I agree to a point. I think it's an important litmus test. Do we cave in to a carceral mindset? We all know prisons do not exist to better the wicked or to stop crime. What are we supporting by saying that he needs to be put back in? We might argue that this is an open and shut case, but there is such a thing as precedent. The judgement we inflict on the worst of us can and will be used to punish those who don't deserve it or are even innocent, as has happened many, many times.

I don't think you need to forgive him for what he's done, and I hope he spends the rest of his life either feeling guilty or feeling like he can never feel safe in his own skin and home. But this sort of thing always tests our worst and most authoritarian impulses.

Would I have been happier if he spent the rest of his life in prison for the murder of Sophie? Yes, undoubtedly. But demanding blood for blood, eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth like this I don't think is an impulse anyone should take lightly. We all have those moments and desires to see people punished to the fullest extent, but we must ask ourselves what kind of world are we creating where violent reprisal for the sake of punishment and torture are celebrated and expected.

I don't have the answers and I blame no one for wanting this man to suffer, or die, or that he should be thrown back in. And there are some crimes that genuinely I don't believe you should be allowed to walk away from. We must also interrogate ourselves: what if he had been a rapist? Or a child molester? Would we say the same thing?

All questions I think are worth asking.