I answered the question based on what 'I' feel should happen to someone who premeditated murder, which includes someone who hires someone else to carry out the 'task'. . . . I do believe some murderers should never be released! Would you be happy in the knowledge that Ian Huntley was ready for freedom?
You said hiring someone else to commit murder meant the hirer was equally guilty. It certainly suggests they're equally dangerous. However, you're emphasizing some murderers should never be released, leaving aside the question of what happens to someone who plans and orders such murders if their orders are ignored and the murders therefore don't occur.
The Ian Huntley case is interesting in two ways. The murders were absolutely deplorable, but the murderer could hardly have been mentally normal, even if legally sane. Huntley got life, of course, but didn't the trial judge specify a minimum of forty years? A person can change considerably in that time. The other interesting thing is that Huntley seemed to have made it easy for evidence against him to be obtained. If you read
this article, you'll probably get the impression that the author is eccentric and his theory bizarre, but he nevertheless seems to be making valid comments about the evidence and the investigation of the case. Could Ian Huntley have been set up by the actual murderer(s)?
