On December 21, 1988 Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, including all of the passengers and 11 people on the ground. It was a remarkably long time until authorities arrested their suspect, Libyan intelligence officer Abdel Basset al-Megrahi. When finally jailed on Jan 31st, 2001, Mr Megrahi received a sentence of only 27 years, not nearly long enough for Americans (the predominate nationality of the passengers) who were/are used to sentences of 60, 80 and 180 years without parole for crimes like murder and rape. It seemed cruelly insufficient for the largest terrorist attack against Americans before September 11th.
The outcry against the sentence grew until nations began to impose their own sentences against Libya, e.g. sanctions from the United Nations and United States. Libya was able to satisfy their portion of their criminal debt by offering $10 million to each victim’s family in return for the lifting of the sanctions and the removal of Libya from the U.S.’s list of foreign states sponsoring terrorism. With these conditions met, yet still Mr. Megrahi remained in jail proclaiming his innocence! (Another piece of the puzzle: Megrahi was tried along with a fellow Libyan who was not found guilty, and he has maintained his innocence throughout his entire jail term.)
Today, much to the horror of President Obama and the families of the victims, Mr. Megrahi was released on “Compassionate Grounds”. Megrahi apparently has prostate cancer, and he was freed from the Scotland jail that was holding him so that he could spend the last three months of his life under house arrest in Libya. (See the video of the press conference -very good!)
Today, grace sides with the Scottish Justice Secretary’s decision to free Mr. Megrahi and proclaims that retribution is a false hope. A jail sentence that expires upon death will not restore the world to pre-Lockerbie conditions. Furthermore, upon Mr. Megrahi’s death, the victims’ families will still wonder if Mr. Megrahi actually committed the crime. Will their hearts really be quieted upon his death? While the victims’ families proclaim that justice has not been paid and that Mr Megrahi has not suffered enough to annul their pain, grace says that retribution is always insufficient and it will never really restore their hearts to their previous condition. Grace and compassion are the opposite of retribution. Grace believes that we all live in a place of receiving mercy from God and that the only truly sufficient payment was made on Calvary, for the sins of the world.
Sign up for the Mockingbird Newsletter
COMMENTS
10 responses to “Grace For The Lockerbie Bomber”
Leave a Reply
The thin and largely circumstantial case against Megrahi aside, let's not lose sight of the fact that retributive philosophies of justice are only one side of a complex issue. In fact, jurisprudence knows many philosophies of justice which would be incompatible with the retribution-only variety. I think we need to be careful not to suggest that justice, in all its forms, is purely about retribution or that retribution is somehow inconsistent with the character of God. Hell, no matter how it is sliced, seems to be a clear indication that there is something inherently holy about justice. [However, the idea of a gracious God and eternal torment is an entirely different conversation unless we agree that God is as just as He is merciful.]
If I understand you correctly, it seems that you are attempting to reconcile the idea of God's forensic justification of the elect with civic forms of justice; not to be picky here, but I am not aware of a Scriptural basis for any such position.
We affirm, however, that there will be a final form of divine justice and that it is only God's mercy which (a) allows us to 'dodge the bullet' in Christ crucified
(b) allows time for us to hear and proclaim the message of life so that 'all Israel may be saved'. This is no small thing, and I agree that God's mercy has profound implications, especially when it takes the form of forbearance. Furthermore, you are correct to infer that victimhood is too often prolonged by a (sinful) desire to nurture the convicted person's sinful action rather than to believe that God's patience extends in their direction every bit as much as it does in ours.
However, unlike some, I do not feel that grace is entirely incompatible with a system of justice. In fact, I wonder why one could not argue that it would be entirely ungracious to society and the victim if we were to do away with civic forms of justice? This, after all, is the civic use of the law! I believe the classical dichotomy is that God has given the law as a pedagogue to drive us to Christ and as a means to restrain sin in society.
True, *A jail sentence that expires upon death will not restore the world to pre-Lockerbie conditions.* but, if I can be a gadfly here, who said that this is the aim of justice? I may be mistaken, but I am not aware of any modern theory of jurisprudence which would be willing to take ownership of such a statement. Some might even argue that justice, in the form of incarceration, is a form of compassion for victims and society at large.
I thank you for raising this issue today, and I hope you won't be offended by my tone…it is aimed at the issue rather than at you. I am also afraid that I may have grossly mischaracterized your point here Drake, so while I don't want to obscure other people's comments, please elaborate when you get a moment. 🙂
Soooo not on board with this.
St. Paul says that the state maintains the sword on behalf of God in this world. Maybe we understand "grace" better than Paul, but I have my doubts. It is just too easy to sit back and (on the same day the guy was released) sermonize/philosophize/theologize about the correct "grace" response in this situation when none of us sat through the trial, and none of us had people we loved on that plane. I am sorry, but this sounds like "grace" self-righteousness to me.
Thanks for your thoughts dpotter, I wholeheartedly agree that there is something inherently holy about justice!
I did not mean to suggest that Grace cannot be found in jurisprudence because of retribution; I was more interested in the remarks by various people whose opposition seems to be grounded in frustration that retribution is not being carried out, for example: "My brother was not able to die in his home, so why should Megrahi." There is an interesting intersection of Grace and Law here when you oppose the victims' understandable reaction with the Scottish Justice Secretary's decision to release him based on compassionate grounds. If Megrahi was guilty, he did not deserve to be released, but his freedom is now based on the grace awarded to him by the Scottish Secretary, whose career may be over as a result. I am also interested in the fact that if one desires or seeks retribution against another who has sinned against them, it will probably not provide the desired healing outcome, whereas grace and compassion have power to change…
I know this is a tough and complex issue, thanks for your comments guys!
Extraordinarily thoughtful comment, Dylan. Thanks.
Drake, I think grace would actually only be shown if it were the families of the victims who were lobbying to have him released. If we're going to think theologically here, the Scottish government is the "mediator" here in a very High Church way.
The ones who experienced the loss are the ones to whom justice is due. And they are the only ones who can give grace, in my opinion.
Interesting point Browder.
David, that's a great point… I've been confused by this story all week, and I think you hit the nail on the head in making sense of it for me.
"in a very High Church way." Very funny because Scotland is the home of the non-jurors.
The state's business is not to administer grace–but to administer justice. David's point is right on–the families of the grieved can show grace, but I'm unaware of any scriptural warant for the state taking on this role. And another point–aren't we in danger of a confusion of the two kingdoms when we talk of the state administering grace?