In the grand scheme of things, this isn't really a big deal. Right now, somewhere, there's probably some young kid being beaten up by a rival gang on the streets. One hundred women were probably just smacked across the face in the past 10 seconds. These things are more disturbing to me than this Lockerbie story, a man who will die from cancer soon and have to face his afterlife and any consequences it holds. If I murdered 270 people, I wouldn't be looking forward to meeting them...
Well, it might be nice if the government was more authentic about the whole thing. What is their real agenda for letting this man out? Is there some political advantage?
Why him? Why let a man out who likely killed 270 people, and yet the man who killed only one or two stays locked up forever?
This wasn't on "compassionate grounds." They didn't just feel like being extra nice that day. Decisions like this aren't made because someone felt like being nice.
And is it "nice" to begin with? As we saw from the public reaction, many people don't think it was nice OR compassionate.
There is a hidden agenda.
Compassion doesn't mean we get rid of justice. They both work together well in my mind. I can love and have compassion for someone, while at the same time holding them accountable for what they do, which might mean spending the rest of their human life in prison.
I'm happy we have jails. I prefer to not have child rapists doing what they want without consequence. I think if we didn't have jails, we'd see more people being killed. Rob my house? Touch my kids? Here's a bullet in your head. However, it would be best if our prisons were a better environment and actually had more programs for rehabilitation, instead of just being a holding block. Taking a bunch of mentally ill and/or violent people and sticking them in close quarters is not a good idea.
I think that's all I have to say. I discussed this in length on another forum and I'm not looking to debate it again.
