I may not agree with, but I can certainly understand the argument about locking up a person for life who committed a heinous crime like this regardless of circumstances. If someone were to argue that a person who takes a life should rot in prison for the rest of their life, I can see their point of view.
What I fail to understand is the argument about whether or not she is rehabilitated, likely to re-commit, or has the ability to live a 'normal' life.
Normally we're pretty happy with deferring to experts, medical doctors, engineers, lawyers, what-have-you. Those that disagree with the experts with no real expertise, facts or basis are normally chastised. Until we get to situations like this and Vince Li and other high-profile criminal cases with extenuating circumstances, then it seems like it's a lot more "fair-game" to contradict the experts.
She was released from a psychiatric hospital after four and a half years to start her integration back into society because she was assessed to be ready. She has continuously been assessed as a low risk to reoffend (with new reports coming every six months until recently). For years she's been transitioning, from a group home, to living alone with curfew, to getting weekends off, to having her curfew removed completely. Each step has been successful according to the reports. When caseworkers disagreed that she was ready for the full removal of her curfew she was not granted it by the judge, she had to wait until her next scheduled assessment. She's now reaching the end of her max sentence. What do you want to do with her?
|