Occasionally, prisoners are released from their life sentence on compassionate grounds if they are terminal, or severely ill. This is a subject that is very debatable. For those of you readers who have never heard of this, some prisoners who are guilty of the most serious crimes have been cleared of their life sentence in prison. They are cleared of their life sentence when they are terminally ill and they are given the opportunity to return home to pass away in the comfort of their own home. Whether that is morally or ethically correct is debatable.
There are many aspects and small details that are important to think about when contemplating the release of a prisoner, many of which are completely ignored. I believe that the ideas on this subject are endless, and it would be almost impossible to cover every single one. I hope that readers may develop their own opinions on compassionate grounds so that when they are part in a hard situation, they will be able to discern compassion from justice.
When a criminal is sentenced to prison for their transgressions, their punishment is usually thought of as absolute and final. The idea of their punishment being final is a comforting thought to society because citizens know their adversaries are behind closed bars. When authorities begin to release criminals from prison, the overall safety of a nation diminishes. It is relieving to think that our fellow authorities are genuinely concerned about our safety, but when they release a criminal, they demolish their promises to protect society. The mind of an authority should be consumed with the safety of its nation’s citizens and nothing else. It is their duty to protect, and compassion should not make that decision falter. The certainty of our safekeeping lives in the hands of the highest individuals and if their dedication weakens, it’s putting other people in danger.
Society definitely has strong opinions about prisoners released based on compassionate grounds. When I questioned one Pitman High School student what they believed about compassionate grounds, they replied, “I believe it depends on their crime and how well they behaved in prison.”
When a second Pitman High School student was questioned, they replied, “I believe dying with your family is a privilege that law abiding citizens should get and once you jeopardize your freedom by breaking the law, you lose that privilege.” Obviously both sides are debatable, whether the side you choose is morally acceptable boils down to pure opinion.
Recently, Scotland freed the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds. He was terminal with prostate cancer and was allowed to fly home to his family for his final days of life. The bomber slaughtered 270 innocent people in 1988, and somehow, to Scotland authorities, his terminal illness justified his release despite the revolting act he committed. Many individuals saw that the release of the bomber was a great insult to the victims of the bombing and a great percentage of them described his release as “utterly disgusting.” Other individuals believed that the bomber’s release was completely justifiable because they sincerely believed he was innocent. Release on compassionate grounds when a person is terminal, is a feature of the judicial system in Scotland. Over the past ten years, thirty requests for compassionate grounds have been made and twenty-three have been granted.
Closer to home, Susan Atkins who was a former Charles Manson follower, died in prison due to terminal brain cancer. She was guilty of murdering seven individuals in the late 1960’s. Susan Atkins was denied parole thirteen times, and even after her deadly diagnosis, she was still shown no sympathy. Although many people may see the fact that Atkins died in prison within four white walls cold and disturbing, her death was much more easier then the death of her seven victims.
Showing compassion in a situation where a prisoner is terminal is very possible without compromising the safety of society. Family members of criminals who are terminal should be allowed extra visitation hours. This allows the prisoners to be around their loved ones in their last days while justice is still being served. This is the perfect idea for those who abhor the release of dangerous criminals. Families might feel biased against compassionate grounds, but it is important to remember justice is unchanging. Justice should not falter just because of family members.
I believe that a prisoner’s sentence should remain unchanging even in the face of death. Its unchanging state brings comfort to innocent individuals and that is something that should never be compromised.