But while what Judy said about this horrific rape of an inebriated young woman was 100% wrong, the point she made about the footballer being allowed to return to work was actually not that unreasonable.

Before everyone jumps up shouting ‘but he’s a RAPIST, he can’t return to work after he’s sexually assaulted someone,’ can we look at what is actually being said here?

What we’re saying is that we don’t believe criminals can be rehabilitated back into society.

We’re saying that once they’ve been brought to justice, placed in prison and served their sentence, they should still be prevented from returning to any kind of normality on release.

It’s certainly a controversial issue.

OUTRAGE AS JAMIE OLIVER'S APPRENTICE REVEALED AS PAEDOPHILE

No one likes the thought of sharing the streets with men and women who may have done unspeakable things in the past - especially when it comes to sex offenders - but the point of the justice system is to punish AND rehabilitate that person, allowing them eventually to be introduced back into society.

If we’re not going to let Ched Evans attempt to pursue his career as a footballer once he has served his time, are we saying that essentially, once someone has committed a crime, we might as well write them off altogether?

SHOULD THE UK HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY?

A similar case is the news that convicted paedophile David Mason has been given an apprenticeship at Jamie Oliver’s restaurant fifteen, something which again has caused an outcry.

Jamie defended his decision, saying that as he had served his sentence he believed he deserved a chance on the scheme, and has so far proved himself to be an incredibly hard worker.

We should ask ourselves what we want the alternative to be? Should we support these criminals on benefits for the rest of their natural lives, as we don't beleive they should be allowed to work and therefore contribute to society? Would that, truly, be a better option?

Comment in the box below.