Ceaseless Change

From what I understand AM changed to requiring email verification some time ago, although there was a period when it wasn't required as you say. Anyway I entirely agree with the admin's stance, and personally I feel realllllllly uncomfortable about this whole thing. People circling like vultures in glee waiting for public outings to happen... it's like the days of public hangings are back again. It's all very very nasty. I hope I don't see any of my friends getting involved in the schadenfreude.

No doubt that is why he wasn't in fact chased......

Maybe he thought he was. That would be my guess too.

He was trying to escape - but he wasn't actually being chased.

On an island, I'm inclined to agree. Although there wasn't a car chase in this instance.

The inquiry has been approved: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-33462158

Surely this has much more to do with the shameful way we (fail to) care for veterans, than it does to do with the character building benefits (or not) of boot camp. In a very straight forward way, this is also about a lack of proper rehabilitation.

It's not impossible.... I can only speak for myself of course. But it's not impossible. The desire for vengeance I think is a bit like jealousy - some people just don't have that urge, or have learned to let that urge go, and others who are not in that place often find that very hard to comprehend. What do you mean you don't get jealous? What do you mean you wouldn't happily see that murderer beaten to death?

Personally I am agnostic on what the solution is. But whatever genuinely works to reduce first offending and reoffending, is what we need to do. If punishing for the sake of punishment is demonstrably less effective at reducing reoffending than giving criminals a hug and telling them they are beautiful little flowers, I couldn't care less. The end result is what matters, because that end result is measured in the misery, pain and death criminality causes for others. Whatever WORKS - do that. If there are people (and I know there are - and not a few) who want to exchange those methods

They aren't totally different from his entire criminal history, just his most recent crime. And the inquiry is looking at not just why he was released early, but whether the attempts to rehabilitate him in general were appropriate - which surely they cannot have been. As for the idea that criminals should stay in jail until rehabilitated - the UK has that exact sentence for some very serious crimes, in effect. But the point isn't whether you should keep someone jailed indefinitely - the point is that by the time they are released they have been rehabilitated as far as possible....

Yep. Stopped, breathalysed, then got away.

I assume you mean they should.... Because they don't....

That's part of it. But if the serve their full sentence and are STILL not rehabilitated, can we really be said to have succeeded? I don't think so.

I think you meant to say "driven a car recklessly, that he wasn't insured to drive, was banned from driving, had no license to drive even if he hadn't been banned, had manipulated permission to drive it under false pretences, was over the limit to drive, was driving it whilst in possession of drugs, and finally killed someone in the act of using the car to flee arrest for DUI, having just assaulted the arresting officer". Those are not the actions of a rehabilitated criminal. He was released 3 weeks earlier (from a long sentence for armed robbery of a pregnant woman). Not 3 months, let alo

Don't know about the cost, but the benefit might be identifying flaws in the parole and rehabilitation system, and fixing them, which might then save a life. It might save your life.