I mean it's pretty obvious and trite that someone that isn't monitored has a higher chance of committing any sort of offence than someone that is monitored. But it's a cost/benefit situation. If the experts who have treated him for years and years and who probably know him better than he knows himself are confident to say that he is no longer a risk to the public and can be released, don't you think they have taken into account the possibility of relapse? Or do you think that it's such a foreign and unfathomable possibility that only the TRUE experts on calgarypuck.com would ever think of such a possibility?
|