The jurisdiction is the UK -- Scotland; not the USA. We have no legal say over it.
And even in the USA a 'life sentence' does not necessarily mean 'die in jail' unless it is explicitly 'without parole'. In this case his sentence was not 'life' (the civilized world does not have such a sentence) so Scotland could not sentence him to life in prison. As for MacAskill, he is responsible to the Scots; not to you. On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Michael Smith wrote: > As I understand comments from the people in the States via the > news, It was agreed by the US that the terrorist would serve a life > sentence in Scotland. > > That means he is supposed to die in prison. That's the point. That > was the sentence. > > The fact that he gets terminal cancer doesn't change the sentence: > He is supposed to die in prison. Again, that was the point. > > If he gets terminal cancer then he will die sooner--- in prison. > > MacAskill chose on his own to usurp the agreed upon judgement and > sentence, by his own will, and on his own. He did have the > responsible choice of denying the application. > > It isn't a case of two wrongs don't make a right as he claims at > the end of the text interview. There is no 'wrong' in keeping him > in prison until he dies. Again, that was the judgement and sentence > agreed upon by the US and the court system of Scotland that > sentenced him. > > I think MacAskill should be removed from office, stripped of any > protections afforded by that office, and all legal means (criminal > and civil suits) should be pressed against him. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
