Compassionate release
 

Lockerbie bomber freed to die in Libya

So let me get this straight. I can go kill 270 people on an airplane, most of whom are college students coming home for the holidays, spend 9 years in jail, not even three months per life I took, and be allowed to leave for home if I come down with cancer? Even John Gotti had a harsher sentence and he didn't kill a fraction of the amount of people this guy did, not that it should matter.

Isn't that the point of a life sentence (if he even got that)? You are sent to rot and die in jail. I'm not saying I'm against any treatment whatsoever, but to say it is proper to show mercy to this man when he showed absolutely none to 270 others is revolting. Imagine being one of the parents of those kids. Now seeing the one who killed your child be allowed to walk free on grounds of "compassion".

I see too many stories where murderers are released after 13 or so years. What the heck is a "compassionate release" anyway and when should one be warranted?

Using killer as a bargaining chip = profit. Got it.

[Edit] I realize this entire post goes against what my religious beliefs dictate, I'm just extremely flustered at the moment.

"Yes, let us release the psychopathic bomber who now has nothing to lose out into the world."

I see an unhappy ending to this whole issue.

Well the first issue is that a lot of people aren't convinced he did it or that he did do it but took the fall for his organisers who are often linked to the Libyan government.
But he's about to die. He's no danger to anyone. At some point you have to show compassion because if you treat criminals like criminals and not like people they will continue to show the resentment that put them in jail in the first place. And it sends a better message to the Arab world than torturing prisoners, it shows the west can be reasonable and not profit-hungry warlords.

While it seems reasonable in a general way for some prisoners to give them compassionate release, the fact that there are undoubtedly hundreds of far less notorious murderers not getting compassionate release despite being elderly or sickly would put doubt to the issue. What this man did was heinous--I have no sympathy for him just because he has now come down with prostate cancer. Let him be treated in prison.

It has been mentioned that this may be a political act in order to further strengthen relations between the U.K. and Libya which have become better in recent years. The notoriety of the criminal would seem to put this in some doubt--the amount of flak that will be given to the U.K. over this would undoubtedly hurt their relations with much of the rest of the world in exchange for increased relations with Libya. However, if relations with Libya allow for large enough gains, it would make up for it.

I for one don't think that just because he is about to die will mean he is a prime candidate for suicide bombing as has been said, as he will undoubtedly be watched closely in Libya rather than being allowed free rein. It isn't an issue of whether or not he can commit further crimes, simply the principle that such a heinous offender should not be given special treatment simply because he now has a terminal disease.

When you commit a crime like that, you're pretty much trading in your humanity for a statement anyways. In many ways, he was likely dead a long time ago.

What can any justice system do? They can't revive the dead, so really any outcome will be a hollow gesture, but for the lives that might be saved by taking certain individuals out of society. They took this man's life away, which he bargained for an ideal in the first place. His life is still over, what difference does it make if he lives fifty years in prison or dies of prostate cancer outside those prison walls?

Maybe it was a political move, considering the high profile nature of the crime I'd go so far as to say that this is likely. But hell, I'd say that procuring more favorable relations with an important supplier of needed materials is a much better payment to society than leaving the man in jail for the selfish desires of the victims families.

The lively celebration at his arrival was a pretty dick move on Libya's part, though, whatever you feel about his release. You can't keep people from celebrating but you can keep them off the tarmac and off the camera. Instead they wheel out a welcoming party.

Also, Gaddafi's son pretty much confirmed his release was about a trade deal.

Basically, this is a big load of bullshit.

Are you serious? I'm pretty sure it isn't selfish to want one of the murderers of one of your children or sibling to be confined in prison for the rest of his life. Also I think a trade deal to supply the U.K. with oil is a ludicrous mission since we're supposed to be moving onto clean energy, not solidifying the stranglehold of oil barons on our societies in exchange for giving special treatment to mass murderers.

This was about making money, not the betterment of society.

I mean, I can kinda see it, as the fucker is going to die regardless, and cancer is a pretty shit deal and all that, so trying to take the higher ground and let him die with his family is understandable, though I don't agree with it.

However, since it has nothing to do with that and Libya are being fuckers, then fuck him shoulda left him in jail.

Making money and the betterment of society aren't as disconnected as you might believe.

And yes, vengeance is an inherently selfish motivation. I'm not saying that it's wrong or that I wouldn't feel the same way (point in case I'd likely want the perpetrator to die) but I am pointing out the obvious fact that it's selfish.

I'll buy that.

But then you have to decide whether justice equals vengeance. If a life sentence is the proper sentence in this case, then is wanting him to serve its entirety being selfish?

Justice, in theory, is the betterment of society through apprehension and rehabilitation, and when the criminal is deemed beyond rehabilitation, the permanent removal of that individual from normal society, either through incarceration until death, or government imposed death.

However, in practice, it's just base punishment of offenders for the appeasement of society. In effect, it's publicly sanctioned revenge.