Early release from prison for the terminally ill...

[0iD]

Early release from prison for the terminally ill, is it ever justified? Personally, in light of the more high profile early releases of Reg Kray, Ronnie Biggs & the impending release fo the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, I'm against it. These people are criminals, they did the crime, some of which were quite unforgivable, so why should they be released early? The families of their victims, especially the Lockerbie Bomber are not released from their grief & loss early.

[GoNz0]

saves us taxpayers some money if there on there last legs i guess...

should be left to rot though,

[Steve]

If the intention was for them to live out the rest of their life in jail, then they should not be released.

If that's not the case, then early release may be an option.

£0.02.

[shaithis]

How long before this happens and then the person makes a miraculous recovery? It can and does happen and I wonder how that would be handled.....

As much as it may sound harsh to some people, I am against it, they are there to serve time, regardless of their health.

[GheeTsar]

If they do the crime, they should expect to do the time, irrespective of health issues, genuine parole for good behaviour/reformation notwithstanding. Prison may not be the only answer though - the sentence perhaps could be altered to ensure they stll have their liberties reduced but at lower cost to the taxpayer.

[CaptainCrash]

How long before this happens and then the person makes a miraculous recovery? It can and does happen and I wonder how that would be handled.....

I believe it's called the "Ernest Saunders Syndrome", which could also in future come to be known as "doing a Biggsie"...

I think if physicians are agreed that an individual has only weeks to live, and that individual represents no danger to others, then there's no harm in releasing them. It's not just for the inmate's benefit, it allows the families to say their goodbyes properly.

I do see how it could be hurtful for the families of, say, murder victims, who for understandable reasons may see it as unfair, but we (that is, society) are supposed to be better than the bad guys after all.

[chadders]

I thought they allowed visitors to prisons, can't they do their goodbyes there then?

[TheAnimus]

I think the only argument for it (note i voted against) is that you end up seriously punishing the loved ones of the criminal, rather than just the criminal.

[Flash477]

They chose to do the crime, so they should do the time!

There is far too much simpathy for criminals in the country - let the buggers rot! I bet their life (even if it is coming to an end) has been far better than all the ruined lives they created!

Prisons are too much like hotels nowadays - remove the TVs, snooker tables etc - give them the bare minimum.

[Saracen]

I voted "neither", and here's the explanation .... take each case on it's merits, because people wind up in jail for very different reasons, and very different levels of offence.


In the case of Biggs, he should have been kept inside, not so much because of the original offence but because of his subsequent flight, his clear contempt for the justice system and because he only opted to come back and face the music when his health determined it was his best option, and in the apparent expectation of leniency because of his condition. Part of the basis for parole is remorse for your actions, and I don't believe his later "remorse" was anything more than crocodile tears. So he ought to be inside.

But he pales into insignificance beside the Lockerbie bomber. There is absolutely and utterly no way I consider his early release to be in any regard justifiable.

Either he did what he is accused, and convicted of, or he didn't. He is entitled to the usual rigours of the appeal process, and obviously, if he wins, he gets released. But until then, he's a convicted terrorist guilty of a crime that killed a couple of hundred perfectly innocent individuals and he should stay behind bars until he's served last last minute of his sentence, or the only way he should leave early is to be carried out, feet-first. He, as an individual, deserves exactly the level of compassion he showed to the passengers on that plane ... and the people of Lockerbie. It's also all very well to argue about the feelings of his family, what what about the feelings of the families of his 270 victims?


So, personally .....

- Biggs made his bed, and should now die in it.
- Mohmed al-Megrahi should either win an appeal, serve every instant of his sentence or die doing so.


But .... they're specific cases, and in both, I would have voted "no" to the above question. In the general case, however, it ought to be decided on the merits of each case. What about someone with a non-violent record, and perhaps minor, petty crime? What about someone making a principled stand against non-payment of what they regard as unfair taxes? What about a first offender for a relatively minor offence? What about someone with a string of petty crimes fuelled by a drug addiction? There are any number of situations in which my view would be that keeping someone non-violent locked up in their last days would be excessive, and perhaps cruel. But some people simply don't deserve compassion. Biggs is a very special case, and Mohmed al-Megrahi should not get any form of early release, on any grounds short of winning an appeal.

[oolon]

The only time they should be released is when they are so bad that they are bed ridden in a hospital bed, and not going to recover, seeing as prisoners also can be sent to hospitals, I see little point in releasing them as its the same as if they were in jail. Personally I think people should serve the whole sentence rather than giving them time off for good behaviour we should increase the time for bad. Making the default they must behave well rather than badly.

[Steve A]

if you cant do the time, dont do the crime, ill or not.

[Lucio]

Personally I'm a fence sitter, for much the same reasoning as Saracen. It's very rarely the case that in law you can rule for every possible circumstance and indeed it's foolish to try.

[PetrolHead]

if you cant do the time, dont do the crime, ill or not.

+1

They should have thought about that before they started blowing people up, or running away with huge amounts of stolen money to none extradiction countrys, and only coming back when it suited them. There familes have to understand that it isn't the countries fault a member of there family commited a crime.

[Rave]

Just voted- apparently I'm the one person to vote yes.

Personally I think the concept of vengeance is utter bollocks. As far as I'm concerned prison serves one purpose, and one purpose only- to keep dangerous criminals away from the public. If they're terminally ill, then (in the vast majority of cases) they're not a danger.

Two wrongs don't make a right. A murder victim cannot be brought back to life by their killer serving a life sentence without parole. All that can be achieved is the protection of other people. Should- say- Levi Bellfield or Ian Huntley ever be released while they still have the physical strength to harm others? Clearly not. But if they were ravaged by cancer and barely able to do anything for themselves? Let them die in a hospice, IMO.

I know that their victims didn't have the luxury of dying in a hospice. But I'll say again, in capital letters this time, just in case anyone missed the point, TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

[Saracen]

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.

However, there are certainly some people I don't think out to be kept in prison indefinitely, and Ian Huntley would be among them. For some, like him ..... the death penalty is more appropriate. Unfortunately, it's not very likely we'll get it back, more's the pity.