Should Scotland be compassionate? Let's boil it down to that simple question and say, yes they should.
But any act of compassion has to be examined as to exactly what effect it will have for all those involved. If showing compassion for one murderer results in gut-wrenching strife for countless others -- how is that taking the high road?
Apparently, some of the victims' families -- kind (but sadly misguided) souls that they are -- have said that they agree that this terrorist should be freed. I'm afraid that their need to let go of any hatred and to not give in to the evil that affected their lives has led to that erroneous notion.
The Lockerbie Murderer (I will not speak his name, for I hate to contribute to the reknown for those who commit atrocities) has already been shown compassion. He was spared his life by not receiving a death sentence, and he has been receiving treatment for his illness -- more than likely at the expense of someone else in Scotland. (At least now, maybe someone else will move up in line.)
If he received a life sentence, that should mean spending the rest of his life -- to the last second -- in jail. Even if we can see the end of that life approaching much sooner than expected, even if he is at death's door, that sentence should be carried out, to the bitter end.
Some actions should result in a complete surrender of any benevolence.
The absolute clincher in this case? This cretin has never expressed any regret for what he did, and would likely do it again. If he had the chance to bring down the plane that took him home today and crash it into any U.S. embassy they fly over, I imagine he wouldn't have hesitated.
And will those in Libya bow their heads when he arrives, quietly welcoming a sick family member, humbly acknowledging that a mercy has been bestowed upon them they didn't deserve? No -- they will celebrate and welcome him home as a hero who has performed valorous deeds.
While the victims' families and friends will be suffering yet another assault upon their trampled spirits, a murderer's family and friends and countless others will dance in the streets.
It is obvious that compassion was lost in this imprudent injustice to release a murderous monster. The truly compassionate act would have been to spare the victims' loved ones further pain.
Remember, 279 people aboard that plane -- 178 Americans -- and 11 people on the ground died at the hands of this remorseless assassin.
No person who regards avoidance of pain as an acceptable motive for anything should ever try to be compassionate.
Really, the whole idea of compassion is to feel pain that wasn't even inflicted on yourself. How on earth anyone expects to reconcile that fundamental act with any theory that avoiding pain is a good thing is really beyond me.
The point of compassion is to discover purpose, not to avoid pain.
So...what is the point of freeing this man?
Posted by: ChunLing | August 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM