Should this womans past matter?

[Losty]

I disagree. You can't seriously tell me that two women who both have mental problems and refuse to seek treatment should be treated the same when it comes to child custody when one has murdered 3 of her own children in the past and one has not.

First, I'm talking in general terms, since there's only one source for that case. Also, have you read what I posted next, when asked about my opinion?

I stand by that. I'm no fan of the punitive for life treatment, so many convicts get. There should be checks and balances by trained professionals, before someone is released to society again. But there shouldn't be a brand on their foreheads afterwards.

In Europe, quite a few aren't released when their sentence is over. A team of psychologists checks them up and if they think there's a high chance of recidivism, the convicts are transfered to a closed instituton for treatment and an indefinite period. Again, with checks every few years. That's what in all likelyhood will happen to Brejvik, once he served his sentence. And it happens with serial offenders. People aren't that naive to think, they won't offend again.

I was responding to a post you made. I hadn't gotten to the posts where you clarified your opinion further.

Here's the thing, you are comparing apples to oranges. In a perfect world no one would ever be released into society until we were 100% certain that they were rehabilitated and safe. In the real world this woman served 5 years in an American prison and she likely left more disturbed mentally than she was when she went in. Now she has 3 more kids and isn't getting treatment. Her past actions are absolutely relevant.