Here's one that I'm having a bit of an internal discussion about: Why would you want to let someone out of prison who was given life in prison without parole but has become terminally ill - why would you let them out so they can have a little freedom before they die? After all, wasn't the sentence was for them to remain in prison until they were dead? How can this be cruel and unusual punishment, especially if they are being given proper treatment for their illness and the drugs necessary to make that individual as comfortable as possible during their remaining days. So, again, why would anyone want to commute the sentence?
I knew of a man who was terminally ill with prostate cancer. This person wasn't what you would call the most evil among people. But in the last years of his life, he was mean, if not somewhat evil. He was given six months to live once diagnosed. During those remaining months, that individual was as hateful as any person could be, behaving as abhorrently as he did when he was healthy. Faced with the inevitable end of his life he didn't even try to make amends for any of his previous wrong-doings. So, what is to keep the Lockerbie PanAm bomber from completing some other horrendous acts during his remaining time? Nothing. Nothing that is until he's actually dead from the disease.
The Lockerbie PanAm bomber now has the opportunity to use his remaining time to spew hatred among his kindred and friends, recruit others to his cause, and even commit despicable acts if he wants. So, no. He shouldn't be allowed to be free. I only hope that these speculations do not come true, because I would hate to think that Scotland would be to blame for any more death and destruction caused by this one individual and those he was given the opportunity to influence.