In law, we have to weigh up the risks and the rights and the wrongs. Like Malcolm, I believe that we lock up too many people and we lock them up for too long. Where I seem to hold a different view from Malcolm is that I think certain types of criminals, multiple rapists being one of them, should only come out of prison in a box (or if I am feeling especially liberal, in a wheelchair for a couple of days in a hospice).
I hate to say it, but I really don't believe that we've read the final chapter in the Worboys story in the press. I hope I am wrong. I sincerely hope that the great and good who make these decisions know more than me and Mr Worboys really does start to lead a monastic existence, refraining from the hobby he clearly so enjoyed.
As far as I am concerned, if he does re-offend, then an act of criminal negligence will have taken place. In such circumstances, the person who signed the papers to release him should serve a custodial sentence. For serial child molesters, rapists and serial killers, I'd hold those who authorise the release responsible for future behaviour. If the consequences of their decision put them in line for a spell in prison, if it didn't work out, I have a funny feeling they'd be a tad more circumspect.
As it is, the answer to the question "what will happen to the person who authorised the release, if Worboys rapes my daughter, niece or next door neighbour?" will be "They will most likely feel rather upset".
The really sicjening thing is that there are dozens of women who Worboys abused in the most revolting fashion, who presumably thought they could get on with their lives, having the most frightening flashbacks as we speak. For what purpose? Who benefits from this, apart from a man who deserves nothing and his pack of lawyers, who presumably have earned a handsome fee for doing his bidding.