Fritzl

Josef Fritzl has been sentenced to life.

I often wonder what to think about these things: the Brady/Hindley case in Britain in the '60s is relevant here. Is there a crime which is so horrible that by definition the perpetrator must be mad and therefore not guilty? I, and I expect you, can magine myself committing many crimes, but this?

But is such a feeling relevant? Lord Denning said that the sentence must reflect Society's revulsion of the crime. Is that right? Even if he's mad?

It is now being said that Fritzl pleaded guilty because he heard his daughter's testimony. The BBC have got a trick-cyclist to say that he pleaded guilty because he realised he was no longer in control. I heard he had offered to plead guilty if he got agreement to be sent to the right (most comfortable) prison. Some say that in Austria life means 20 years. Surely it isn't possible he could be released in his lifetime?

The reason I express all these doubts is that what society, and in particular Austrian society, needs is certainty, now. It has all been rushed through to prevent a debate on whether there is something in Austria that permitted this to happen behind closed doors. In my view that debate would have been beneficial. Sometimes you have to let the wound bleed a bit to cleanse it.