Absolutely true, but only if the judge were also given bullet-proof anonymity in the case concerned.

Unfortunately it’s been repeatedly proven there are now plenty of people out there who have delusions of being warriors for the nation (see the English Defence League for the most recent and large-scale example) willing to take tabloid rhetoric to its logical conclusion, at least on unprotected targets.

That kind of thing might not materialise every time, but there would surely be a high risk that it would bias a judge’s decision – they are human.

Also, I don’t think we should mix up the question of innocence with that of parole. If al-Megrahi’s conviction was unsafe he should have continued his (second) appeal. We shouldn’t go around discounting people’s sentences based on the degree of certainty we have of their guilt.

As far as his trial is concerned, I understand your concerns, but not why you draw attention to the fact there was no jury, the judges were Scottish and that it was in Holland. I prefer jury trials too, but many liberal-minded people actually think jury trial is unfair precisely because jurors are subject to populist influences like those you worry about.

Finally, you’re right that these decisions can be political – I don’t think ministers do decide any more when life prisoners are released though, do they? I’ve not researched the law on it recently, I admit. But while it’s easy to criticise the politicisation of such decisions, it is necessary to realise the alternative is to judicialise them – in other words to put all decision-making power into the hands of judges who cannot be influenced and who are unaccountable.

I’m not saying that’s wrong; but you do have to admit that’s what you want if you’re against politicians having any role.

I’m not looking for longer (or, necessarily, shorter) sentences, just transperency.

Sentenced to 15 – serve 8
Sentenced to 10 – serve 30

Seems weird to me, even allowing for a humane parrole system.

The idea someone should be incarcerated against their will ‘for their own protection’ is bullshit. Why not ask her? The courts can protect her identity the same way they have with other notorious killers.

Hindley has spent almost her entire adult life in prison. Other less notorious killers have been freed. Her continued detention is a direct consequence of cowardice on behalf of tabloid fearing Home Secretaries. That’s clearly unjust.

With Megrahi that was not an issue, as he was packed off to Libya as soon as he was released.

Regarding the argument that ‘life must mean life’. Evidently that is not possible when someone is dying. It’s a bizarre argument. If you are sentenced to ten years and become terminally ill before you have served those ten years that is just the way it is. Letting someone out for the last few months of their life is not a form of early release. Prisoners released early can get on with their lives. Prisoners released on compassionate grounds are going to die.

Unless there are pressing reasons why someone cannot be released I can see no point at all in forcing a terminally ill patient to die in prison, rather than at home.

Similarly we shouldn’t be giving sympathy to those who don’t understand that working out the time somebody spends in prison is a matter of simply looking up the current parole laws and using basic maths to calculate the period of incarceration before somebody can apply for parole (which is not the same thing as being released a free man).

A “case” can be made for anything. A case can be made for hanging people like MH.

I believe that, sometimes, unfortunately, life has to mean life. The problem is far too many are given “life” and then let out earlier which the public don’t understand.

If we expect people to serve 10 years (say) then give them ten years, stop the nonsense that simply brings the law into disrepute.

And while we’re on the subject; I don’t know the details but why has ben gun served 30 years (and counting) for a murder he committed when he was 14

I doubt you’ll find many anarchists, apart from Max Sterner, who would defend the right of free individuals to take the life of other free individuals. That’s something we’d associate with Nietche and the far right. Anarchism isn’t lawlessness, it’s leaderlessness. A community has the right to defend itself against murderers.

Actually, I think there’s a better case for releasing Hindley than al Megrahi. A case can be made that she has served her time and that her continued incarceration is a direct result of political pressure.

No doubt if there were trade deals depending on her release, or if the release could be in some way used to piss off the Americans, she’d be out by now.