no one has given me a factual account yet.
Here is a very good case for the point that absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence. Some henious crimes never become truly infamous, this is esp, true about ones that happened a long time ago, or that happen in poor undeveloped countries. In the later case we might here of the crime if its part of a massive atrocity, but otherwise we probably won't, and even though we do here of the massive atrocities we don't here about all the specific crimes or criminals that are part of the larger atrocity. Even for high profile "1st world" crimes in relatively recent times, you won't always catch the perp, so you won't always know who did it or what they did later in life. And if the perp is caught or otherwise known his future will not always be known. Add in all these factors and I'd say that in a majority, likely a strong majority of cases where you have a heinous crime we never know what the perp does later in life, and probably even never know who the perp was.
The one thing we can be fairly certain about is that it isn't likely for the type of people who commit these crimes to later make sizable positive contributions to society, and in particular that they are unlikely to make contributions which exceed there harm (if you even try to make such calculations, and any such calculation would be dubious IMO) |
