The Washington Post featured two relatives of victims of the Lockerbie Pan Am attack. Each had lost loved ones, but one supported and one opposed the Scottish court’s decision to allow the terrorist, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, to return to Libya to die (he has cancer).
Stephanie Bernstein’s husband died; she opposed releasing al-Megrahi:
“Releasing him sends the wrong message,” she said. “It will be seen by [Libyan president] Col. Moammar Gaddafi as a sign of weakness. If we don’t try to work towards a just world, what good is this release?” …Bernstein, who was ordained as a rabbi this year, traced her approach to mercy to the Torah. “It’s in Deuteronomy,” she said. “If we’re not committed to following the rule of law, how can we say that we’re working toward a world that is just?”
Anastasios Vrenios’s son was also on the plane; he supports releasing the terrorist:
Vrenios has come to believe that he must decide to be one of two people: “You have a choice in life, don’t you? You can either be bitter and let it turn you inside out . . . turn you into a bitter human being. Or you can let it go. You don’t forgive the act. But you don’t become a vindictive human being so that it sends out poison to other people. Maybe it’s a Christian thing.”
UPDATE: Everyday Ethics columnist Padmini Mangunta says she opposes the release in part because, “wasn’t he always going to die? Life imprisonment means that one would, in fact, die in prison, right? So why would his impending death due to cancer make a difference one way or another?”