I can't imagine what it must have been like to be Kenny MacAskill, Scottish Justice Minister, for this past bit of time. Have you ever had something hit your desk or received a call or email from a relative who is asking you to make a decision that you KNOW will cause you to be damned if you do, damned if you don't? I imagine MacAskill audibly groaned when he received the "Compassionate Release" request from Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person ever convicted in the 1989 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
I imagine Mr. MacAskill found himself on the horns of a dilemma, as my mother would say.
More over the flip.
I have to admit - I watched MacAskill's lengthy statement with rapt attention earlier today. I am not sympathetic to al-Megrahi. I could imagine myself in the place of the family members in hearing that al-Megrahi was evening being considered for compassionate release. But then, Mr. MacAskill made his statement. Here's the part that really hit me over the head like a sledgehammer:
Conclusion
Having met the criteria [for compassionate release], it therefore falls to me to decide whether Mr Al-Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. I am conscious that there are deeply held feelings, and that many will disagree whatever my decision. However a decision has to be made.
Scotland will forever remember the crime that has been perpetrated against our people and those from many other lands. The pain and suffering will remain forever. Some hurt can never heal. Some scars can never fade. Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive. Their pain runs deep and the wounds remain.
However, Mr Al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.
In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people. The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.
Mr Al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days. No compassion was shown by him to them.
But, that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.
Our justice system demands that judgment be imposed but compassion be available. Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people. No matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.
For these reasons - and these reasons alone - it is my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.
That's some powerful shit - the whole conclusion is worthy of reading. But I was particularly struck the parts that I highlighted. There's nothing in it for MacAskill & Scotland to release al-Megrahi - it's ALL downside and was certain to provoke rage. I don't think I can conceive of the backlash that MacAskill in particular is going to receive from all corners of the globe. Yet he chose, seemingly, to uphold the principles that define the Scottish people.
The Compassionate Release portion of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act of 1993 is brief:
Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds
(1) The Secretary of State may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.
(2) Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.
(3) The release of a person under subsection (1) above shall not constitute release for the purpose of a supervised release order.
Indeed - Scotland in particular has a history of seriously considering compassionate release:
Each year between 60 and 100 criminals die of natural causes while still serving prisoners in the UK. Since 2000, Scottish ministers have considered 30 applications for compassionate release on medical grounds. Only seven have been refused and 23 granted.
That means that, in Scotland, about 76% of the applications for compassionate release were granted since 2000. I don't live in Scotland, and I don't believe I know anyone who does or who did for any period of time, so my interpretation is necessarily less-than-complete. BUT. It seems to me that Scotland has a history of seriously considering the question of compassionate release and granting it when and where the criterion are met.
Of course, the American news services are absolutely flooded with interviews of American family members who lost a loved on on Pan Am Flight 103. Their pain is palpable - their outrage is real. I and feel deeply for them. One lady who lost her daughter and is still clearly in pain, now renewed afresh with the release of al-Megrahi lamented that he should have been put to death long ago for what he did, and that there is no way he should have been shown compassion when he so abjectly denied it to his victims.
Only the United Kingdom doesn't have capital punishment. They don't execute prisoners. And al-Megrahi was tried, convicted and sentenced under the criminal justice system of the United Kingdom. While I am quite certain that al-Megrahi would have been executed had he been tried and convicted in the US, he wasn't. And we don't rule the whole world. Whether we agree or not, the United Kingdom decided more than a decade ago (if I'm reading the final abolition of the death penalty correctly) that capital punishment ran counter to its values.
I imagine that it's difficult to stand up in the face of guaranteed, widespread public opposition and stand on principle. I admire MacAskill greatly for doing so.
I found myself thinking - wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to say that we, the US, stood by our principles and decided against illegally wiretapping Americans after 9/11? Wouldn't it be great to be able to say that we didn't place fear before our deeply-ingrained idea of liberty? Wouldn't it be excellent to be able to say that we take civil rights seriously, that it is a core value of our American society, and that we therefore embrace the rights of LGBT couples to marry?
In a way, I think I admire MacAskill's statement and ultimate decision SO MUCH because he'll always be able to say that the principles - the values - mattered more than the politics. It's really a dose of envy that I feel, frankly.
And I say all of this while feeling totally conflicted because of the tragedy and devastation of Pan Am 103 for everyone involved. I can totally understand their side.
But really - if we abandon our principles because they're unpopular, were they ever really principles of which to be proud?
I realize that the topic of the day (rightfully) is healthcare reform. But really - the whole concept of standing by principles as a person and a nation is at the heart of the healthcare issue. We either take care of people or we don't. It's not negotiable. We don't settle for less when "less" means people die from lack of adequate, affordable healthcare. I wish some of our Democrats had the amount of courage shown by MacAskill today, and stood by our national principles and values.