Ah, now I see what you think the contradiction is, Caroline. Sorry I didn't pay much attention as it seemed to me you were ranting and raving like a.....well....like a psychopath.
It's not necessarily a contradiction, actually.
I think what I said in that opening post was that I think he is crazy. I think he would have to be to have committed the crime, given all the background and taking everything into account. That doesn't mean I think he suffers from a mental illness or a personality disorder. Strictly speaking, you don't have to in order to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act - you just need to have a mental health problem that requires treatment, in this case in penal confinement.
But even if it is a contradiction, so what? I stand by what I now say, which reflects a closer examination and consideration of the facts. The opening post was just my attempt to extend some humanity to Jeremy, assuming he is guilty. I'm like that - a bit of a softie, really. I recognise he is a human being. I don't just pigeon-hole people as unfeeling psychopaths, or I am reluctant to.
I'm half-expecting one of the dogmatic point-scoring guilters to come along and now say, 'Aha! But you said he should have been hung!'
I may as well, for completeness, cover that as well while we're here, and preempt the people in the cheap seats.
Yes, I do think Jeremy should have been hanged - if he was guilty, after a fair trial under the presumption of innocence, and following a thorough review and appeal, and a consideration of his mental capacity (Is he crazy? If so, in what sense?), and following a review of a plea for mercy to the relevant government minister.
But we don't have that system anymore. Instead, we lock these people up for a very long time, and in Jeremy's case it seems we want to lock him up for the entirety of his natural life in a high security prison, in which his daily movements are severely restricted and he is in danger of violence from other prisoners.
In my view, that is cruel. My starting-point is that Jeremy is a human being and within him is the possibility of moral and civic transformation. I allow that, if he is a guilty, his crimes were sensationally cruel and abominable and can never be forgiven, and his rehabilitation can never be complete, but the distinction I am proposing here is that if we opt to keep him alive, then we are, at least in principle, allowing the possibility of some degree of rehabilitation and his release back into the community on some sensible basis.
