government said they had no reason to doubt that all conditions would be complied with.

Scotland isn’t the only country that releases prisoners before their sentences are fulfilled due to terminal illnesses. The United States does this also.

Deborah Peagler, a terminally ill convict, had been in prison since 1983 for conspiracy in the murder of her boyfriend and whose release became a cause celebre for advocates of battered women, was freed from a California prison, according to the Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was following the recommendation of a state parole board who last month ruled that Peagler, who is dying from cancer, be released.

Peagler pleaded guilty to murder in 1983 and admitted to luring her boyfriend to a park in Lawndale, California, only to have him brutally murdered there. Her case became a cause celebre among domestic abuse advocates who say she was not allowed to present evidence in 1983 that she was tortured, raped and forced into prostitution by her boyfriend Oliver Wilson, then 23. She was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life.

Peagler’s case got added attention when earlier this year Peagler was diagnosed with stage-four lung cancer; which has since spread to her liver and bones. She has been given just weeks to live. Accordingly, she was permitted to leave her prison and go home and die amid her family and supporters.

This was a case where passionate release was justified. She was guilty (although her motives might be considered justified) but she only killed one human being whose continued existence on this planet may have been detrimental to others. There is a vast difference between releasing a person who killed one person compared to another who has murdered 270 persons who had every right to exist on our planet.

As an interesting aside, Susan Atkins, convicted for her role in the murders of Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring in 1969, has been unable to gain a compassionate release from prison for more than a year despite her diagnosis of terminal brain cancer. It should be pointed out that she was also present when others in the house were murdered and she was also present when the Bianca couple were also murdered the following day. Obviously, no one is willing to give her a break and rightly so. She remains with the other two female murderers who were part of the Manson family in a specially built facility built for the three of them in a major woman’s prison in California.

Almost a year ago Alabama passed a law that would allow terminally ill inmates a chance to die at home and, it was hoped, save the state a little money. But the eligibility criteria for the new medical furlough are so strict that it could be a long time before the state Department of Corrections sees significant savings.

When Alabama passed its law last year, it became one of 36 states to provide a medical furlough for incapacitated or terminally ill inmates. Ruth Naglich, associate commissioner on health services for the department, said when the bill was first proposed, 120 of the state's 25,000 inmates were identified, but that number shrank once the final law was in place. In a year's time, the state has released three terminally ill inmates, and they were just released this summer.

The first medical furlough release, Omar Rahman, was so ill that he died 30 hours after his release. He was serving a life sentence and had been in prison since 1982, according to the department's records. The other two inmates who have been furloughed are still alive at the writing of this piece.

So who's not eligible? Sex offenders and those convicted of capital murder. (first degree murder)

What was the real reason why the Scottish government was willing to release this terrorist so that he could go back to Libya and die in his own bed surrounded by his family and friends?

The British government rejected any notion it had struck a deal with Libya to free al-Megrahi, suggestions that arose when Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi publicly thanked British officials as he embraced the terrorist upon his return.

Both the British and Scottish governments have denied that they struck a deal with Libya to free the Lockerbie bomber in return for greater access to the country's oil and gas. Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson told reporters in London: "The idea that the British government and the Libyan government would sit down and somehow barter over the freedom or the life of this Libyan prisoner and make it form part of some business deal….it's not only wrong, it's completely implausible and actually quite offensive." unquote

He is both wrong and right in that concept that is floating on the surface of the ocean of public outrage just as scum floats on the surface of a stagnant pond. It is plausible and it is quite offensive.

I say this because Libyan officials have claimed al-Megrahi's fate had formed part of trade talks in recent years, while the country's leader Moammar Gadhafi on August 21st thanked British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth II for "encouraging the Scottish government" to take their decision –-- a claim denied by both Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.

As to the decision to release the convicted terrorist, Brown's office insisted that the government in London does not meddle in the work of Scotland's administration --- which has wide powers over domestic issues, but has no say in areas such as defence or foreign affairs. It will be interesting to see if later, Britain benefits from an oil deal with Libya.

Mr. al-Megrahi's release would certainly give comfort to terrorists all over the world. They know that if they are caught and sentenced to life in prison and later are suffering from a terminal illness, they will be released so that they can go home and die in their own beds with their loved ones taking turns holding their hands. Now you can appreciate why I said in my speech in Milan that convicted terrorists should be executed.

President Barack Obama has said that al-Megrahi should be placed under house-arrest. White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs said that the images of the jubilant, flag-waving crowd greeting al-Megrahi in Tripoli were ‘outrageous and disgusting’ and offensive to the families of those killed in the 1988 Lockerbie attack. Gibbs also said the administration has been in contact with the Libyan government and will watch how it responds.

There is no reason why the terrorist had to be returned home simply because he was dying. He could have been sent to a hospital in Scotland where effective palliative care might have given him effective symptom control for a longer period of life than just three months. Wouldn’t it be ironic if doctors in Libya recommended that al-Megrahi be sent to a hospital outside of Libya that had a better and more effective palliative care unit that could be found in Libya?

This convicted terrorist caused 270 people to die, people he didn't even know, some at 33,000 feet in the air over Scotland, with some of them in their homes when what was left of the plane plowed a huge gash in a residential neighbourhood in their community. For him to seek his release on passionate grounds when he didn’t possess one small speck of passion for his victims; is an insult to the memories of his victims and their families.

Showing compassion is a laudable character trait. Jack Straw, Britain’s Justice Minister refused to give it to the Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs. Neither Biggs, nor al-Megrahi have shown the slightest remorse or contrition about their crimes, and on that basis, they did not deserve to be shown any compassion.

Forgiveness is personal and involves overcoming feelings of resentment about a wrong. It is something that only victims (or those closely related to victims) can grant. Mercy, by contrast, involves someone with power over a vulnerable person treating them less harshly than they deserve. It often involves institutional power since institutions often have power over vulnerable persons. It is not about overcoming personal feelings. One can grant forgiveness without offering mercy and one can extend mercy without granting forgiveness.

The mere fact that al-Megrahi is dying doesn’t seem to be a sufficient enough reason to warrant mercy. He is vulnerable and subject to the burden of dying in prison, but that doesn’t distinguish his case from thousands of others similarly situated. There is nothing peculiar about his situation. Furthermore, he doesn’t seem to have suffered from a deprived upbringing, faced obstacles to avoiding the harm he caused, and neither has he apologized for his act. Nothing about his circumstances appear to be mitigating factors that warrant mercy.

This may sound hard and heartless, but the only emotions I feel towards al-Megrahi are contempt and anger. His failure to comprehend the magnitude of his crimes and say “sorry” to those affected by them should have meant that he should die in prison.

Because the Scottish government had power over al-Megrahi and the authority to punish him, they uniquely had the right to grant mercy, although not forgiveness. The question is whether they were correct to do so.

Those who argue that the release was a travesty of justice are right of course. Mercy inherently involves suspending a just outcome in favor of some moral consideration beyond the realm of justice.

Other commentators suggest the release was a form of appeasement which demonstrates the United Kingdom’s inability to stand up to people who have attacked them. But I think that is implausible. Mercy is a virtue of pride, not of weakness. It indicates an often illusory condition of invulnerability to injury through which the powerful attempt to demonstrate their nobility.

The issue is whether there were grounds for mercy or not. Although mercy involves suspending justice, it shouldn’t be utterly capricious. There are conditions under which it is appropriate and conditions under which it is not.

The reason for mercy asserted by the Justice Minister was the fact that al-Megrahi will die soon, and for this reason, compassion requires that the government allow him to spend his last days with his family. But all prisoners with life sentences will eventually die in prison. Should we extend mercy to all of them? If the answer is no, then there must be something peculiar about al-Megrahi’s case that qualifies him for mercy when others don’t receive it.

Mercy involves a judgment based on understanding the individuating features of a case that warrants a person being treated with leniency. It avoids rule-guided judgment in favor of discretion and moral perception. The mercy-giver focuses on the plight of a vulnerable person, his difficult situation, his vulnerability because he is in the power of someone else who is evil and therefore subject to an extraordinary burden or threat.

In general, I think in order for mercy to be warranted, there must be some loose, imprecise balance struck between the burden suffered by the recipient of mercy and the degree of malicious harm displayed in the original crime. In other words, I think justice considerations are relevant to mercy but not over-riding. Mercy involves departing from some existing framework of justice but not necessarily a departure from all considerations of justice. In al-Megrahi’s case, there is no such balance. He maliciously killed 270 people. Had he murdered someone in a fit of rage in a dispute over gambling debts, for example, the case for mercy might have been stronger.

Thusly, I think there was a mistake in the reasoning by the Scottish Justice Minister. Compassion could have been expressed more appropriately through palliative care and family visits in prison. Mr. al-Megrahi’s crime was so horrendous and horrific, his release from prison doesn’t seem appropriate, no matter what the reason was.

Sometimes, there can be no forgetting by and no forgiveness from the victims or relatives of victims of a crime. A legal system that fails to recognize that premise; is a legal system that has lost its way while it meanders aimlessly about the trees in the forest of justice.

UPDATE: I was right when I said that there was something peculiar about this man's release that was different from other releases of lifers. Leaked correspondence between Justice Secretary Jack Straw and his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill showed that the decision was made as "wider negotiations" with the government of Libya continued. The British government allowed the Lockerbie bomber to be included in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya because it was in the ‘overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom’ as a major oil deal between BP and Libya was being negotiated.