On 23 August 2009, I wrote:
Mike, I presume you are referring to the Scottish Justice Secretary,
Kenny MacAskill. He wasn't imposing his will on everyone involved,
he came to a decision that it was his responsibility to make on the
basis
of Scottish law and precedent."
To which Mike Smith replied:
Really? Besides the fact that I don't know how you could possibly know
such a thing, I wonder why so many disagree with it then (including
those
in Scotland). If it was more or less a foregone conclusion based on
"Scottish
law and precedent" why do so many think he made the wrong decision?
If it isn't a more or less foregone conclusion based on "Scottish law
and
precedent", then MacAskill IS imposing his will on everyone involved.
I didn't say MacAskill made the "right" decision (at least, I didn't
mean to), let alone that it was a more or less foregone conclusion. By
no means all legal decisions are absolutely clearcut, and I think
MacAskill arrived at his decision on what *in his judgement* was the
correct decision based on Scottish law and precedent. In fact, as I
already noted, many people in Scotland disagree with that decision.
If it isn't a more or less foregone conclusion based on "Scottish law
and
precedent", then MacAskill IS imposing his will on everyone involved.
But that is the nature of decisions made by the Justice Minister in a
representative democracy.
Mike wrote:
I also disagree that it was his decision to make. Rather he has a
responsibility to the public and to uphold the agreements arrived
at that the terrorist will serve out a life sentence. He does NOT have
free-will, free-wheeling, do as he thinks best authority.
And
As I understand comments from the people in the States via the news,
It was agreed by the US that the terrorist would serve a life sentence
in Scotland.
On the last point first, could we have a citation please. I can't see
how there could have been any such agreement with the United States, as
Scotland has a devolved parliament (and, anyway, always had its own
legal system) within the sovereign state of the UK. (As Paul has
pointed out, a "life sentence" under Scottish (and England & Welsh) law
actually means a definite minimum sentence that may be extended in the
light of the prisoner's (mis)behaviour.)
He is a public SERVANT, not a public master.
While MacAskill should certainly have sounded out relevant viewpoints
(and he says he did), having taken them into account it is not his duty
to be swayed from his carefully considered judgement.
All to often people like this, bent by their position of responsibility
which they mentally twist into a position of power and authority come
to
believe that they ARE the law rather than merely a servant of it.
Since we are considering a specific case here, could we have some
evidence that Kenny MacAskill fits this character study:
http://www.kennymacaskill.co.uk/
Paul Brandon wrote:
The jurisdiction is the UK -- Scotland; not the USA.
To be precise, as I already noted, the jurisdiction is Scotland, which
has always had its own legal system, and this was confirmed when a
devolved Scottish Parliament was set up in 1998.
This afternoon (2.30 UK time, 1.30 GMT) there will be a special session
of the Scottish Parliament with a statement from the Secretary for
Justice, followed by Q&A period:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/
From the beginning of MacAskell's statement it is clear that he sought
out the views of all relevant people and groups, and took into account
the advice from his legal team.
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
http://www.esterson.org
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
