tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post4866049593742542848..comments2023-09-26T11:57:08.770+01:00Comments on Alister Rutherford: Al-Megrahi - a follow upAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-80559892539905074352009-08-29T18:23:23.116+01:002009-08-29T18:23:23.116+01:00I also agree with Macaskill's decision to rele...I also agree with Macaskill's decision to release Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. <br /><br />I wonder if part of the mixed reaction is because of the distinct reasons that are given for punishing people at all in Scotland and in the UK?<br /><br />There seem to be three main reasons for imprisoning people. The first is that they should function as a deterrent to others. The second is that they pose a danger to others. The third is that they should be locked up because they have done a bad thing. It seems that these three underlying reasons aren't applied consistently in punishing people, maybe because our systems of punishment have evolved gradually and in quite a piecemeal way. I think in cases where crimes arouse strong and complex emotions (such as Al-Megrahi, but also people like Myra Hindley), then perhaps it is more likely that emotional responses determine the reason we will select that best suits the emotion that we experience. <br /><br />Bearing this in mind, and although I accept that our justice system is based on an impartiality that perhaps can't be had without the objectivity it brings (although I'm not so convinced about this), I don't know how I would feel about Al-Megrahi's compassionate release if I did not believe that his trial was not conducted in the impartial and fair way that trials are supposed to be.<br /><br />I do think it raises the interesting question of the extent to which we punish people simply because they have done bad things. After all, it can hardly be the case that a prison sentence will stop prospective terrorists, or that Al-Magrahi is a danger to the public. So, keeping people in prison beyond the point where they remain a danger to the public seems to be every bit as unjust as locking someone up because they've done a bad thing. The more that's understood about the reasons that people have for committing dreadful acts, then the more support can be offered if people want to think/act in different, less dreadful, ways. <br /><br />On the question of justice, I think the question of whether to release Al-Megrahi should have been a fully judicial one, and not one made by a politician. I was disappointed at the response of both the Lib Dems and Labour, who seemed to oppose the decision for political reasons. But maybe this is to be expected. I think Macaskill made the right decision for the right reasons, and it's a shame that his attempts to distingish between political and judicial roles wasn't respected by the other parties. <br /><br />JennyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com