> > 2). What will happen when they get out: they will have new identities and be rehoused. They will NOT be sitting in prison buying crack and sponging off the taxpayer: due to restrictions they will probably only ever be allowed to spend their lives signing on, doing a job for the benefit of society, and adding to the Exchequer's funds instead of depleting them. Their 'police surveillance' will probably be limited to, at first, a camera car hovering near them, to be slowly scaled back. They probably will have some sort of alert button, but when you consider that football referee Dermot Gallagher has a state-of-the-art system which allows him to push a button and have every copper within five miles converge on his home...
>
> None of that costs taxpayers anything, of course. (??) In any case, government should not be bought out of administering justice because an alternative is cheaper.

Why does this debate always come down to money? If a compassionate and effective result (which I personally believe would have been achieved in this instance if it weren't for the vigilantes) costs money, why is that such a sin?

Why should the few pennies each taxpayer contributes towards this case be such an issue? Especially amongst US citizens who pay no tax in Britain anyway?

winter"No objection to paying to keep Venables and Thompson alive"