At the moment the airwaves are full of comment and
recrimination about the Scottish Government’s decision to allow the Libyan terrorist
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted of being responsible for the
bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which blew up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie,
killing 270 people, the majority of whom were US citizens.
The thrust of the Scottish Justice Minister’s cases is:
1.
Megrahi is guilty of a terrible crime, and has
shown no remorse.
2.
Megrahi has been judged to be dying of prostrate
cancer, and it is officially assumed that he has a few weeks left to live.
3.
Megrahi showed no compassion for all the people he
killed, nor for their families.
4.
However, the Scottish system is that the
standard of compassion they judge themselves by is a higher standard than that
of a terrorist.
Some people do not believe that Megrahi is guilty, but the
Justice Minister is not allowed to believe that, because he is the Government’s
Minister. Some people believe Megrahi is not as ill as the doctors say he is,
but again the Justice Minister can’t over-rule the doctors on a medical
diagnosis.
The arguments against Megrahi’s release appear to fall into
3 groups:
a)
UK politicians, from other parties, who appear
to see a political advantage in attacking the Justice Minister (who is a member
of the Scottish National Party).
b)
People and politicians from other countries and cultures,
where the concept of compassion in determining the implementation of courts’
decisions is not part of their system. In particular, the US system appears to
be much more ‘Old Testament’, and is simply different to the Scottish system.
c)
People who think that we should not show
compassion to somebody who has not shown compassion to his victims.
The first position is, IMHO, morally bankrupt, but all too
common. The second position is completely understandable, group A does not like
group B’s system.
However the third position strikes me as a logical nonsense.
If we only show compassion to people who ‘deserve’ it, we will never actually
show compassion. Not only that, if we set as our standard, as the same as that
of the terrorist, we are just engaging in a race for the bottom.
I do not have enough information to know whether Megrahi is
guilty, nor do I know he will die within a few weeks. But if we assume that
both of these are true, I think that releasing him as a sick and infirm man to
die at home with his family (and remember his family have done nothing wrong)
makes our society a better place, and if we had insisted he had died in a cell,
or in a hospital ward with a prison officer at the foot of the bed, we would
have been a lesser society.
I am sure that if a friend or relative of mine had died in
the bombing, I would feel different. But that is why, in a civilised society,
we have people who are not personally involved to determine individual cases.