RSS Feed
Scotland: Mercy Without Empathy
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?
Mercy for Abdel Baset al-Megrahi came at a huge price. The price was renewed pain for those whose loved ones were brutally murdered by the so-called Lockerbie bomber, now dying of cancer. The Scottish government made a miscalculation as it weighed justice and mercy in the case of this terrorist. The Scots forgot to temper mercy with empathy for the victims' loved ones.
How must the families and friends of the victims have felt, seeing the pictures of the "hero's" welcome for al-Megrahi at the airport in Libya? Cold comfort that this unseemly demonstration violated a condition for his release.
How much are we obligated to moderate justice with mercy for the guilty, if doing so causes renewed pain for the innocent?
Individuals may rise to heroic levels and show mercy to those who have harmed them or their loved ones--this is a high calling. Sometimes, it is only God whose infinite compassion knows no bounds. On earth, it is often not as it is in heaven. This is not a judgment on victims and their families. The journey of healing has priority over the guilty and their desire for mercy.
Governments, on the other hand, represent all the people. Their judgments are based on civic values, and civic norms, not religious ones. They cannot, and they should not, aspire to the heights of religious transcendence. Governments should make decisions that are accountable, and part of Scotland's accountability was to the magnitude of this crime and the suffering of the victims and their families.
I believe Scotland failed to take empathy into account in adjudicating its civic values of justice and mercy.
By
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
|
August 25, 2009; 12:21 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: A View from Scotland's Next-Door Neighbor |
Next: Mercy a Commandment, Not a Legal Requirement
Posted by: jeannietomlin | August 29, 2009 11:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The problem with this analysis is it starts with a false assumption that al-Megrahi was the bomber. There is substantial doubt as to whether al-Megrahi is guilty. There is strong evidence his conviction was obtained with false evidence given by paid witnesses and criminally tampered evidence. The chief witness Toni Gauchi identified a CIA agent as the guilty person until given $2 million dollars and a photo to identify the ‘right’ person. Edwin Bollier refused a bribe of $4 million to give false evidence and accused the CIA of manufacturing evidence to implicate Libya. The UN observer at the trial declared there was a “spectacular miscarriage of justice.”
After four years of investigation the Scottish Review commission found six separate reasons for a miscarriage of justice and ordered an appeal be held to examine new evidence and the tainted evidence presented at trial. An official review of the evidence could possibly indicate US officials, including Robert Mueller the now head of the FBI, were guilty of the criminal offence of perverting the course of justice. Perhaps the truth is what the CIA first declared, that the Syrian PFLP-Cc was responsible and they had received $100k up front in Damascus as revenge for the USS Vincennes blowing up an Iranian civilian airliner. This conclusion was hushed up by the State Department.
Thus, the arguments put forward in this article are totally irrelevant. In reality the victims and their families all suffer because the truth is hushed-up. Unless there is an independent inquiry there can be no closure. The only person showing empathy is al-Megrahi who expressed pain for the innocent victims, knowing the pain inflicted on him by fase accusations for US political benefit.
Posted by: fitzwarryne | August 29, 2009 6:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Fly Big 0 Air and get bamboozled along the way. Bunch of idiots.
Posted by: Dermitt | August 26, 2009 9:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You are right. The Scots did not take empathy into account. Instead, the Scottish Minister took Scottish LAW into account. That compassion is written into Scottish law is something that is beyond the comprehension of we Americans. That, madam, is something that *I* am not proud of.