I would say that when the system is run with standards, and that standard is half sentence for eligibility, it seems realistic for a five year parole hearing on a ten year sentence.

Unless I misread the article, she’s still got to go before the board, and victim impact statements will be considered. That seems like a pretty good system tbh. At least, when it functions as intended, with every effort to eliminate bias and corruption.

It sucks on an emotional level, particularly for the family of the victim. A great wrong calls out for a great punishment on an emotional level.

I think here, the failure of justice isn’t in the parole, if there is a failure. It would be in the original sentence. Conspiracy to murder is pretty damn bad. It may be as bad as doing the killing. I can’t say I can see much difference between stabbing someone, and paying someone to stab someone. You’re still using a weapon to end a life.

I totally understand the outrage, I just try to hope that legal systems stay as neutral and even as humanly possible. If that means that people I think deserve worse don’t get it, I’m willing to accept that as the price for the people that don’t get worse than they deserve.

Like, here in the US? Man, just the racial difference in judicial outcomes is rotten. It’s systemic and ugly. I’m sure there’s similar imbalances in every country, to some degree. Might just be the usual poverty disparity, but even that is not good.

Which, I’m rambling a little, but the point is that if you trust the Scottish courts and system, maybe this is a good thing that she’s getting a timely hearing when it would occur with anyone.