Early release from prison for the terminally ill...

[oolon]

the death penalty is more appropriate. Unfortunately, it's not very likely we'll get it back, more's the pity.

My only problem with the death penalty is it is something that cannot be undone, I am a liberal at heart and think its better for 99 guilty people to go free than for one innocent man/women/other to go to the gallows. However I don't feel we owe them a lifestyle, It seems to me we can do a lot more "punishment" while they are still alive. Life should mean life, in a very small box, we will feed you, cloth and allow you to be clean, nothing more. Want to die sure we could help you there... Its a cost saving after all.

[Rave]

Well, I disagree on at least two points there. Firstly, yes, it's about protecting the public, but it's also about punishment for crimes committed. Secondly, I don't agree that keeping some people in jail is wrong, so .... caps or otherwise, it isn't two wrongs .... IMHO.

I don't agree with punishment as a concept. I'm a scientist and a rationalist. I do not believe that any person's life is improved by diminishing the quality of life of another.

There is no karma, no magic balancing force, and the impact of a crime cannot be undone or diminished by making the perpetrator suffer. No, the only point of punishment is to take pleasure in the suffering of someone we don't like, and people who take pleasure in the suffering of others are, IMHO, not nice people.

[colincliff]

I have to say I agree with Rave, I think.... To feel better because someone else is suffering is a difficult concept for me to understand, even if i am the victim of something.

It seems to me that punishment with the intent to rehabilitate or help a person is a good thing, if done well. Keeping someone dangerous away from the safely public is also vital. But there is seems to be a culture of punishment where people who are 'wronged' want to make sure the perpetrator is suffering equally, which i think is dangerous - and i'm not sure is even helpful for helping the victim recover. I can see it being my response when i am angry or hurt, but thats not often the best time to make decisions, and thats why we have a court system to work out justice not just leave it to the victims to decide what happens.

I've never been the victim of a serious crime, and i'm sure some people on this forum have and i dont want to deminish that (...especially those with neck injuries...), but the 'let them rot' and 'throw away the key' comments seem to miss a big part of what it means to have a society where we try to improve what we have.

I think its important that try to be 'better' than the bad people, and perhaps sometimes that means that we dont make people suffer as much as we have the right to (?)

I remember reading some interesting stories that came out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions work in South Africa. Terrible things were done there, but sometimes the best out come is not to punish as much as possible.

In the case of terminally ill prisoners being released then in some cases it is right to say that they have not suffered the same as their victims, but i dont think that is neccesarily a bad thing to say. If it helps their families, and is not dangerous to society then i think it can be a positive thing.

[danroyle]

i am angered at the fact that he took so many lives but will get to spend the last few months of his life with family and friends.

the 270 people that he killed never had that privilige.

And most importantly this man has NEVER showed a single bit of remorse for the crime he committed.

[nightkhaos]

i am angered at the fact that he took so many lives but will get to spend the last few months of his life with family and friends.

the 270 people that he killed never had that privilige.

And most importantly this man has NEVER showed a single bit of remorse for the crime he committed.

This is why I voted No. I don't diagree that the man should have the chance to say goodbye, I don't feel that he should continue to suffer, but he should not be given special dispensaition. He should be treated the same way that others in his posistion are, and that if the point of a prison term is to redeem oneself. There has never been any indication that he wants to redeem himself for his actions...

[Steve]

He should be treated the same way that others in his posistion are, and that if the point of a prison term is to redeem oneself.

Something like 30 requests for early release due to terminal illness have been made in the last twenty years in Scotland, and IIRC 23 were granted.

So, he is being treated the same way that others in his position are.

I think the BBC had the proper figures on this, can't put my hand on the story right now though.

[Saracen]

I don't agree with punishment as a concept. I'm a scientist and a rationalist. I do not believe that any person's life is improved by diminishing the quality of life of another.

There is no karma, no magic balancing force, and the impact of a crime cannot be undone or diminished by making the perpetrator suffer. No, the only point of punishment is to take pleasure in the suffering of someone we don't like, and people who take pleasure in the suffering of others are, IMHO, not nice people.

Don't you see the contradiction there?

You're a scientist and rationalist, that has a viewpoint because you "believe" it?

That's what this issue comes down to .... views, beliefs, opinions. Until someone comes up with proof, that's all it will be. I understand your point of view, but I just don't happen to agree with it. As a society, we have rules, and if you break those rules, there are consequences ...i.e. punishments. It's a carrot and stick approach. We all get benefits from having a society that is more than dog-eat-dog, devil take the hindmost, and the price we pay is structure, rules and enforcement. The enforcement bit necessarily includes punishment ..... and for that matter, deterrence.

And I know the old arguments about deterrence not working, and in some cases/situations, that's no doubt true. But not, IMHO, in others. Why do most people obey speed limits (more or less), and parking restrictions? Is it because their so utterly civilised that would wouldn't dream of breaking the contract with society, or fear that they might get caught and punished? While there might be a few saints, most people just don't want points on their licence or a fine. If we were all saints, we wouldn't need a licence .... or police, or courts.

There might be a line which most of us, in most circumstances, won't cross. But, there will be circumstances in which nearly all of us will do things we wouldn't normally do, including serious things like killing someone. For instance, hypothetically, you break into my house and are threatening the lives of my family members ...... succeed or fail, I will do my level best to prevent you, and if the only way I can think of doing it is to kill you, then so be it. Normally, I wouldn't dream of causing harm to another .... but put me in the right circumstances, and I will be doing my level best to kill someone, if that's what's necessary. Am I civilised? I think so, because I don't seek to do harm to others, and I didn't create that situation with the intruder ... it was forced upon me.

That's one end of the spectrum, where people do things they wouldn't normally. But, at the other end, why do speeding motorists slow down when they see a police car? Simple .... fear of consequences. In other words, prevention. The rules, the consequences, and the real, immediate fear of getting caught prevents rule breaks, because we don't want to be punished. Where prevention doesn't work is either where rational actions aren't involved, like heat of the moment, or where instinctive assessment of risk suggests the chances of getting caught are minimal. People park where they shouldn't to pop into a shop for a few minutes because they consider the chances of an enforcement official spotting them in that brief time is minimal, therefore the chance of suffering consequences is minimal. They do it not because they don't care about consequences, but because they don't think they'll get caught.

Of course, what each of us will do, where we draw the line, varies. Most of us wouldn't rob a bank, for instance, but I'd love to know how we go about proving that the reason is that most people think it's wrong, rather than that most people think the chances of getting caught are too high, and if you are, the consequences too serious and unpleasant. We could argue that a criminal is merely someone either with the line in a different place, or with a different assessment of the level of risk and the chances of getting caught, or because they have less fear of the consequences. But even most criminals fear consequences. Why do burglars wear gloves? Because the are trying to avoid leaving fingerprints, because if they do, it increases the chances of getting caught, and convicted, and then .... punished.

They don't want to be punished, and take steps to avoid it. The reality of deterrence is fear of punishment. Fear of punishment only works because people know they will face it if caught, and convicted.

That is why I believe in punishment, and why I do believe that lives are improved by diminishing the quality of others .... if they deserve it by breaking that contract with society. The mere fact that people act to avoid punishment proves it has a deterrent effect. Not always, and not in all circumstances, but it's better than nothing, precisely because man, at heart, is nowhere near as civilised as he likes to make out. Proof is everywhere, with wars and terrorism at one end, and petty crime at the other. What is burglary, robbery or theft? One person taking something from another, either by stealth or force. Would you fight to prevent someone taking your car or flat screen TV? Or the food from your plate if you didn't know you could replace it? Would you starve rather than prevent a stranger taking your food? No, I thought not. So is it better to have a society where there are rules, and where breaking them has consequences? Or is it better that we don't have rules, and that the strong can just take what they want, and to hell with the old, the weak and the infirm? And which one is actually civilised .... rules, consequences, punishments and fear or punishments ..... or devil take the hindmost?

Punishment is not, as you put it, about

No, the only point of punishment is to take pleasure in the suffering of someone we don't like, and people who take pleasure in the suffering of others are, IMHO, not nice people.

It's about acknowledging that mankind is not made up of 100% saints, and that in the absence of punishment, we have little chance of rules being obeyed, and that way lies anarchy. Mankind is not civilised, and society acting as a whole to protect the weak from predations of the strong is about all that keeps us, or at least some of us, from acting like savages ... and the crime figures show it's at best an imperfect mechanism for doing even that much.

A while ago I ended up in an argument because I said we were ruled by force, that the "democracy" we have is forced on us, and we have no choice in the matter. We don't have a choice, and the above is why. I might not, and indeed don't, agree with all the "rules" we are required to live by, but I have no way to opt out. I can't, for instance, put a fence round my property and tell everyone, including the "state" that I'm staying inside and doing what the hell I like while I do. Even if I supply my own power needs, grow my own food and have my own water supply, and if I forego all other benefits of external contact like drugs or healthcare, police protection, etc, the state will never let me get away with that. It will insist that I'm part of society, whether I want to be or not. Even if I did the above, if I then shot an intruder, the "state" will use force to enter my little enclave and impose it's will on me. If I resist, they'll use armed police to do it.

That's "society". Civilisation imposed by force whether we want it or not. And part of that imposing of force is, as described above, the imposition of punishment. Without it, we have no "civilisation", because, without fear of consequences, it is my firm belief (and I use that word carefully) that many or most of us will move where we draw the line of what we will and won't do. For some, it'll be parking wherever the hell they feel like, but not as far as armed robbery .... but for others ....?

As you can see, I don't have a terribly high opinion of my fellow man .. or at least, not of a good proportion of them. Punishment is a central plank in preventing the strong from preying on the weak, and it's nothing to do with getting pleasure from it. That's my belief.

[Saracen]

Something like 30 requests for early release due to terminal illness have been made in the last twenty years in Scotland, and IIRC 23 were granted.

So, he is being treated the same way that others in his position are.

I think the BBC had the proper figures on this, can't put my hand on the story right now though.

How many of those 23, or of the 30, killed 270 innocent people?

I'd say there aren't any other in his position, and that releasing him doesn't just affect him and his family, but also the families of his victims. It'd be interesting to see a thorough summary of their views .... not just the Brits, or the Americans, but an overall summary of what they ALL thought about this release.

[yamangman]

Utterly disagree with Saracen here, and more or less agree with Rave (shocker). No point reiterating it.

[Flash477]

I don't agree with punishment as a concept. I'm a scientist and a rationalist. I do not believe that any person's life is improved by diminishing the quality of life of another.

There is no karma, no magic balancing force, and the impact of a crime cannot be undone or diminished by making the perpetrator suffer. No, the only point of punishment is to take pleasure in the suffering of someone we don't like, and people who take pleasure in the suffering of others are, IMHO, not nice people.

no punishment = no consequences = anarchy

The point of punishment is not to take pleasure in someone elses suffering, but to protect other people from having to suffer.

If someone gets mugged, or killed they suffer due to this act, but they have no choice in it. If the mugger / killer gets put in jail, then sure they suffer for it, but it was due to the decision that they made, and by putting them in prison they don't cause anyone else to suffer.

cause and effect

Surely you can understand that!

I quote "...people who take pleasure in the suffering of others are, IMHO, not nice people." - hence why we put them in prison!!

[Saracen]

Utterly disagree with Saracen here, and more or less agree with Rave (shocker). No point reiterating it.

It's a free world ..... even, it seems, if you're convicted of putting a bomb on a plane and killing 270 innocent people.

[Lucio]

I don't agree with punishment as a concept. I'm a scientist and a rationalist. I do not believe that any person's life is improved by diminishing the quality of life of another.

There is no karma, no magic balancing force, and the impact of a crime cannot be undone or diminished by making the perpetrator suffer. No, the only point of punishment is to take pleasure in the suffering of someone we don't like, and people who take pleasure in the suffering of others are, IMHO, not nice people.

I'm sorry Rave, but I think you're misunderstanding your own beliefs and the consequences of those beliefs. It's one thing to say "I don't believe in making someone else suffer" it's yet another thing, to say "you can't punish anyone because it's making them suffer". After all, the former is why we spend a lot of time and money on the quality of prisons, making sure that they're liveable and people aren't being mistreated in there.

Also, as Saracen has pointed out, the criminals involved have all made a conscious choice to offend, they've chosen to break the law KNOWING in advance what the consequences will be. It's not the choice of the system to punish them, they've done it to themselves. In fact, that's so ingrained in the system that if you can prove you weren't responisble for your actions at the time, then you don't get the punishment (though you may still get put into specialist care because of the risks to yourself and potentially others)

[Barrichello]

i am angered at the fact that he took so many lives but will get to spend the last few months of his life with family and friends.

the 270 people that he killed never had that privilige.

And most importantly this man has NEVER showed a single bit of remorse for the crime he committed.

Would you show remorse for a crime you didn't commit?

[JPreston]

The recent high-profile cases involved people who should have died in gaol, particularly the libyan bomber who had a minimum tariff to serve that was specified at trial.

It may be appropriate to consider terminal illness at probation/parole hearings once the minimum sentence has already been served, but the reduced risk of reoffending due to physical infirmity is not a factor. If society held the risk of reoffending to be so important a consideration at trial, we would not imprison 95% of murderers on the basis that they've already killed whoever they wanted dead - you can only kill your cheating wife once, can't you?

[Lambie]

He served roughly 11.5 days for every person he killed - it just doesn't make sense.

[Rave]

He served roughly 11.5 days for every person he killed - it just doesn't make sense.

No, it doesn't make sense, because he didn't kill them. Good try though.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/section...k=in_the_back&