Pull back the curtain and see how a suspense writer puts the thrills and chills together.

SIGN UP FOR SNEAK PEEKS OF MY NEXT BOOK + NEWSLETTER-ONLY UPDATES.

Should killers get a second chance?

Kirsten Costas was one of those kids who seemed to have everything going for her. A native Californian, Costas was from an affluent family. She was cute, did well in school, and was extremely popular. Costas tended to get what she wanted, whether it was a coveted spot on the yearbook committee, membership in the Bob-o-Links sorority group, or the opportunity to be on the cheerleading squad.

By all accounts, Costas’s school was extremely competitive back in the early 1980s. Students were encouraged to “be the best,” and being a cheerleader was as good as it got. Costas’s star was rising, and she had everything to look forward to.

Unfortunately, not everyone cheered her success. One girl actually hated her for it. On June 23, 1984, Costas was stabbed to death by a classmate–a girl who’d desperately wanted to be a cheerleader and make the yearbook committee. To Bernadette Protti, Costas was the ultimate symbol of her failure, and when the popular girl refused to be Protti’s friend, she signed her own death warrant.

The “Life Hacker”

Costas was only fifteen years old when she was stabbed a few feet away from her own front door. Her killer was sentenced to nine years in prison, but got out in seven. Today, Protti has a new name and a new life. She’s a wife and mother who blogs as a “life hacker,” sharing tips about home decor and recipes.

Not everyone is happy that Protti got a second chance. While researching her case, I was shocked to find at least one website devoted entirely to terrorizing her: revealing her new name and occupation, mocking her blog posts, encouraging others to bully her online and then reporting the woman’s responses with vicious glee. The owner of the site points out that Protti is indeed a “life hacker,” as she hacked Costas’s life away, a Freudian slip I’m sure Protti didn’t even think of.

If Costas’s family were out for vengeance, it would be understandable. Seven years wouldn’t seem like much of a penalty to pay for viciously murdering their daughter. But, surprisingly, the person running this website wasn’t even born when Protti committed her crime, so there’s no way she could have known the victim. And yet, she’s doing everything she can to ensure Protti’s “new life” is a living hell, and I’m sure she’s not the only one.

Should children who kill get a second chance?

The Child Killer

Mary Bell (pictured above) was even younger than Protti when she started her ill-fated career as a murderess. Bell, who lived in Scotswood, England, was only ten years old when she strangled a four-year-old boy to death. At age eleven, she committed an even more brutal crime: strangling a three-year-old boy, scratching his legs with scissors, cutting off some of his hair and mutilating his penis. This time she had another young girl help her with the actual murder. Bell returned to the scene of the crime sometime later to carve an “M” on the boy’s stomach.

Bell’s rage and psychopathy didn’t come out of nowhere–born to a sixteen-year-old prostitute who reportedly kept trying to kill her, the girl was subjected to horrific sexual abuse from her mother’s “clients.” She served twelve years in prison for her crimes and was released when she was twenty-three years old. Today she is reportedly a grandmother, and she’s lived under a variety of assumed names to protect herself and her daughter.

In 1998, Bell had to go into hiding after she was hounded out of the seaside home where she had lived anonymously with her then 14-year-old daughter.

She was forced to seek protective custody after several tabloid newspapers tracked down her common-law husband and set up camp outside her house. Sadly, this is how her daughter first learned about Bell’s secret past.

A New Life for Karla?

It isn’t only young killers who are given a second chance. Here in Canada, Karla Homolka was convicted of manslaughter and served twelve years for helping her husband Paul Homolka rape and murder two schoolgirls. Karla claimed to be another victim of her husband, a sadistic serial rapist who reportedly beat and raped his wife and forced her to participate in his terrible crimes. During Paul’s trial, Karla’s testimony was the best evidence prosecutors had, but afterwards, video evidence came to light that proved Karla had been an enthusiastic and willing participant in the murders–including the rape and death of her own baby sister. But it was too late. The deal was done.

Once out of prison, Homolka did her best to start a new life. She has a new name, a new husband, and children of her own. But the press and public continue to haunt her, outing her every step of the way. The most recent flurry of outrage came in May 2017, when the media discovered Homolka was volunteering at an elementary school in Montreal. Even though she was never left alone with the children, the idea that someone who had helped torture and kill at least three young girls was now working with kids in any capacity fuelled massive backlash.

Should killers get a second chance? Photo of Karla Homolka by Toronto Star

Photo credit: Toronto Star

 

Some (probably many) would argue that Homolka is only free today because she lied about her involvement in her husband’s crimes. But what of Bell and Protti, two children who–hopefully–have grown up and learned from their mistakes? Do they deserve a second chance? Or should the public give them a life sentence? What do you think?

If you enjoy mysteries featuring female sleuths, there’s a great contest on right now where you can win twenty-six FREE ebooks, including The Girl Who Talks to Ghosts. Click here for your chance to win.

1 part newsletter, 1 part unnerving updates,
2 parts sneak peeks of new projects.

39 Comments

  1. Oh my….this is not easy to discuss. First, Homolka…I would still have her in jail and I have no problem that peopleshow her where she is. I find it disgusting that she was able to plea bargain her way out of crimes that were so gruesome that people have nightmares about it even today. I believe she was the brains behind her husband’s crimes and she was just as guilty. My ex’s niece was good friends with Carla’s sister, the one they killed. They drugged her sister and while she was passed out she egged her husband on to rape her own sister while she watched. I feel bad for the children she had because this will haunt their lives forever and should not be judged by the mother’s guilt. I don’t know enough of the other 2 stories to know now what these women think now but I would not have let them leave no matter how young they were when they committed the crime. The justice system seems off when they let the one girl go after committing 2 murders because she is ill and I don’t think someone like that can change. The first one…well, I don’t think she should have been let out as early as she was but for someone to bully her to this point, I don’t think this wrong makes things right either. If I can even say this without knowing the first 2cases, she might be the one who is now most repentant. The 2nd one liked to torture and acted out her fantasy on that boy. The last one…..I wish both would have received the death penalty believe it or not. Here’s an anecdote, when the murders were taking place in my hometown, I was volunteering for the Distress Centre and I left at 2:30am for home. I noticed this van following me but thought I was wrong so I went home. When I parked in the lot of the small apartment building I lived in, the van stopped, in front of the entrance and just stayed there. I stayed in my car and then the van took off and peeled out of sight. I waited a minute and the van came back and stopped again blocking the driveway in and out. I was ready to honk the horn when my first hubby came down and walked towards my car. The van took off in quite the hurry. I quickly hurried My then hubby inside. I always wondered if it was these 2 animals.

    Reply
    • JH

      Thanks for the insightful comment, Birgit. This is the kind of thing I love–when a blog post can make people think, and hopefully lead to a discussion. There are no easy answers here.

      I can only imagine how the Homolka murders affected you, living in the same town at the time. And it is absolutely horrific what they did to poor Tammy. Awful.

      As for Protti, she expressed great remorse during her confession to the police, but her critics point to the fact that, since she only confessed once she knew the police were about to arrest her, she didn’t feel too guilty about it. Then again, she was sixteen years old. Accounts also vary as to whether or not Costas was a bully or a nice kid. It doesn’t really matter–all kids do stupid stuff and nothing warrants her murder, but if she bullied Protti, she could have helped push the teenager over the edge.

      The idea that someone would spend a great deal of their spare time terrorizing this woman so many years later disturbs me. It calls to mind villagers coming for Frankenstein’s monster with pitchforks and torches. Protti committed her crime thirty-three years ago. She paid her debt to society, even though that debt may seem shockingly small. She still paid it, and I’m sure she lives with regret every single day. No need to torture her further.

      Reply
  2. O golly these murders and their aftermath are beyond dreadful. Second chances should be available for everyone but when it comes to murder the sentences should be longer and evidence available to ensure that rehabilitation has taken place effectively. And for the perpetrators to live far away from the scenes of their crimes so families are not further traumatized on their release –

    Reply
    • JH

      Usually moving from the scene of the crime is a condition of release–I know it was for James Bulger’s killers–or the perpetrators move on their own. Protti, Bell, and Homolka are all living far from where they committed their crimes. (In the case of Homolka, I’m surprised she hasn’t left the country, but as a felon, she’s probably not allowed to.)

      It’s hard to prove that someone has been truly rehabilitated. I have no idea how one would determine that, and certainly psychiatrists and psychologists have tried and been wrong repeatedly. Just look at Ed Kemper, who murdered his grandparents when he was a teenager, was judged to have been “cured,” and was then set free to become a serial killer who preyed on young women.

      Reply
  3. God forgives, but those sentences should’ve been longer. Much longer. Of the three, only the first girl should’ve had a chance at parole.

    Reply
    • JH

      And yet, some people still think it’s fair to continue torturing her. I really wonder about the world sometimes.

      Reply
  4. While I realize this is a difficult topic,as a parent who has lost a child I feel I can contribute from that perspective. The justice system fails many times due to human pride,the unjustified conviction of guilt by prosecutors, flawed investigation or the win at all costs attitude. I used to believe that most people in prison were guilty,but have since come to realize that this is just not so. However,I am going to speak of the juvenile system. Yes, some juveniles have committed atrocious crimes. And yes,they should be punished. However,a different system of judgment should be used,and in most cases,juveniles should not be tried as adults. They are not. Today,medical science has proven that the brain is not fully functional until your early 20s. The last part of the brain to develop is the frontal lobe,which is where critical thinking,long-term consequences and rational action are all controlled. A child under the age of 18 is not fully capable of complete rationalizations or the true appreciation of consequences for their actions. Even crimes that show some level of premeditation often lack any real planning for after the crime is committed. This should always be considered when the future of a young person is being decided. Yes,children and teenagers can do terrible, even horrific things,and the desire for retribution from the families of victims is justified. And necessary. However,the system is supposed to ‘rehabilitate’ kids, who are often victims of one thing or another,themselves. These kids who have committed merciless acts,only to show little to no emotion, even a fascination, and often pride afterwards,are being judged using adult language and standards. What’s more,they have a right to be judged by their PEERS,not adults,who have little or no understanding of the difference of perspective, maturity and development. The majority of these kids will never commit another violent crime,and come to deeply regret their actions by the time they have reached adulthood. They should never be housed with violent adults until they reach 25. I realize that most people will be appalled at what I am saying,but I am fortunate enough to have come to know some of these kids, and they are not the monsters the press would have you believe. They are not the monsters I was convinced they had to be,to take someone’s life for such an incomprehensible reason! Now that they have reached adulthood, not only does the realization of what they did haunt them,but the inability to understand why they did it plagues them more. It is not until they have to survive in the most violent of adult societies that many become what we thought they already were. I apologize for this being so long, but not the content. We need good adults to spend time with juveniles in the system as role models and mentors,not as unqualified or biased judges using outdated information or seeking retribution. The system must change! We profess to be a civilized society yet a huge portion of our population is behind bars without hope, as we groom the next generation to take their place.

    Reply
    • JH

      Well said, Dianna. Thank you for adding your perspective, and I’m very sorry you lost your own child. I have to say I agree with you. There is an urge some have to label kids who kill as “evil” or “bad seeds,” and perhaps some are. But how many of us don’t change from the ages of ten to thirty? If anyone has a hope of being rehabilitated, it is a child. Often, undiagnosed or poorly treated mental illness is a culprit as well.

      When I read your comment, I thought of Jon Venables, one of the boys who killed little James Bulger in England. Venables, who was in custody for ten years, was given little support after his release. He reoffended and was charged with child pornography. Is he a monster who would always have reoffended, or did the system fail him? It’s really hard to say. A cop who worked the case has said that the pressure of having to live under an assumed name and hide his background was probably too much for Venables, who was still young (eighteen at the time of his release), but it is troubling that Bulger’s murder had sexual elements and one of his killers was caught with child pornography after his release.

      Reply
  5. All of the crimes mentioned here are bad, but I think the worst one, not necessarily the worst crime but the way it was handled, is Homolka’s. Why was the deal allowed to stand? It was based on lies!
    I’m inclined to think the only people who deserve a second chance for murdering someone are those who have been abused and kill their abusers. Surely it should come down to whether or not that person is a danger to others, and I believe someone who killed someone who abused them isn’t going to reoffend – someone who kills for their own sick pleasure, or jealousy is likely to have those feelings again.
    I do think its harsh that Bell’s child and partner where forced into hiding – it’s not their fault and they aren’t to blame for the crimes.
    Sorry about the essay!
    Debbie

    Reply
    • JH

      No problem, Debbie! I like your essays. 🙂 It’s good to get people talking.

      I believe that, due to the double jeopardy rule, Homolka could only be tried once for the crimes. They couldn’t have another trial when the new evidence came to light. It is a shame, but they did the best they could with the information they had at the time.

      Reply
  6. Yeesh, this is a sticky topic.

    For the kids, they served their time and were released. Thankfully it seems like they were rehabilitated and did not re-offend. As someone stated above, kids do not have fully developed brains and are capable of emotions that they don’t understand and certainly can’t control. I have to believe that people, especially children, can learn from their mistakes and come back from that. Otherwise what’s the purpose of a civilized society? That’s what the correctional system is for – to attempt to get people back on the right track.

    As for Homolka, that’s proof that the justice system doesn’t always work. Surely there must have been a way to re-open the case after the new evidence was brought to light. She obviously lied in court, surely there was cause to reexamine the evidence.

    Still, maybe she’s also learned from her mistakes, and been treated for her obvious mental illness? Maybe? Yeah, I’m not convinced of that one yet…

    Reply
    • JH

      I think that, in Homolka’s case, it was the double jeopardy rule, where a person can’t be tried twice for the same crime. But I agree with you. It definitely was a travesty of justice.

      I’ve read quite a few theories that suggest that Karla’s personality was explosive when combined with Paul’s, and that if she hadn’t met him, she never would have gotten involved in crimes of this type. If that’s the case, I guess we have to pray she never falls in love with another psychopath.

      Reply
  7. I am very familiar with Homolka’s case, and the way she lied about her own involvement and got away with it is simply a horrible tragedy in and of itself. In her case, I believe that the new evidence should have been enough to have her convicted and sentenced to death–or at the very least, life in prision without the chance of parole. I do not believe a person like that is capable of changing (she was an adult when she did those things), and she certainly does NOT deserve a chance to live a normal life after the way she took away so many, and in such a brutal, calculated fashion.

    The first case I am not familiar with, but agree with many of the other people who commented. We don’t know if she was bullied by the other girl, but that certainly could have been the case. In her story, I do believe that she acted more in a moment of rash decision. I believe she should have served a longer sentence, but ultimately, she seems to have changed into a person that does deserve that “second chance”.

    The second case is one that conflicts me. As a parent, the way that she killed those young boys is unforgivable. However, being a child of abuse, herself, how much of that came from a “damaged mind”? I believe she should have had a much longer sentence; a life sentence, but one that places her in a psychological institution to help with her own mental issues. As for a second chance, I honestly don’t believe that someone so damaged mentally–that would do what she did to two young boys–could necessarily be trusted around children. Still, I feel that psychiatric counseling would be what would benefit her the most. The thought of her having her OWN children scares me…what if her mind suddenly slips back to her own abuse, and she acts out against them?

    I know these my not be “popular” opinions (except the first, where the murderer was an adult and clearly enjoyed participating in the murders), but they are my personal thoughts on the subject.

    Reply
    • JH

      Thanks for commenting, Kay. Mary Bell’s child is grown and has at least one child of her own now, and if Mary abused her, we certainly haven’t heard about it. Hopefully, since Bell was so young when she committed her crimes, she was given a lot of psychiatric help while incarcerated.

      Reply
  8. This is honestly really hard for me to weigh in on. As I’m reading about the crimes committed, I’m overwhelmed with sympathy for the families who lost loved ones so horrifically. Then, when I read about the killers trying to start new lives and being hounded and harassed, I feel a twinge of sympathy for them. I think the hardest thing to determine is what really lies in the heart of man. Even those of us who have never murdered anyone have held such things as rage, hate, and anger in our hearts. I think I have the most trouble with Homolka, who it seems was more of a contributor than what she tried to make herself appear to be. Also, the fact that the murders also involved rape, well that disgusts me to end. There are some things “worse than death” so to speak.

    As for Protti… it really does make you wonder if she was bullied, and while that certainly doesn’t justify murder, could be an explanation as to what drove her to do it. However, if she wasn’t bullied and just simply murdered out of envy, that is rather scary itself. I mean, where does someone’s heart and mind have to be at to be so filled with hate towards someone that has what they wish they had… to the point of murder?

    Mary Bell may garner the most sympathy from me considering her horrific upbringing. I’m not sure anyone could live through the things she did and not come out with scars and issues that are far deeper than anyone might realize. I’m sure a lot of it had to do with hurt and rage she felt from the things that were done to her. It really is such a hard thing to make a judgement call on. I used to feel a lot more strongly about certain things and thought that situations like this were black and white. However, I have a friend who is a social worker and worked for years in the prison systems with both men and women. Her sympathy for those who had committed crimes (thought most were drug-related and not violent crimes or murder) really spoke to me and she educated me a lot on how difficult it is for anyone to become a contributing member of society even if it is a first-time offense. I mean… I would want mercy if I made a mistake, but I imagine the family of the victims wonder where the mercy was for their loved ones.

    It really makes me think and I wish I had all the answers.

    Reply
    • JH

      Good food for thought, Nikki. I don’t think anyone truly has all the answers–if they did, we’d have a much better justice system. And of course, there is never any true justice for the victims, which is challenging as well.

      There is no proof or indication that Costas was a bully–the most I’ve been able to find is that she poked fun at Protti’s out-of-date skiing gear once, but Protti’s desire to be accepted by the popular crowd and Costas’s rejection of her might have been the last straw. It’s hard to say. If anything, I think Protti hated herself–not Costas, but that hate was misdirected.

      Reply
  9. No easy answers here. Luckily for us, most of us rarely get what we really deserve. I like to believe I’m about forgiveness and understanding, and yet I totally understand the outrage some have at early release, any release really.

    Some actions have lasting and sometimes cruel consequences.

    Reply
    • JH

      Murder definitely does have lasting, cruel consequences.

      Part of the issue is a disconnect on what prison is actually for, I believe. Is its purpose to punish, to rehabilitate, or both? And how much punishment should a child receive, especially once that child has become an adult and most likely a completely different person?

      That said, I empathize with the anguish of the victims’ families and understand why no one thought letting Mary Bell out was a good idea. Mary showed no remorse for her crimes when she was a child, smiling during the funeral procession and even knocking on one of her victim’s doors and asking his parents if she could view his body. When asked by police why she killed, she said, “I like hurting people.” Brr.

      Reply
  10. Intriguing stories, but a tough subject to form a definite and well-thought of opinion about. When a child or adult has psychological issues that leads to a murder, I don’t think they should ever be released and allowed “at large” again. After serving their sentence, they need to be in an institution/under constant supervision.

    I agree that children can do cruel and awful things, but committing a murder is inexcusable. Punishment needs to follow and then it is up to the experts (and it should be different in every case) when and if a second chance should be given. If the murderer has remorse and proves to be able to function in society, they should be able to try and live a “normal” life again and be left alone by the media. I think the lifetime guilt and memories are in some cases enough extra punishment.

    In general, I think all these cases should be looked at and treated individually. Of the three people, Mary Bell should be the one not being allowed a second chance. She committed multiple murders and does not appear to be rehabilitated at all!

    Reply
    • JH

      Just curious, Liesbet…what makes you think Bell was not rehabilitated? She has a family of her own. She hasn’t reoffended….

      Reply
  11. I am very much a supporter of capital punishment when it is warranted and I am not ashamed of that. However, I do believe that people who willfully kill for the sake of killing deserve no second chances. You have to decide between mental illness and just plain evil when it comes to so many of the murderers housed in our prisons these days. Children who murder are the most disturbing. As for second chances, it seems to me that the circumstances of the murder need to be investigated carefully and thoroughly before allowing this type of person to be released back into society. There will always be many who do not ever deserve second chances although these people need to be held where they can receive whatever care or guarding they need. The cases you mentioned caused me to think more of their families than anything else. I have heard of parents of murdered children actually visiting their child’s murderer and forgiving him or her. Having children myself, I know that I would never be able to forgive someone who willingly takes any of them away from me. It is my opinion that all punishments should fit the crime committed. As for second chances, there are those murderers who will never change, i.e. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson. The world is a safer place without them in it. On the other hand, there is one case that comes to mind where apparently a second chance was warranted. In 1954, two teenage girls, Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker murdered Parker’s mother because she was about to separate the two girls due to a divorce and the girls did not want to be apart. They lured Parker’s mother away from the house and into Victoria’s Park for a walk. They got her on an isolated path and then used rocks and bricks to bludgeon her to death. The girls were found guilty in Christchurch, New Zealand and served merely 5 years for this premeditated murder. They were released separately and never saw each other again. Today, Juliet Hulme goes by the name Anne Perry. You may have read some of her best selling books. Did she make the most of her second chance? It seems so. I feel that the circumstances of a situation should determine whether or not a second chance is deserved or even safe for the rest of the population.

    Reply
    • JH

      Thanks for your comment, Lynn. I considered including Hulme in this post, but as I’ve met Anne and we have several mutual friends, didn’t think it would be the best idea. But does the fact she became a best-selling novelist mean she was rehabilitated? What about Bell, who raised at least one child and now has a grandchild? Protti is also a writer and mother. It’s really hard to say what qualifies as rehabilitated, because it is so subjective and open to interpretation, and therein lies the rub. Even Homolka would say she’s trying to be a productive member of society by volunteering at that school, I’m sure.

      From interviews I’ve done with parents of murdered children, they forgive the killer for themselves, to set themselves free from the hatred and bitterness. Still, I imagine it takes an extraordinary effort to do so.

      Welcome to my blog! 🙂

      Reply
  12. It’s hard to shed the human instinct for vengeance and revenge. I’m fortunate that no one I’ve ever been close to has died at the hands of another, so I might feel differently if they had. But where I stand right now is that I want a world that believes in the justice system, and that people who are imprisoned can be reformed or treated for mental illness. This isn’t always the case, but that’s the world I aspire to. Particularly with children it’s difficult; they are not little adults and their brains are not fully developed, so to throw them away as unfit — regardless of the crime — before they’ve even reached the age of majority feels like a failing on our part as a society. There are no great answers here.

    Reply
    • JH

      Thanks for commenting, Randee. Agreed. That is the ideal, and something worth aspiring to.

      Reply
  13. I think rehabilitation is indeed the key. I agree with Dianne – the brains of teenagers are not fully developed. Once hormones kick in, the reasoning center pretty much takes a vacation. (Which is why teens do some stupid stuff.) They should definitely be held until they are adults and can fully understand their actions.

    Reply
    • JH

      Most deserve a chance, in any case. Very few go on to reoffend, but then there’s the ones like Ed Kemper and Jon Venables. If only there were a way to accurately predict these things, but there’s really not.

      Reply
  14. My mistake… I actually have no idea whether or not she is/was rehabilitated. When I read your comment that she told the police “I like hurting people”, I didn’t realize she was still a child when making that statement. I thought that happened later in her life. Can somebody with a past (and crimes) like hers ever be totally rehabilitated, though?

    Reply
    • JH

      Good question. I really, really hope so. I think some, like Bell and Protti, who’ve never reoffended, can be, and people like Edmund Kemper, can’t be. The big trick is telling the difference.

      You get someone intelligent like Kemper, and it’s easy enough for him to figure out what the psychiatrists need to hear.

      Reply
  15. Ah I assumed the evidence came to light pre-trial. That explains it then and the DA were probably as annoyed as the rest of us!

    Reply
  16. It’s difficult to decide who should get another chance and who shouldn’t. Although I have a hard time with accepting that someone who was a willing participant in some crimes could just “deal” her way out of justice.

    Reply
    • JH

      Well, during the time of her trial, Karla was believed to be a victim of her husband’s as well. They didn’t realize she was a willing participant until it was too late, sadly.

      Reply
  17. I think the sentences should be longer, but I also thinks its wrong of people to hound them and try to make their lives miserable. Especially that blogger. You don’t have to think they’re a good person now, but you’re being a shit person yourself.

    Reply
    • JH

      Agreed times a million!

      Reply
  18. This is a tough question. I think if it’s a child and that child doesn’t show psychopathic tendencies then a second chance wouldn’t be bad, like for Costa’s, but it’s really hard to say for sure.

    Reply
    • JH

      No easy answers to this one, for sure.

      Reply
  19. Scientists have done a lot of studies about teen behavior as related to the development of the frontal cortex. This is the area that controls reasoning and helps us make more intelligent choices when we’re confronted with fear or moved to be aggressive. Since the frontal cortex develops later (they’re positing as late as 25) teens must be treated differently under the law than adults. What she did was horrible, and if she’d committed the murder as an adult, I’d say no second chance. Since she committed it as a fifteen-year-old, I say yes to letting her live her life in whatever peace she can find. After all, she’ll never be rid of the fact she murdered someone. That’s a real life-sentence.

    Reply
    • JH

      Agreed, Lee. I suspect she’s tortured herself more than the prison system ever could.

      Reply
  20. I don’t think it’s right that they’re tormented by uninvolved parties. But it’s hard to know who has truly changed, and who just learned not to get caught.

    P.S. It looks like work is letting your site through again! Woot!

    Reply
    • JH

      True. But should people in the public get to decide that?

      Yay!

      Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *