I want to say first that this is from an approved White House media outlet.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/24/illinois.lipstick.murders/

“There is no reason to keep this man behind bars,” said Drizin. “He meets all the criteria for parole.”

Heirens has distinguished himself in prison. He was the first inmate in Illinois to receive a college degree. “He helped redesign the library system in the department of corrections,” said Drizin, who also commended Heirens for becoming a “first-rate jailhouse lawyer.”

Ohhhhhhhhhh, don’t you just feel so sad for this man?  Nope, not me either.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Holding him further makes little sense.

Is he a current threat? Not in any way, clearly. His medical state makes that clear.

Was his trial fair? Manifestly not starting with the moment the cops started working him over. His constitutional rights were clearly violated. If we ignore that, then we are selectively enforcing the constitution and have no right to claim moral high ground and any reverence or sense of importance for it when the liberals tread all over it, as a for instance.

He’s served longer on the charges than anyone else has or would, and done so despite the damage to the state’s credibility in their treatment of him in getting his confession which was clearly not free of coercion and pressure.

We’re holding him essentially for the sake of our present outrage, and that is the same reason people use for crimes of passion. If it is improper to kill someone because of outrage, it is an improper motivation and insufficient reason to take away another person’s life.

I can’t get behind that.