Muslim who murdered seven schoolgirls for interrupting his prayers gets released after twenty years.

But this is exactly the distinction we need more information on - is it a parole, which indeed involves hearings and inquiries, or is this more akin to an automatic reduced sentence, which is granted automatically unless there is cause for not granting it? If it's a parole, did they hold hearings and make a determination? There is a lot of missing information that the media reports don't have, but the way the stories read make it sound more like a reduced sentence type of situation.

U.S. federal law credits an inmate with a sentence reduction for good behavior for any felony sentence that is not a life sentence, which would include all manner of violent offenders including murderers.
 
My understanding of the American federal system is that there is no parole at all for crimes committed after one of the Reagan-era "tough-on-crime" bills in the 1980s, but there is a near-automatic 15% sentence reduction for good behavior that you have to seriously screw up to lose. So, for instance, a person with a 20-year sentence will practically always serve 17 years. And Bernie Madoff will only have to serve 127.5 years of his original 150-year sentence. ;)

Most states still have parole in some form or another, and there's more discretion there. And I have no idea how the Jordanian justice system works - more details on how it works will help to resolve whether this was an early release for political reasons, or if it's just a pretty standard thing in Jordan to release murderers who somehow avoided the death penalty after about 20 years in prison, depending on behavior and their risk of reoffending. Whether this is a parole or an early release for good behavior is an important distinction to have too.
 
Spoiler :


I think that poster is real, because:
“[...] et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;[...]” :jesus:

(ie something so absurd can only be real)

Where's the absurdity?
 
Is that the real outrage, that he didn't return to be put in a sack-cloth and covered in ashes?

For me, the real outrage is actually the petition asking to release him that apparently was signed by a large majority of Jordanian MPs. Politicians tend to support things their constituents would approve of.
His release may have been legally unavoidable at best and a decision of a panel of disagreeable judges at worst, but such a show of wide political support for such a guy... still... does... not... compute!
 
Fair enough. I kinda like that poster. I mean, I have to google a lot of the words so I'm not sure I get it get it, but the face level sentiment seems very James 2:17-18.(summarized - faith without action is dead)
 
Last edited:
For me, the real outrage is actually the petition asking to release him that apparently was signed by a large majority of Jordanian MPs. Politicians tend to support things their constituents would approve of.
His release may have been legally unavoidable at best and a decision of a panel of disagreeable judges at worst, but such a show of wide political support for such a guy... still... does... not... compute!

That's a slightly different, and much more understandable, point than the seeming bloodthirsty response of people who wish for other people to be locked in a cell their entire lives.

I mean, it curries favor with a segment of the population and carries little political risk to support it. Not exactly a proud day for the Jordanian people, but I at least can understand intellectually why someone like that would be considered in some circles to be a folk hero.
 
Thank God, I wasn't sure if you were going to concede at least that.
 
Your legs must be tired after jumping to all those conclusions.
 
Top Bottom