> I think it's incredibly reckless to write him off at 13 years old. Serious question - what percent of repeat offenders would be acceptable to you? Because if

> I think it's incredibly reckless to write him off at 13 years old. Serious question - what percent of repeat offenders would be acceptable to you? Because if 95% of the extremely brutal, violent people we lock up forever could've been rehabilitated, but the other 5% would've raped/murdered/assaulted/brutalized someone innocent, that seems like a tradeoff worth making. If you let extremely violent criminals go, some of them will repeat. I'm okay locking up someone who does such heinous thing forever, and I don't feel that's reckless. Put this way - if one elderly woman isn't violently raped by a repeat offender, and 99 violent criminals spend their lives behind bars who could've been rehabilitated, that's a fine tradeoff to me. So in such a horrific incidence, I'm not okay with a repeat rate of 1%. You?