so, What do people make of this?

[Kasz216]

SciFiBoy said:

Kasz216 said:

No.  You really couldn't.  Because I believe releasing him was a smart political move.

I'm just not naive enough to think this was some "great act of justice"... when people in scotland are denied compassionate releases all the time who did much less.

It's clear from your last post you don't actually understand how compassionate releases work.  Not everyone who qualfieis for them gets them.

 

Usually anyone who kills someone else doesn't in fact.

in which case, they should review that element of the system, surely anyone in the same situation would get the same treatment by law.

Everyone does.  Except this guy.  Because it was a good political move that cost the government nothing.  This is where your argument breaks down.  Your argueing that the exception should be the rule... but it isn't... and your ignoring the fact it is the exception... because you WANT it to be the rule.

I mean the man hasn't even admitted his own guilt.

That's a big no no.  Of those who had their cases denied for compassionate release i'd be surprised if any committed worse crimes... yet they died in jail.  Why?  Compassionate release isn't a right it's like parole it's something that's judged on weather you qualify for it or not.

They were going to make 1 of 2 moves in this case.  As can be seen by their contacting the US government.

Compassionate release or a prisoner transfer to libya.  Where he wouldn't of really been a prisoner obviously.

Scotland was ready to go with either because of enland's leaning.  The US perfered the transparent version.  So they went with that.