So the defence is apparently offering no psychiatric evaluation in mitigation and the facts don't seem to be in dispute. Based on what we've been reading in the last 24 hours, it seems to me that what we have here is a young man who is physically fit and strong but based on his behaviour to police and in front of press photographers apparently has a low IQ. Now we learn that he's an avid consumer of internet (*advertiser censored*: lets say explicit adult material) and my guess is he's acting out in real life what he's seen online without any real understanding of its unacceptability. I'm not just talking about Julia's murder but also his comments about raping lone women in the woods because they deserve it, and his behaviour in prison, masturbating obsessively and telling female prison officers to 'spank' him, etc. That last in particular sounds copied to me.
It's pretty clear imo that he's a continuing danger to the public and needs to be locked up, but it feels like there are also some wider social lessons that need to be learned about how we divert vulnerable individuals from this kind of outcome, and I really hope they'll be examined instead of him just being blamed solely for his actions and everything else being brushed under the carpet. I want to say that in another era a community would have protected someone like CW, found him work he could manage, provided him with role models etc, but I think it's probably a rose-tinted concept and people of low IQ were just as likely to be exploited as helped. In the 21st century I feel we should be able to do better though, with such people not just being left to their families to sort out but instead helped with training, work, life skills and guidance. God knows what we do about the sewer that is the online (*advertiser censored*: lets say explicit adult material) industry - that's a whole other problem.
JMO
For reference:
Julia James' 'killer' bragged he would 'rape & kill’ more women if released
