Releasing convicted prisoners on grounds of compassion

[getreal]

Latest post of the previous page:

As for the punishment/grounds for compassionate release depending on the severity of the crime, I don't see the logic. Showing compassion is about the compassionate, not about the recipient of the compassion.

I couldn't agree more, Ninny

[Lifelinking]

On balance I think I am much happier with the Scottish Legal system than a system which still indulges in the barbarity of the death penalty. And yeah, I like the fact that we have a mechanism for compassionate release, and we use it, without fear or favour.

The reactions of the Godly right wing conservative yanks were all too predictable, and part of a wider phenomenon of the USA behaving like a school playground bully.

A democracy at home. An arrogant autocrat on the world stage.

Which is a very important aspect of the things that led up to this whole shit storm in the first place.

(p.s. I like almost every Yank I have met - and know that there are very many compassionate, thoughtful and good people there. Hell with people like them around there is a chance that the good old US of A could even be a really great country one day, once it grows up)

[Marian]

On balance I think I am much happier with the Scottish Legal system than a system which still indulges in the barbarity of the death penalty. And yeah, I like the fact that we have a mechanism for compassionate release, and we use it, without fear or favour.

I too am glad we don't have the death penalty; it is extremely barbaric. I like that we have medical parole BUT should it just be used across the board for all regardless of the crime they commit? Sure, it's compassionate to the parolee but is it compassionate to the survivors and their families, if it were Dennis Nilson, for example?

I agree that the US does act like a spoiled bully on the international stage but we still have to take into consideration the families of the victims. It just seems to me that their pain is somehow made into something less because the convicted criminal is now ill. I am sorry that the criminal is ill but that doesn't erase the responsibility of looking at both sides with compassion.

[tubataxidriver]

I remember that Ernest Saunders of Guinness infamy was jailed for his crime, claimed Alzheimer's disease and was released after 10 months, and then went on to make a complete and miraculous recovery before going back into business at a senior level. Cynically, a clever plan to get out of jail that worked very well.

[Lifelinking]

Ian Bell at close to his eviscerating best in the Sunday Herald

The piece starts on the current healthcare 'debate' in the US but goes on to touch on the Megrahi case and much more.

[Marian]

Ian Bell at close to his eviscerating best in the Sunday Herald

The piece starts on the current healthcare 'debate' in the US but goes on to touch on the Megrahi case and much more.

Great article! I love the way he writes. Sharp, to the point and covers all the basis. I agree that the US is hardly in a position to be calling the kettle black; it has a horrendous history of human rights abuses at home and abroad. The US should be held accountable for these atrocities, without question, but I am realistic enough to know that the US is not like Spiderman (motto: with great power comes great responsibility) and doesn't see itself as being the victimizer no matter how apparent it is.

But I still hold to my opinion that the issue of compassion played only a minor role in the decision to release him and that the families whose members died weren't treated equally compassionately. We need to shine the light on the real political and economic reasons for the release. Furthermore, it is my understanding that prostate cancer can be treated, depending on the severity, of course. That remission is quite likely to happen. We'll just have to wait and see.

[getreal]

There are still many deaths due to prostatic cancer every year.

Some types are more amenable to treatment than others. It was stated on the BBC that Magrahi had hormone resistent prostate cancer, which is (I understand) more difficult to treat.

I find it very difficult to believe that Alex Salmond would countenance doing anything on behalf of the UK.

I think he'd choke on his porridge.

[Lorikeet]

I haven't much new to add to this post, other than, if someone is incapacitated and going to die soon anyway, and also already suffering, what on earth is the point in keeping them in jail? It costs an awful lot to keep somebody imprisoned, and nothing will have been achieved at the end of the extra couple of months. That money could be better spent on other things.

Besides, if prison is all you know, then it's not an acute and conscious punishment. If suffering is all you know, how can you miss kindness? If you want to be vindictive, show somebody compassion and their pain will become more acute. That's not a reason I'd give to release someone, but it might cheer up the determinedly vindictive.

[Maria Mac]

Not sure who's behind this but it says to forward it to "every patriotic American you know":


http://www.boycottscotland.co.uk/

[Fia]

it says to forward it to "every patriotic American you know":

Thanks for that Maria, and I did just that...

[Lorikeet]

I thought this was serious at first!

[Gottard]

I ask myself:
if the whole story has an economic/political footing then couldn't the prostate cancer be part of the "story" as well?

[Alan H]

Good blog post by a QC here.

I cannot imagine that the release of Megrahi will in a few years be seen as a worse decision than the UK Government’s decision to release seventy-eight murderers who had collectively murdered far more people than were murdered at Lockerbie; or the US Governments decision to release a murderer of (per his conviction) twenty-two after three and a half years house arrest; or the UK Government’s decision that Pinochet should never face murder charges because of his supposedly poor health.

[Lifelinking]

Very well spotted Alan. What a great piece by JM.

That’s the way the law works; it doesn’t suddenly cease to operate because the person claiming its benefits is criminal, or a foreigner, or because release is politically undesirable. Still less because of the improbable suggestion that Americans will boycott Scotland and all its works if Scots law is applied impartially and judicially.