The Lede (A NY Times Blog)So, here is a story that has taken several interesting turns since 1988... What do you think? In particular, what do you think about the idea of a compassionate release? Do you think that compassionate release is ok sometimes and not at other times? What kinds of criteria do you think might need in place for this type of thing? What do you think would happen if we instituted this policy in the American prison system? [Remember these are questions to get you started on this topic. They do not need, however, to restrain or limit your discussion.]
Acting harsh, relentless, and inhumane is much easier than learning to forgive. This man committed a terrible crime. He destroyed families, installed fear in the hearts of many people, and mercilessly killed hundreds. However, does this make it okay to ignore the laws instated in order to give him the harshest punishment possible? Laws exist to provide due process for ALL people. Fundamental fairness is just that, fundamental. Everyone has the same rights, not just people we deem “worthy enough” to have rights. Scotland, from what I learned from the articles, has a law that states that prisoners can be released on compassionate grounds. This law applies to all tried and convicted criminals in the Scotland courts, not just Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. But if what the protesters are saying is true, and his crimes were too terrible to be offered this option, than how will it be decided who gets offered this form of release? Is it because Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi killed to many people? Is it not as big of a deal to just kill one person? Because it is still a human making the conscious decision to kill another human. Is the grief of one family not as important as the grief of many families?
ReplyDeleteI understand that this crime claimed more victims than most crimes do. However the laws are nonnegotiable. Not offering Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi a compassionate release would be bending the law so that it works against a convicted prisoner. Laws are put in place to ensure that our punishment is fair and not overly harsh. I think that the Scottish Government did the right thing releasing him. Showing a little compassion toward someone who would never expect to receive any, even someone who does not deserve it, is the way for good people to remain morally sound. Someone who is truly good hearted should get no pleasure out of watching someone else suffer. As Alexander Pope said, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” I am ashamed of the Americans choosing to boycott Scotland and embarrassed to have a president who does not believe in equal rights.
-Kali
Assuming that the man was guilty of bombing or a conspiring in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and for the murder of 270 people, I find there to be very little reason for "compassionate release". Just because a man is slightly closer to death than he otherwise would be in perfect health does not absolve him of any atrocity he may have committed in life. By the reasoning evinced here, a man could be released from prison at any time he feels his death to be imminent; no matter matter what the charge or sentence, a man could waltz on out of prison with the excuse of some fatal affliction, as though life without this affliction weren't any less intermittent.
ReplyDeleteIf the criteria to be met for one to attain "compassionate release" consists solely in one's proximity to death, and if this proximity is measured without any real system to reckon the relative length of a human life (which would be an absolutely absurd and teleological system to concoct, if one were to introduce into it the extremities of longevity in our universe), then I find it illogical to release a man based on such criteria.
I say grant him the option of suicide and save him the three months of anguished anticipation for his impending death. Such a seemingly inhuman solution would be no more merciless than any example United States' history has to offer.
Personally, I don’t like the idea of a compassionate release in most situations. If someone is found guilty of a crime like murder, they should have to serve their sentence no matter what. I know that the murderer had prostate cancer, but that doesn’t mean that he should be released. I would understand if the prison made his last few months more comfortable or if they allowed his family to visit, but just letting him go doesn’t seem like a great idea. What if he found a way to use his last few months to kill more people? I think that a compassionate release would only make sense if someone was guilty of a petty crime. For example, I would understand a compassionate release if they were releasing someone guilty of stealing boxes of tic tacs from Publix or something like that. In any case, if compassionate release is what a government decides to do, I believe that there should be a lot of regulations that go along with it. I think that a house arrest situation would be best, and I think that the criminal should be monitored closely. Finally, I believe that if we instituted a policy of compassionate release in the US, we would have some problems. A policy like that would probably require us to get rid of the death penalty because it wouldn’t make sense for us the let people go free just because they are going to die when there is still capital punishment in place. Overall, it seems like a dangerous idea. I understand having compassion, but I think there are easier ways to do it (last meal, family visitation etc.).
ReplyDeleteDanny
Kali,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you mean by things having to be fair for everyone, but I don't think that any murderers should be released based on compassion. I think that prisoners should get a level of compassion from the people who run prisons, but I don't think that they should go so far as to release them. I just think that it's a dangerous idea to be letting murderers go free. Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was a convicted terrorist, and it just seems insane to let him go. He may have had only a few months to live, but he was convicted of killing 270 people in just one day. All I’m trying to say is that prisons are there for a reason. They are there to make sure that dangerous people can’t do the things that make them dangerous. I would understand if the Scottish people had done something to make al-Megrahi’s last few months more comfortable, but just letting him walk seems like a lapse in judgment.
Danny
While reading these articles I was struck with mixed emotions. My overwhelming anger and hatred towards terrorists, and their organizations, was offset by the inconclusiveness that seemed to be present in the reports. I was struck with a sense that the release of Mr. Megrahi, who has only months to live, was unimportant in the overall scheme of accountability related to the Lockerbie incident. In one of the articles there is talk of Mr. Megrahi proving his innocence before his death. The article then goes on to talk about a member of Scottish parliament who supports Mr. Megrahi and who is planning to use next week’s debate to name an exile living under U.S. protection in Washington, D.C. that is the true mastermind of the Lockerbie bombing. These statements make it seem as if the trials that placed Mr. Megrahi in jail were illegitimate and held little actual validity. Although this opinion of mine is misconstrued due to my lack of knowledge on the past trials that led Mr. Megrahi to his jail sentence and now release, I still feel there is something to be said for the fact that he could possible be innocent. Regardless of the fact that Mr. Megrahi could be innocent I don’t like that the United States government and its allies are still dealing with Libya, especially since this is not the first time they have acknowledged their responsibility for a terrorist attack that killed many Americans.
ReplyDeleteDanny, I don’t think I could agree with you more. It seems to make no sense to release a person who has killed many just because they will die soon. This may sound uncompassionate on my part, but I feel that your point about the person using their last months of life to kill more people sums up my feelings exactly. However, in this case I am not sure that the Scottish government was even positive that the man they had in their custody was in fact guilty, perhaps this is why they are letting him go so easily. In one of the articles there is discussion on how a member of Scottish parliament will reveal the name of the true mastermind behind the Lockerbie incident, this seems to me to only be making the government look more foolish and in turn leading more people to believe that Mr. Megrahi may be innocent.
ReplyDeleteDanny,
ReplyDeleteI also understand what you mean. Obviously prisons exist for a reason. Obviously most of the people who are locked away deserve to be. This man does deserve to be behind bars. He did something so terrible that I believe he deserves everything that is coming to him. The point I was trying to make with my post is that it does not matter how awful his crime is. No matter what he did, the laws still protect him. I was trying to promote fundamental fairness. Whether or not I want him to be released from jail is totally beside the point. The point is that he can legally be released. It would be unethical to deny him one of his rights that are clearly stated in the laws of Scotland. You cannot break laws to punish people who break laws. I wish that he would rot in jail but at the same time I do not think that bending the laws to give him a harsher punishment is right.
Kali
This might be the most absurd decision I’ve ever read about. The fact that a man could serve less than half his initial sentence based upon his impending death is ridiculous. This isn’t a time out, this is prison. When I read this I immediately thought about play time as a kid, and receiving a 10 minute time out which COULD be shortened if I presented that I had learned my lesson and proved I was capable of good behavior. Now I know Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was apparently “very ill”, but since when does that matter if you’re a convicted killer? The only time such an illogical option of “compassionate release” should be granted is if there was no murder involved. If a person is convicted of stealing it is completely less of a crime than a murder, and maybe, in this particular case, a grant could be given.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the United States implementing this grant, it will never happen. A government can’t have capital punishment and “compassionate release” because they’re total opposites. But for Scotland, if they’re planning on sticking with this policy, they should consider revising it a bit. For instance, the criminal should be given a certain amount of time and if he/she hasn’t deceased within that period, he/she should be sent back to prison immediately and remain there until his/her initial sentence is fulfilled. Or, in an extreme policy: if the prisoner feels terminally ill then he/she can have the option of receiving medical treated in which he/she is deemed terminally ill. In this case, the prisoner has the option of staying in jail or receiving “compassionate release.” The catch? The prisoner is given a certain time span to die and if he/she doesn’t then capital punishment is put into effect (obviously the prisoner would want to be 100% positive that he/she was going to die).
Although this man used a bomb to blow up a plane and injured many many people, both in and out of the plane, I believe that granting him a compassionate release is ethical and the right thing to do. If I were in this man's shoes, I would want the last few months of my life as a free man and making as many memories as possible I can with my family. Every convicted prisoner is not an evil ill-mannered person all of the time. Although some murderers shoot and kill their immediate family, there must be at least one relative that they care about and would like to say a final goodbye to.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the criteria needed to be granted a compassionate release, I think that the one for the current situation and illness is the most ideal. Other than death and illness of any kind, I see no reason for a compassionate or early release. Doing so without an anticipated death or illness of the prisoner would not be harsh enough punishment. In my opinion, illness is constitued as any type of condition that is other than normal; this includes mental illness. If a mental illness can be proven, then I believe that person should recieve compassionate release.
If we instituted this policy in the American prison system, I am almost sure that all hell will break loose. Not everyone is about forgiveness especially if the prisoner in particular has taken a life or numerous lives. Also, since more Americans died in the Pan Am Flight 103 than English, I'm sure my idea would not sit well with my fellow Americans. All in all, this is a pretty touchy controversial subject that I try to stay away from.
Sean:
ReplyDeleteI guess I can understand your views on this subject. The point that you made about compassionate release only being acceptable in the case of no murder sounds logical and seems like the right thing to do. However, put yourself in this man's position. Whatever his motive was for blowing up the Pan Am Flight 103, I would think that his many years spent in prison has been regretful ones. Now, I'm not saying that he did or did not feel remorse for his heinous actions but it would be nice to think that he felt some kind of guilt for the hundreds of lives lost. Going along with this thought, the possible guilt he may or may not have experienced, could have possibily led to his illness. His guilt may have affected his psyche, which in turn could have affected the overall functioning of his body and as a result of a weakened system, he could have been more susceptible to illnesses. However, this is all just speculation and probably did not happen.
In my opinion health is not a reason to be released from prison. Especially when you did something as terrible as Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi did. Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi made a decision that ended hundreds of lives in an instant and he has since served numerous years in jail. Personally I don’t think that a life sentence is appropriate, I think that a death sentence is appropriate. Just because Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi contracted cancer doesn’t mean that he should get home, especially when he is going to be greeted by people cheering for him because of his horrid act of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of his release that I really don’t understand is that it was a compassionate release. Why would anybody have any compassion for a man who killed hundreds of people and affected the lives of thousands in an act of terrorism? There is no legitimate reason this man should have been released from jail under any circumstance, whether he has cancer or not. Let him die in jail, he chose to kill hundreds of people now he is going to face death himself. He does not deserve to be celebrated as a hero when he gets back to his home country from jail for killing people.
There is also speculation that Britain released Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi for more access to Libyan oil. Is this how the world should work now, return terrorists who killed hundreds of people in return for oil? The release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was not and cannot be justified.
In response to Becki
ReplyDeleteI’m going to be perfectly blunt, I completely disagree with you. Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi killed hundreds of people and completely deserves his life sentence and in my opinion he actually deserves a death sentence. He contracted cancer and now has three months to live and be celebrated for what he did. Receiving praise for killing hundreds of people is not right. He chose to kill all of those people now he needs to take his punishment. Why should he be released to enjoy the last few months of his life? None of the people that he killed got a chance to even say good bye to their families so why should he? Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi made a choice and killed hundreds of people and needs to serve his sentence, if there is somebody who wants to say good bye to him then they can come visit him in jail. He does not deserve to go home and does not deserve his “compassionate” release.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi is responsible for the deaths of 270 people, some American, others British, but all innocent members of society with families and loved ones. Does he deserve compassion? I think not. If a person who is essentially a mass murderer can be granted compassionate release on the grounds that he is deathly ill, does this mean that any convict has the same right? Where do we draw the line between the deserving and not deserving? I believe that this line is simply too difficult to define, and therefore this right should not be given at all. Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi made a life choice to take part in the bombing of the Pan Am flight 103. He did not plea insanity, and he was fully aware of the decision he was making to take fellow human lives when he made it. Just because he has had the misfortune to contract prostate cancer which will take his life doesn’t mean that he no longer has to pay the price for his actions. There have been countless inmates in the past who have died in prison of terminal illnesses and were not granted compassionate release. While I fully believe that Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi has every right to full medical care, I do not believe that he deserved compassionate release, nor does any other person convicted for crimes of this nature. By granting him this we are sending him and the world the message that these types of actions are forgivable when they are not and never, by any stretch of the imagination, will be.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the compiled amount of articles and listening to all side of the story about the release of Megrahi, I finally came to a just decision. I think that his release is completely outrageous. I think people are treating him way to cautiously because he is terminally ill. If this was a terrorist attack that just happened a year ago instead of over twenty years ago, he would not be released under any circumstance. Because it is a new generation it seems everyone turned a cold shoulder and forgot about all the innocent lives he killed with one single bomb. As far as a compassionate release, I do not at all think it was appropriate for this case. I don’t mean to sound like a terrible person but I believe he should rot in jail till death so he can feel the torture and pain he caused for the ones he killed and their families. Now that he is out and there was already an uprising when he returned home who’s to say he won’t plan a “last going out” attack. He could seek revenge on the U.S.A. because Obama showed such anger towards his release.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I do believe in compassionate release if the crime committed was a small one that did not affect or hurt any people. I believe anyone who did not harm a soul should have paid enough time in prison to have their last three months to themselves and spend with their families. Therefore, I think the criteria for compassionate release should be judged on the convict’s crime committed and whether or not they are showing good behavior in jail.
- Jackie Sonin
Danny,
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t agree with you more. After reading your blog I found we had many of the same opinions. I believe he should stay in jail as well. I’m glad that you suggested he should have been treated a little less violent and receive visits from his family. I did not think of that but that seems only fair as long as he remains in jail for his remaining months. I also completely agree with the fact that people seem to be forgetting he is a dangerous terrorist that obviously has power in his home country. I don’t see why other people don’t see that three months or he could live even longer which is a long time for a man like him to plan a plot to hurt or kill many more people. I also agree with you that the compassion release should take place for a person who could a minimal crime like a small robbery and should be able to return with their family to prepare for death.
-Jackie Sonin
Danny:
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your opinions on compassionate release. I think your suggestion to allow the convict family visits and a more comfortable last months is a good idea and I share your concern of what if the person used the last months of their life to commit another crime? Think how terrible the people who decided to grant that person release would feel. I also think that instituting this policy would create a lot of problems. There would be so many what ifs and objections to overcome that I doubt it would ever be possible to come up with a clear definition of who would deserve compassionate release. I think your idea of petty criminals deserving compassionate release over other types makes sense. I would personally feel much more comfortable with a terminally ill shoplifter on the streets than a mass murderer. All in all I thought your post was some good food for thought!
First of all I would not personally be surprised if the was a release in a deal for oil. That being said I do not think that there should be such a thing as a compassionate release. I have a few reasons, first if you release a killer even though he only has a few months to live what if they kill again or a rapist who rapes again. Think of the many people that could be saved from either the straight personal effect and the family and friends that could also be effected. Secondly there is a reason why they were out away for that long. People need to be held accountable fore their actions. I think it is completely ridiculous to let someone out because we feel bad for them. Will we start to let people who get beat up or people that go crazy in prison out. NO, we never would this should not even be a topic of discussion from my standpoint. Finally there are many stories of outlasting their final months. What if this happens? Do they go back to jail after the three or do the stay out until hey die? These are questions and risks I think should not even be brought up. I think that if the idea was brought up in the US people would be furious, there is no way I see this working in the US. If the UK wants to allow this that is their choice but the minute it effects another nation I think that is wrong.
ReplyDeleteMaggie,
ReplyDeleteI agree where is the line and who determines it? Sounds like a very fine line and either way whether they get released or not people will be against the decision. Also who would choose? Would it be a jury of citizens like in courts or would it be a board of people in higher status of law. This could really be a bad decision to make for a country to allow this because you are really risking a lot of other issues such as possible discrimination and racism, something that could easily be avoided. I just do not see enough positives to over ride the negatives. Some time you have to put what might be the moral choice aside and choose what would be better for the country as a whole. As I believe it was Danny who said to allow visitation with the family members and think that would work if they want let them live with the prisoner in a private jail cell. I don’t care about that but releasing a prisoner because some people feel bad for him is just unacceptable.
I have to totally disagree with this hype of “compassionate release.” The fact that this guy is still living all these years after he was convicted for killing 270 people is a startling fact by itself. If this guy is dying in jail, then let him rot in his little cell. We are compassionate about prostate cancer? Really? If it was lung or brain maybe, but since its prostate I he deserves to suffer. It seems to me like a little bit of karma coming into play. What ever happened to the other guy who was tried? I think the compassionate release needs to be the two million dollars the families haven’t received. If Libya was compassionate the would pay up. If we started this system we would soon be consumed with criminals slowing dying instead of rotting in their block where they deserve to be. The only way this man would and should receive compassion is if he was a hero. Well, he certainly isn’t that so give him the option to kill himself or let him die where he deserves to be, in prison.
ReplyDeleteAs far as there being criteria to receive “compassionate release” would first be not a person convicted of a mass murder. Secondly, their jail time should be at least twenty-five years, third they should do something that has changed the outlook people have towards them. Finally if there needs to be any criteria, there should a panel that includes presidents of affected companies, as well as families that were affected and there needs to be a unanimous decision.
Danny,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you in the fact that there needs to be punishment. I don’t think his prison sentence has been pleasant. I think if it has been then they should make it unpleasant for him. This guy doesn’t deserve any compassion from anyone. If family is visiting him, that shouldn’t of happened in the first place. I can’t see why anyone would want to visit him. But you are right with releases people of crimes of less magnitude. If someone is in jail for stealing or petty things like that then release should be acceptable. However I think that if the crime is like murder or child molestation then the criminal deserves to suffer for it and receive no compassion.
In response to Nick, well put. I totally agree that this would never be an acceptable law in the US. Also, I like how you pointed out that it could affect other nations and that if this were to happen, it would be totally unacceptable. Also, to elaborate on your point about the criminal outlasting their suspected remaining life: it’s completely silly, you’re absolutely right. I know it’s a bit far-fetched but are we not all dying as soon as we’re born? Who is to say the exact day/hour/minute/second that we are beginning to actually die? Overall this would never be tolerated in the United States of America, I don’t know if it’s because we’re too strict of a country, or because we just know an absurdity when we see it, but whatever the case may be I’m extremely grateful that I can trust my government on at least one major topic.
ReplyDeleteTo not allow a fair trial Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi is immoral is against the rules and laws. Laws are created to make a foundation for society to follow and obey at all cost. Sure there are loop holes that people can get around to have some things their way, but to bend the rules to go against a person is unjust. I believe that al-Megrahi should be released, what he did was a long time ago, and he is too old and not motivated (at least not as much as he was before when he did bomb the plane and killed all those people. Sure those friends and family of thise people want revenge and make this man suffer, but if things went their way, they would be no different than al-megrahi when he killed all those people for his religous reasons. He did what he did to those people in an act of god, and personally I think that is just wrong to kill a bunch of people for religous is nothing but a selfish act of stupidity and ignorance. Sure, I agree with the people about the british prime minister declaring a compassionate release grant for al-Megrahi is not right, but it’s better then to not let al-Megrahi not be trial at all. So in the end, I think that Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi should be trial at least one more time and if he is guilty (which he is) let him spend more time in prison for life, since killing is less of a punishment for him. That way the friends and family of the people that were killed will get their revenge and compassionate release won’t have to be used.
ReplyDelete@Thomas Ash
ReplyDeleteI agree to what you have say about the fact that compassionate release, since this guy not much life left. Although he did killed many people, and the friends and family of those people would want revenge. If the people got what they wanted and seeing this man rot in the prison or be sent to a death sentence, they would be no different than him when he did his crime. He can do nothing now since he is at the last moments of his life. If he was younger and much healthier, then giving him a compassionate release should be out of the question. He should be punished and continue to rot in prison, death sentence is too much at any age. If murderer is being sent to a death sentence then the families and friends of the people who lost their lives would end up getting what they want without realizing the consequences of their actions. Revenge is like a endless spiral that will continue to drill down further and further with no end unless someone stops it.
Julia-
ReplyDeleteI was not okay with this story when I heard it. I was a little confused after looking at the picture but then I listened to the recording. I hate tragedies like this, especially when they are intentional. Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was the only man convicted after this happened in the Lockerbie Bombing. Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was a former Libian intelligence agent. He was originally in jail; however was let out because of “compassionate release”. The reason was because doctors found cancer in him and said that he only had about three months to live. I have mixed feelings about this action taken. I feel that this man committed a crime in order to be put in jail, and needs to stick out his jail time. Abdel Baset al-Megrahi did not have and compassion when he committed his crime, so why should the officials considering letting him out of jail early have compassionate on him? Everyone has to wait out his or her jail time, so why shouldn’t he? On the other hand, I don’t know how it feels to be told that I have only three months to live. I could only imagine that being the worst feeling in the world. On the flip side I would say that maybe if the man had been on his best behavior, before him finding out he had cancer, then they should consider letting him out early. I don’t think it is right for the man to be released solely due to him finding out he has a short period to live.
-Julia
Thomas Ash,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading many of the responses, my classmates all have good things to say. One thing in particular that I noticed was an original idea I had not thought of. You said to give Abdel Baset al-Megrahi the suicide option. Although I am highly against suicide, this could be a considerable option for the man. The worst feeling in the world would be knowing when you were going to die. Imagine waking up every morning thinking “I have a month to live”, or granted “I only have three days to live”. Nobody would want to spend his or her final days locked up in a jail cell. Since I am against Abdel Baset al-Megrahi’s release from prison, I agree with you and say give him the suicide option, so at least he wouldn’t have to suffer with the knowledge that everyday could be his last. He could die an easy, quick death rather than slowly waiting until that day.
-Julia
By: Kaley
ReplyDeleteI can understand how this situation could be extremly painful to the families of people who died during the attack. It was a wrongful death that should not have occured. I think many of the families of the passangers on that plane would find peace in knowing that the man responsible for this attack will be in prision for the rest of his life. I'm sure the families feel that the man set free is not being held responsible for what he did.
However, the idea of compassionate release I think is a good one. By no means am I trying to not be sympathetic to the families of the individual responsible for this terrible act. Nor am I agreeing with the man being set free.
As I understand compassionate release it means letting someone who is dying in prision go home to their families to die. I think that it is important for a criminal justice system to show mercy in those types of situations. The person should be able to die with family and not suffering in a prision cell. Every human being should be able to die with their family and comfortable if possible. I think as for criteria regarding who would qualify for compassion release it should be, the person is not capable of harm to others. Meaning the person is sick enough to be incopassitated enough to not be able to hurt any one. I also believe it should only be for the final dying stages that the individual be granted compassionate release. I think this policy should be instituted in the American Prision system and that if regulated properly would be a way to allow people who are dying to be with their family.
Becki,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion on the matter of compassionate release by terms of a terminally ill prisoner. I agree that every person should be able to be with their families and receive proper medical treatment regardless of their past. I think that is the civil thing to do in that situation. I think the criteria for that should be very strict and that not until the person is in their very very last stage of dying should they be set free to prevent any possible danger they could cause to others as a result of their release.
I do disagree on the matter of allowing that system here in the United States. I think if the system was properly regulated and only implemented on a case by case basis, that it could work here in America. It will of course always be more difficult for the people personally effected by the criminal but it is difficult for the victims any time a prisoner is released back into the public. I think it is okay to show mercy in the face of death and that Americans should be able to do that.
By: Kaley
The first time I even heard of compassionate release was through this article and the idea of it is shocking. How can people even be compassionate to someone who has killed two hundred and seventy people? A man who has done such a big crime shouldn’t deserve to be able to go home after serving eight out of his twenty seven year minimum sentence. That is like giving Osama bin Laden a compassionate release. Sure he killed more than Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, but I figured it was a good example of how ridiculous this whole trial and the way they are handling things is. The Scottish government is treating this case as if he did something smaller, like committing a gun crime. What makes this whole ordeal worse is that it took them more than ten years after the plane was bombed to decide what to do with him. If Americans were able to handle this trial on their own, I feel that things would have gone smoother and he would have had the proper sentence he deserves. Thankfully, after a Scottish legal panel granted Megrahi an appeal in 2007, in 2009 a five-member panel of judges began hearing the case in Edinburgh. After this, a couple of months later, Megrahi’s lawyers abandoned the appeal right before his release. Even though the reason he qualified for compassionate release was because medical evidence showed he would die of prostate cancer is a matter of months, I feel that the right decision, as far as how he was tried, was made in the end.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Julia’s blog,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you opinion on compassionate release. He didn’t care about the two hundred and seventy innocent people he killed, so why should anyone care if he gets out of jail? He should stick out his sentence in jail, because it is only fair. The fact that they even thought about letting him have “compassionate release” is beyond me. If people who commit not as severe crimes have to do their time then why shouldn’t he? Why should he get better treatment? He is a terrorist and I can’t believe how long it took them to decide what to do with him because if it was up to me, I would have made my decision in a matter of weeks. Behavior like that is unacceptable and if he’s killed hundreds of people once, who’s to say he won’t do it again if he is released?