Compassionate Release

AmoroAgain · August 2009

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/8197370.stm[/url]Agree? Disagree?I find that it's a difficult, and even challenging concept to our innate desire for justice and vengeance, I feel it is the correct thing to do. Due process has been served in that he was convicted, and because he harmed us, does not mean that we should harm him. When we use the principles of humanity and compassion, we rise above the crime perpetrated against us. It's hard, no doubt about it. I choke a bit to think of it, but when we forget ourselves and get lost in hatred, we become no better than the criminal.

crfische · August 2009

I think it's easy to say it was the right thing to do, but if it was someone in my family who was hurt, I would be absolutely pissed the f#ck right off.

AmoroAgain · August 2009

Oh, I'm not saying I wouldn't be pissed too! In fact, there's a little part of me that absolutely is. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that humanity should prevail, even when we don't really want it to.

danieliza1127 · August 2009

I guess we were posting at the same time. I personally don't see why he should be shown compassion in death. He didn't show compassion to his victims. He hasn't "paid his debt to society" because his prison term isn't even up yet. I do see your points, but I can imagine if I was his victim's family, I would be pretty upset that he is being shown "compassion" after what he did to my family.

raynes · August 2009

I agree with what Amoro posted in the OP, that was well said.I think that releasing him is the correct thing to do here, let him die at home.The practical part of me also realizes that then his medical costs won't have to be covered by the Scots.

jaimebeth9 · August 2009

TONS of people die in prison. I fail to see why he should be treated any differently.

tidetravel · August 2009

Ditto Dani. It's not like he served his time and then got released. He still had time left to serve. To say - "Oh, well, since you're dying, you can go home and see your friends and family and live out the last remaining months of your life surrounded by the people you love is BS." He didn't do that for the people that he killed.I would be ok with transferring him to a prision closer to home, so that relatives could visit him, but to release him? No.

danieliza1127 · August 2009

Imagine if we had one of the 9/11 terrorists in jail and then 20 years from now, he's dying and so we release him to go home and be with his family. That would not fly in the U.S.

[Deleted User] · August 2009

I agree with Dani. His term was life and he hasn't served it yet. He wasn't even jailed until 2001 and the bombing was in 1988, he only served 7 years. There was another man who was just was granted compassionate release here as well. [url]<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ll5cz6" rel='nofollow'>http://tinyurl.com/ll5cz6</a>[/url]

crfische · August 2009

Exactly, Dani. I don't think he should have been allowed home.

tidetravel · August 2009

I also find it ironic that the justice secretary was ok with releasing him to Libyia, but didn't want him to be released to in Scotland on "security grounds" - so he obviously thinks that the guy is enough of a threat that they don't want him in their country.

bbyckes · August 2009

Tide - it could have been for his own security. He may be safer in Libya.

tidetravel · August 2009

Oh - yeah. Good point.

AmoroAgain · August 2009

Tide, I don't think he was worried about the man himself causing security problems, he was worried about families of victims or people who disagreed with the release causing problems, or perhaps attempting to kill him, etc. I get it guys, I really do. Frankly, would I want to release the people who caused 9/11? Not really, but should it be done anyway? Probably. Keep in mind that the US is not Scotland, and the ideas we have are not theirs. The US strongly disagrees with this release, and has maintained that it is not in the best interest of justice for it to be done. Also keep in mind, that to me, there is a fine line between commuting the sentence of a killer who has been convicted, and not trying someone on grounds of health. Due process and justice should be followed at all times. Only in the law do we push back against our innate desires. You have to view the law without prejudice, without desires clouding your mind. In following the law, we become a better version of ourselves, we allow our better nature to take control, and we don't become perpetrators of crime ourselves.

alixzafiris · August 2009

Disagree completely. I don't care what his 'condition' is. His killed nearly 300 people and should have to deal with the consequences of that. And I disagree with your statement that 'we shouldn't harm him'. I'm sure, even in prison, he is receiving medical care and is not being 'harmed'. But just because he is ill, does not mean that he should no longer have to be punished for the massive loss of life he caused.

danieliza1127 · August 2009

You have to view the law without prejudice, without desires clouding your mind. In following the law, we become a better version of ourselves, we allow our better nature to take control, and we don't become perpetrators of crime ourselves. Right, and he was sentenced to life in prison and he has not yet served that sentence. So they aren't following the law by releasing him.I see where you are trying to go with your point Amoro and it's part of why I don't agree with the death penalty. I think the death penalty is just a way for people to get revenge. If you are against murder, how can you then sanction the state to murder someone? I think that's where your arguement is based or headed, but I don't think that applies here. By law, he was tried and convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He has not yet served life in prison yet they are releasing him. So yes he got his due process but that doesn't mean everyone who gets due process and a fair trial should be released early.

AmoroAgain · August 2009

So yes he got his due process but that doesn't mean everyone who gets due process and a fair trial should be released early.I don't think everyone should get released early (but again, lets' be honest here, a lot of people do get released early for various reasons) but there can be reasons. He's going to suffer an incredibly painful and long death. That's more justice than anyone can give him in prison. Not only that, if he were to die in prison, they would be bound by humanitarian laws to give him proper care and treatment as well as control his pain.

tidetravel · August 2009

A jury, convicting someone of a crime, is instructed to make their decisions without the bias of feelings or compassion. They are to make their decisions based on the evidence before them, and the judge should make his/her decisions based on the letter of the law. He was tried and found guilty. Sentenced to life in prision. Once you start letting feelings get involved, at any stage of the process, it undermines the very law that everything was built on. Like I said before; IMO, an acceptable compromise would be to allow him to serve the rest of his sentance in prision in his home country. That way he is serving the rest of his sentence, and his family could be with him, at least as much as he deserved.

SwedishChick2011 · August 2009

I disagree with the decision. He should remain in prison and serve the rest of his sentence, which I guess is until he dies. They should try to keep him reasonably comfortable with pain meds or whatever, but he should not be relseased. That's ridic.

AmoroAgain · August 2009

Libya would never put him back in prison Tide. They've always staunchly held that he wasn't responsible, and the reason it took so long to try him in the first place, is that they refused to give him up.

crfische · August 2009

No, MoMo. the 9/11 terrorists should not ever be let out of prison. That is not the right thing to do. In fact, it sends a very wrong message to society. Sure, be a terrorist, kill a bunch of people, but we'll let you go. Nope.

danieliza1127 · August 2009

Not only that, if he were to die in prison, they would be bound by humanitarian laws to give him proper care and treatment as well as control his pain.Yes and I do think that's the real reason he's being released. Scotland doesn't want to have to pay for his care.

AmoroAgain · August 2009

I am NOT saying just let em go no matter what. I'm saying they have to have a death sentence already.

tidetravel · August 2009

They've always staunchly held that he wasn't responsible, and the reason it took so long to try him in the first place, is that they refused to give him up.If that's the case, then he needs to stay in prision where he is. I agree that the real reason Scotland's letting him go is so they don't have to cover his medical expenses.

jaimebeth9 · August 2009

The fact that he had a life sentence was the intent that he would die in prison. Unfortunately he only has been in 8 years instead of the long life sentence he was given. He should have died in prison rather than the comfort of his home.

AmoroAgain · August 2009

Not only that, if he were to die in prison, they would be bound by humanitarian laws to give him proper care and treatment as well as control his pain.Yes and I do think that's the real reason he's being released. Scotland doesn't want to have to pay for his care.Not only that, but would you, if you were Scottish, want to have to be nice to that douchebag? I think not!

Soon-to-be Mrs. Vogt · August 2009

I can see both points. I'm sure he's receiving medical care in prison and that if he wasn't, it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment (though I don't know if Scotland has laws that say that's not allowed). So, releasing him isn't doing anything for his medical condition, except maybe for his emotional well-being (being near family/friends, being at home, etc.)That being said...usually compassionate releases are granted when people are so near death that they physically couldn't pose a threat again. So, that's part of a prison sentence, besides punishment - there's also supposed to be elements of protecting future victims and rehabilitation. And if he's that near to death, he's probably not going to be a threat to anyone or be rehabed any further.Also, I would think it would be a lot cheaper to let him obtain that level of medical care on his own in his own country, rather than letting tax payers pay for it, and pay for his death in prison with a pretty serious illness.

New MIL · August 2009

He killed 270 people for crying out loud! He needs to serve every minute of his sentence.

tenofcups4me · August 2009

I honestly hope it's because they don't want to pay for the medical care because I can't think of any other reason the man should be released. In fact, it's really pretty horrifying that he's being released.

PiperS · August 2009

I am a compassionate person, but I have compassion for his victims and their families. Not for him! He should rot in jail!

aimerzkd214 · August 2009

I don't like that he released him, he killed so many people and he had been found guilty and sentenced to live and that is Where he should be. But if he stayed in prison would they treat him and give him medical treatment? I know that prisoners have rights but it bugs me that people in jail can get a serious medical disease/condition and they will get treatment and it will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. Then there are so many law abiding citizens even children who can't afford treatments and will die from it . Sorry for the tangent but it really bothers me.

Compassionate Release

Re: Compassionate Release

2012 Reading Challenge

2012 Reading Challenge

Choose Another Board

Search Boards