|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| swoodman wrote: |
| Yeah compassion for someone they were never certain was guilty. I thought the US was supposed to be the most Christian country in the world. He wont be alive for long, its only right he was finally released |
If the man was guilty, he should not have been released. It's very corrupt that someone who supposedly was dying isn't really dying. It seems ridiculous. |
It is ridiculous, corrupt, and tragic that someone who is innocent is framed and imprisoned for decades for a crime he did not commit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
swoodman
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Location: Reading, United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The point is they didnt know if he ws guilty - neither do you - thats why he was released. Its not my place to comment on whether he was or not but to say that the fact they werent certain is enough to release him early for the last few months of his life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| swoodman wrote: |
| The point is they didnt know if he ws guilty - neither do you - thats why he was released. Its not my place to comment on whether he was or not but to say that the fact they werent certain is enough to release him early for the last few months of his life |
By your logic, about half of all prisoners would have to be released. Many, many convictions are falsely obtained, or on the flimsiest of evidence.
In this case, yes I do know that, within a ~95% confidence interval, he was innocent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swoodman
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Location: Reading, United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By your logic, about half of all prisoners would have to be released. Many, many convictions are falsely obtained, or on the flimsiest of evidence.
Good were agreed, as a rule, prisoners whose guilt is uncertain should be released if theyre terminally ill and not likely to live long |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
UK regrets Megrahi's release
Britain's coalition government regards the release of the Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie plane bombing as "a mistake", the UK's ambassador to the US has said.
Nigel Sheinwald said late on Thursday that his government "deeply regrets" the anguish that Abdel Basset al-Megrahi's release last year caused the families of those killed in the 1988 airline bombing.
"The new British government is clear that Megrahi's release was a mistake," Sheinwald said in a statement.
"[It] deeply regrets the continuing anguish that his release on compassionate grounds has caused the families of Megrahi's victims in the UK as well as in the US," he added.
Al-Megrahi - the only man convicted of the 1988 airline bombing that killed 270 people - was released from a Scottish prison last August on compassionate grounds after doctors said he was near death.
But nearly one year on, the alleged former Libyan intelligence agent remains alive, reviving outrage on both sides of the Atlantic over his release.
BP allegations
Sheinwald's comments came as Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said she would look into claims by a group of senators that oil company BP had lobbied the British government to release al-Megrahi to protect commercial interests in Libya.
BP signed an exploration agreement with Libya in May 2007, the same month Britain and Libya signed a memorandum of understanding that led to al-Megrahi's release.
The oil company has denied the allegations, admitting that it did lobby the government over a Libyan prisoner transfer agreement but did not enter discussions on al-Megrahi.
Sheinwald, in an open letter to John Kerry, a US senator, published on Friday, also defended BP from the claims.
Earlier this week, four Democratic senators called for an inquiry, after reports that a cancer expert who backed the three-month prognosis now believed Megrahi could live for 10 or 20 years.
But professor Karol Sikora said on Thursday that his words were taken out of context, and that the chances of Megrahi surviving for a decade were "less than one per cent".
"There was a greater than 50 per cent chance in my opinion that he would die within the first three months then gradually as you go along the chances get less and less," the Press Association quoted him as saying.
"So the chances of living 10 years is less than one per cent, something like that."
Scottish decision
A spokesman for the Scottish government said on Friday that it had no contact from BP in relation to al-Megrahi.
"The issues being raised in the United States at present regarding BP refer to the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) negotiated by the governments of the UK and Libya, and therefore have nothing to do with the decision on compassionate release which is a totally different process.
"We were always totally opposed to the prisoner transfer agreement negotiated between the UK and Libyan governments.
"The memorandum that led to the PTA was agreed without our knowledge and against our wishes.
"The Justice Secretary rejected the application from Libya under the PTA specifically on the basis that the US government and families of victims in the US had been led to believe that such a prisoner transfer would not be possible for anyone convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity.
"[Al-Megrahi] was sent home to die according to the due process of Scots Law, based on the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service Director of Health and Care, and the recommendations of the Parole Board and Prison Governor - all of which have been published by the Scottish Government." |
http://english.aljazeera.net//news/europe/2010/07/201071612515449681.html
He should not have been set free. |
Why so? Through the years, many of the victim's families have themselves voiced grave doubts over his guilt.
I don't know if he was guilty or not, but I don't have much confidence in his conviction because I believe there were too many concerns about the safety of his conviction. Therefore I believe it was correct to release him. However, the deal that was done did serve to prevent more scrutiny over his conviction - the results of which might have greatly embarrassed both political and legal institutions. He had an upcoming appeal as I recall, with legal experts predicting that his conviction would be found unsafe. Shame that couldn't have gone ahead - but given that he was supposedly nearing his end, at the time it seemed the best result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
