Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post
Cases like this make it all the harder to sway people away from the death penalty.
Reading the article Idaho linked to gave me the opposite conclusion - that cases like this make the death penalty look suspect even for the most heinous crimes (like this) because establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is so hard. Even when a jury does reach such a verdict, the conviction may well later be proven unsound.

The only possible reason I can see for letting a mass murderer out of jail early is credible evidence of his innocence.
On the issue of letting dying people out of jail on compassionate grounds, I confess I had never heard of the idea until it was applied recently to the UK train robber, Ronnie Biggs. I guess this goes to the issue of what is the purpose of punishment. If one takes a purely utilitarian point of view (punishment is to prevent, deterr or rehabilitate), then the case for compassionate release does sound strong. The man is no longer a threat and cannot be rehabilitated, so that leaves only deterrence. But I can't see terrorists, still less a terrorist state, being influenced one way or another by what happens to terminally ill prisoners. However, if one sees punishment as partly retribution, then one would agree with the Don. I used to have a purely utilitarian view of punishment, but this case makes me question that. Some crimes are just too heinous to show compassion. Biggs's release, I could swallow - he was a small time villain - but this crime is about as bad as it gets.

Like almost everyone except the prisoner and the politicians, I would much prefer this to have gone to appeal.