Compassionate Releases, Second Chances, and Other Legal Matters

For the third time in a week, the concepts of second chances, compassion, and rights have arisen anew with the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison. With the recent reinstatement of Michael Vick to the NFL, the release of Lynette 'Squeaky' Fromme from prison for time served, and now the release of al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, people throughout the country are wondering who decides who gets compassionate release. Who decides who has served enough time based on the level of the crime committed? And who ultimately decides who gets a second chance? Since people cannot answer these questions with any real manner of consistency or equality, the debates surrounding them may continue ad nausea.

In the instance of Michael Vick, I do not feel he deserved his second chance to come quite so quickly, if ever. However, in the grand scheme of things, compared to Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, Vick is quite the decent man, and compared to someone like Charles Manson, Michael Vick is most certainly a saint. Though I certainly do not condone his behavior, under the circumstances, maybe Vick should not be punished for the rest of his life for his particular crime, especially when other people have committed far greater crimes and served less time by comparison. After all, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi has been released from prison on compassionate grounds after serving only eight years in prison, and he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. Mitigating circumstances or not, this situation still raises questions in the minds of curious people.

Meanwhile, Manson follower Lynette Fromme has been released from prison after being behind bars for more than thirty years. Some people feel that she has not been in prison long enough. I certainly do not defend her actions or anything, but she apparently only considered shooting President Ford but did not actually discharge any weapons. On the other hand, John Hinckley, Jr., the man who actually shot President Reagan and two other men, has been free to come and go from a mental hospital since 2003 after serving much less time for his crimes. Granted the situation might be slightly different in these two cases, as Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but I would venture to argue that anyone willing to follow the likes of Manson is not necessarily mentally sound either. These disparities prove that punishments tend to be rather arbitrary and do not necessarily follow any specific pattern.

Though not an answer to any of the aforementioned questions, it seems likely that as long as people are deciding the fate of others, people will also second guess prison sentences, second chances, and compassion. Society will never be satisfied that criminals have been punished harshly enough or forgiven quickly enough for their behaviors and their crimes. And it also seems that for as many sentences that have been handed down, there will be many more questions asked. In the end, Michael Vick is free to play football, and al-Megrahi and Fromme are free to live the remainder of their lives as free citizens, and people throughout the United States and around the world can only hope that they will be free to live peacefully.

Sources:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111885644&sc=fb&cc=fp

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112054064&sc=fb&cc=fp

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/us/man-who-shot-reagan-allowed-to-visit-parents-unsupervised.html