Compassion, Early Release and Inequality

The release yesterday of Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has me feeling torn. While I fully support compassionate release in most circumstances, I think this move - and the media spectacle around it - will push us further away from criminal justice reform in the U.S. It will be seen by the world as yet another example of an unequal system, where high-profile prisoners are treated with compassion while the poor live and die behind bars.

There are reports that Muammar Qaddafi's son Seif al Islam said on Libyan television today that al-Megrahi's release may have been part of trade deals between the U.K. and Libya. This allegation is unconfirmed, but something about this case suggests to me that it wasn't a pure 'compassionate release.' Al-Megrahi's hero's welcome in Libya certainly makes Scotland look more like a sucker than a sweetheart.

As you already know, Al-Megrahi was allegedly involved in planning the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. He was the only person convicted of the crime, and had served eight years before he was freed. He has prostate cancer and only months to live, and Scottish officials release him under a compassionate release program frequently used in the country. It may be a calculated trade or an extremely noble gesture, and the backlash may counteract the positive possibilities.

It's a tangled issue. First, al-Megrahi claims he is innocent. I suppose we'll never know for sure, but there are classic signs of wrongful conviction in the case (questionable forensic plastic-matching and an eyewitness identification). Perhaps the innocence claim played a part in Scotland's decision to free him.

Second, maybe the trade-deal rumors are false, and Scottish officials treated his application for compassionate release just like any other. The sometimes-reliable Fox News reported that Scotland has approved 23 applications for compassionate release in the last nine years, and denied seven.

We may never answer these questions, but here's my concern: will the international uproar over al-Megrahi's release stand in the way of progress toward more compassionate treatment of lower-profile prisoners? Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton condemned the move, and public opinion in the U.S. seems to be firmly on their side. Will this episode strengthen the public's resolve to keep prisoners behind bars as long as possible?

Alex Davidson wrote here recently that a policy of freeing low-risk elderly prisoners, and letting them spend the last years of their lives with loved ones, is both compassionate and frugal. I agree completely and would like to see an expansion of compassionate release. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said yesterday that he would not block parole for 49-year-old Deborah Peagler, who is terminally ill and serving 25 years for her role in killing her boyfriend, who had allegedly abuse her for years. Her case gave rise to movements supporting victims of domestic abuse, and she is a prime candidate for compassionate release.

Al-Megrahi, on the other hand, may have had a hand in one of the worst terrorist attacks of the 20th century. Perhaps his application for release was processed and evaluated just like any other, in which case Scottish officials deserve praise for standing by their compassionate policy even when it would be unpopular. But the case strikes me as a deal of some sort, and just another inequality in the system. Either way, this story hasn't helped the plight of countless people dying in prison around the world when they could lead peaceful, productive lives on the outside.