Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
And that percentage is based on just sending him out on his own, which is not at all what is happening here.
|
Really? Care to provide a link to where that point is made clear?
All I've seen is this:
Quote:
Mr. Li's psychiatrist, Dr. Steven Kremer, told the review board (which looks annually at Mr. Li's case) that his patient is on medication and experiencing no symptoms or hallucinations. Assessments have shown him to have a 0.8% chance of reoffending in the next seven years.
|
Between that and pulling a number out of your rear end to skew the percentage I'd say you're the one who's being intentionally dense. You're making things up for the sake of being argumentative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
As you point out, he will be escorted and monitored. If you don't think that massively reduces the risk of re-offending you're being intentionally dense.
|
I fail to see what's difficult to understand about the point I'm trying to make regardless if you agree with it or not.
1. I don't think he should be allowed out regardless of the chance he'll re-offend is because he's a violent cannibalistic murder. That has nothing to do with a chance he'll flip out. I think he should have lost any privileges to the outside world when he killed and ate that guy.
2. My first point aside... I think allowing a guy like that out on his own without someone with a gun or tazer watching over him is too much of a risk in my opinion. I think residents of the community he's going to able to stroll around in have every right to be upset with those odds no matter how small they are after what this guy did.