Compassioate release is where a prisoner is released from prison early (sometimes temporarily) for some emotional reason, such as to attend the funeral of a family member or because they are dying and want to be with family.

Should it happen at all? I think no because the criminals didn't show compassion for their victims so why should we show any to them?

Topical Example (and the reason I bring it up)

You may have heard on the news about the possibility of the Lokerbie Bomber getting compassionate release from prison because he has terminal cancer. For those of you not residant in Britain (or, I strongly suspect, the US) or those of you living in a cave, I'll give some brief background infomation.

About 20 years ago a passenger aircraft with 270 people on board exploded en route from London to New York. It exploded roughly over the Scottish town of Lokerbie, hence the name given to it - the Lockerbie bombing. Two years later, Libia released two suspects to the Scottish parliment for trial. One of them was found guilty, the other was not, and the guilty one is now terminally ill. He may soon be released compassionately. He has served two weeks gaol time for each person he killed.

There are other mitigating factors in this though, admitedly. Some people think that he only did what he did because he was ordered to by the Libian government. Some people think that he wasn't involved at all and the aeroplane was brought down by the Iranians in response to a US battleship having shot down an Iranian passenger jet a few months previously killing 290 people on board.

Apparently most of the British families concerned think he should be released. Most of the Americans don't.

In most cases the world is not cut and dry, good and evil, black and white. There's lots of gray areas such as passion, fear, and conditioning (such as being conditioned in a Muslim country that women are severely inferior, not that I'm saying they are not inferior of course, but you know.)

In most cases you can't say 'This guy is an evil evil man' you can say, 'This man was subject to some extreme passions due to a recent argument' or 'This person suffers from a neurological disorder that causes him to act out his violent fantasies', or in this case, 'This person was simply following the orders of his government in retaliation to an attack on his own country'.

Because of this gray area it's impossible to make a good decision in either direction, and everything should be taken on a case by case basis. However, these people are in jail for their lack of compassion, should we as a country sink down to their level and not allow them compassion?

Compassion is one of the traits that allows people to survive, these people are in jail because they were not productive member's of society. Compassion is artificially enforced in human beings, if brought on by some natural design the extent of human compassion is almost wholly the creation of society.

It would be for the benefit of all to give these prisoners undue compassion, because it would benefit society, which is founded on compassion. Are we to determine some people unworthy of compassion because of something they did in the past, or something other people define them as (Mostly in reference to minor offenses or wrongful convictions, which do happen a lot apparently)?

Now to bring in the slippery slope argument, how long until we are denying compassion to bums and hobos (some would say this has already happened) and how from then until we deny compassion to children born with deformities who can't function in society, and from then how long until the employer fails to show compassion for the man with a family in extenuating circumstances?

My basic point (since this post sucks because the tempo and flow is all off and wrong and stuff and it bothers me) is that society is founded on compassion and that an ounce of undue compassion is far more beneficial to society than a pound of heartlessness, logically justified or otherwise.

Them's reasonable points.

But... I'm not sure if I believe what I'm about to say. Haven't really made my mind up yet.

Is it really the decision of the state as to whether or not to show compassion to the criminals? It's the victims and their families that have suffered, surely it should be their decision as to whether or not the criminal has suffered enough for what he's done.

What?

You can't give the prisoner's responsibility to their relations, because then it will be a slippery slope of the law.

I think that if the prisoner has like a month to live, it doesn't cause any harm to let them out (of course if there were offenders it would be abolished). But then people with terminal illness would have a month on the outside, while healthy people with life-sentences would have nothing, which means it would be better to have a terminal illness...

This is a case-by-case issue. A 1-time passion murderer or a tax-evader definately should be allowed to go to a family event or funeral. A serial killer, terrorist, or 2 time child rapist should not. In all cases, however, these people should have 24-hour security guard coverage.

i just think its a stupid idea because what if they try to strike again and they dont even put them on probation or anything like that do they

Kingsmash, how would a person in jail for tax fraud "strike again"? And why would one suggest that a person who murdered a person as a crime of passion would ever murder again? These people aren't compelled to crime, they committed one crime, and there's no reason to suspect that they will commit a crime while out to a short family event.

............true true

Quote from Ash

Kingsmash, how would a person in jail for tax fraud "strike again"? And why would one suggest that a person who murdered a person as a crime of passion would ever murder again? These people aren't compelled to crime, they committed one crime, and there's no reason to suspect that they will commit a crime while out to a short family event.

Also, murder is a crime that is least likely to be repeated, as long as the person is not a serial murder or rapist of course. But a person who is a rapist or a thief is far more likely to commit those crimes again after being released from prison as a murderer is (barring serial killers again).

@Zed:

If a jury put them in jail a jury can decide, on a case by case basis, whether they deserve a compassionate release. You can never put ultimate power concerning any manner into the hands of one person (or family that will have a unanimous vote), because it's easily corrupted, that's why we have a democracy.