RSS Feed
Mercy a Commandment, Not a Legal Requirement
Scotland freed the terminally ill Lockerbie bomber last week so he could die at home in Libya. "Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown," a Scottish official said. Did Scotland do the right thing? Should we have any mercy for mass murderers who are terminally ill?
There are reports now that Bernie Madoff may be terminally ill. I am not inclined to play the mercy card for him, even though he is not even a mass murderer.
My own reading is that the protests of those who lost loved ones in the Lockerbie tragedy need to be taken seriously. Those outcries are legitimate expressions of a deep sense that justice must be done. It is not enough, then, to say that the Lockerbie bomber is no longer a threat to society. He has willfully committed a terrible act, causing the deaths of many, and thereby bringing much grief into many families. The decision to set him free makes light of all of that suffering.
So much depends on the individual features of the case. A horrible crime committed by a young person, who subsequently over a couple of decades in prison shows genuine remorse and much moral progress--that is a situation where mercy seems to be a legitimate consideration.
We people of the Book are commanded to show mercy. That is a given. But we have to be very careful about moving too quickly from mercy as an individual disposition and pardon as a legal act. If some of the families of Lockerbie victims can find it in their hearts to show mercy--in the form of forgiveness--to the bomber, that would be commendable. But that is not the basis for the legal decision to let a convicted criminal go free.
By
Richard Mouw
|
August 25, 2009; 12:30 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Scotland: Mercy Without Empathy |
Next: The Limit of Mercy
Posted by: jeannietomlin | August 29, 2009 11:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
We ought to be merciful and we ought to be empathetic. But it is a mistake to think that empathy is an element of mercy. By its nature, mercy demands that we act in spite of feelings of empathy.
The conflict is our natural reaction to heinous acts and our sense of justice. If we, as people of the Book, agree that mercy means that we do not require someone to be punished to the degree deserved, how can we now, in good faith, decry the release of this man?
Maybe this is really not about mercy or empathy, but it is really what I think Mouw is implying, "...that is not the basis for the legal decision to let a convicted criminal go free."
It may be politically puerile, or deviously expedient, but it has nothing to do with mercy or empathy.
Posted by: MGT2 | August 25, 2009 5:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"There are reports now that Bernie Madoff may be terminally ill. I am not inclined to play the mercy card for him..."
Is Bernie Madoff in a Scottish prison and convicted under Scottish law?
No?
I didn't think so. It is THEIR law to offer compassionate release to the terminally ill, not American. Not surprising considering that Americans are hardly known for their compassion.
Apparently that is something you, sir, are proud of. I, as an American, am not!