This takes place in the UK
First I would like to add I would like to IMO 16 years is not enough for rape and this guy should have never been released. He was convicted of raping a woman in her 90â€™s and he is being released after serving half his sentence.
Foley has been described as a high risk sex offender who is a danger to any female including children. He has refused to take any sex offenders courses and crucially denies his guilt. In circumstances where a person has been convicted on circumstantial evidence, denial may not be as alarming. However, Foleyâ€™s DNA was used to secure his conviction, the chances of some one else committing the rape one billion to one. You would think that the offender acknowledging their crime should be the primary reason for making them a candidate for early release.
Why would he be released? Do more people have to get hurt before this is taken seriously?