Grendel
Well-Known Member
Sad that this thread has been derailed, but the problem with the death penalty really is that the only thing going for it is satisfying blood lust. Doesn’t prevent crime, doesn’t save money, can end up killing innocent people.
Its hardly been derailed
The brutal truth if we are being honest is both Mary Bell and Robert Thompson had rather depraved and miserable lives and in the end their lives were actually enhanced by the spending of money to rehabilitate after a heinous crime. Good in one way you may say or you could say their abhorrent acts - especially Thompson - means it was worth it as they were rewarded
This particular character seems to have zero morality and is very much akin to the behaviour traits of the likes of Jeffrey Dhamer - animal torture being a classic trait. Would you honestly ever want him released and living on your street on some vague assertion by a parole board and evaluation team that he’s been rehabilitated? The same people perhaps who decided Mr Pitchfork and Mr Venables back into society
So you then have incarceration for the remainder of his life. That could be say 70 years or more. They could get ailments and be treated as Mr Brady had. It’s not blood lust it’s the absurdity of caging an animal in a box until they die, never releasing them, in Brady’s case forcing food down him and in Dennis Neilsons case treating him with cancer care a care home person would probably not even get
it makes no sense