More of a danger to people than people who haven't killed anyone. I'm not talking in absolutes, just every time countries have released violent criminals, those people went on to do More crime statistically than the average person. That means not everyone can be rehabilitated.

Mental disease and history of abuse only makes it more likely this person commits more crimes, not less. People without history of those things commit fewer crimes

She taunted, beat, and slashed her victim repeatedly for half an hour, carved a pentagram into her chest while still alive, then bashed her skull in with a hunk of asphalt. Then carried around pieces of her skull to school, showing people.

There are plenty of times where a person does something so heinous that they should never be allowed into society again. This is one of those times. I don't believe in the death penalty, but life in prison is absolutely the right move here.

Also, yes, you absolutely can know that she is still a danger to society. She attempted to murder another inmate while in prison and has attempted escape.

I don't think letting people into society who have proved themselves a danger once, and who cannot demonstrate that they have changed, is justice. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is about deciding whether to punish people; it's not a principle that you can reasonably apply every single day once that punishment is first carried out.

The place to determine whether someone can be released into the public is a parole hearing. That parole hearing can take into account the fact that the person in question has already been proved to be criminally dangerous. This is part of the punishment for violent crimes: once you've been proven dangerous, the presumption that you're safe is gone. Having proven that you're dangerous, it's at least somewhat incumbent on you to prove that you have reformed and are safe.

It's worth being clear about why there's a difference. Basically, most people are mostly good, and not violent. If that were not the case, "innocent until proven guilty" would not make sense - it's only because we understand from experience that we can afford the presumption of innocence that this isn't a disaster. But after someone is convicted, that heuristic changes: many more people (I won't say "most" because I don't know it for a fact) who have been convicted of a violent crime are violent, as an aspect of their character. So blindly applying the same principle doesn't make sense - it will be wrong, and result in people suffering harm, far more often.

The result is a small number of people remaining locked up who were safe to release. Just as we accept that initial convictions will occasionally be wrong and result in locking people up who never should have been though, that's the price you pay for generally trying to keep people safe.

Where is she going to get that mental health help? Who's going to pay for it with the nazis taking everything? Who is getting paid enough to intetract with her knowing what she did?

This is complicated and at the end of the day, why not ask her and see what she says? Maybe she doesn't want to be here.

“A murder should only have one victim. When Ratchett kills Daisy Armstrong, a dozen lives are broken, deformed, ended, THEY DEMAND JUSTICE! Of all these wounded souls, we must finally answer — who among them is a killer? Who takes up the knife? The answer is... no single one of you could have done it. Nor any pair. It could have only be done... by all of you."*