It’s not the usual ending to this kind of story. A beautiful little three year old boy is abducted by a long time child sex offender.
Need I go further to describe the usual ending?
Only this time, the parents make a public and emotional plea: just give him back, don’t hurt him, he won’t remember anything. Just give him back and run.
And that’s what the guy does.
Would the parents rather have their little boy back, or a culprit to be put on trial? Does the question even need to be asked?
The police are now hunting the suspect. I guess they have to. But somehow, even if they catch him – which they probably will at some point – the parents should keep their end of the bargain, shouldn’t they? Or should they? I mean the implicit end of the bargain: they won’t seek “justice”. The state may have to do what it has to do, but the parents have to seek mercy, not justice. Mercy is what the suspect showed to them, and to their little boy, isn’t it?
The government has a hard time with a situation like this. The most relevant parties – the suspect and the parents – may have transcended the tawdry little morality plays we like to put on when we get the “criminal”.
I’d be interested to know what others think. Really interested.