Manson Family Member up for parole

[krakenslayer]

So if there is a group of people committing genocide. . . do you believe that group should be left to do so against another helpless group with no interference? No, of course not. Go in with guns blazing, but only if there is no other way to prevent it. It's exactly like if you've got someone holding a hostage at gunpoint, if all negotiations meet with no success, well - an innocent's life is in immediate danger, so by all means bring in the police snipers and take him down. Totally different situation to strapping an unarmed, handcuffed, helpless shitbag into an electric chair. Oh, by the way, SRP: sorry for saying your analogy was absurd. Absurd was too harsh a word, I didn't man to come across as a dick.

[wayzim]

It's a combined fear of fascism and a deep ethical objection to premeditated killing, for whatever purpose. However much some people might seem to deserve nothing better than death, I think the death penalty works contrary to the dignity, consistency and credibility of a societal and legal system that is supposedly deeply opposed to the taking of human life. War is something that I think should be avoided wherever there exists any other viable course of action. It should be an absolute last resort, something that we go into with a heavy heart and a deep regret because we have no other option - kind of like killing someone in self-defence. It isn't entirely Fascism because the checks and balances in this case is that you can't (generally speaking) simply say 'Death Penalty. ' and have it done the next day. There is a process called The Right of Appeal (surprised that the bright boys n girls here hadn't brought that out sooner. ) As much as I believe in Balancing The Scales, there is no way I would suspend anyones Constitutional Rights, whether it's stealing a lollipop or murder, because humans make mistakes or act with less than pure intent. The Death Penalty, where it's Legal, should be a painful process that doesn't come easy. We ought never be comfortable with that, even when its necessary. As for the particulars of the Manson case( which I missed when it happened because we were out of the States at the time. )all the testimony I've read over the years leads to a whole lot of bodies ( outside of the seven from Tate/LaBianca ) which Manson himself was responsible for ( though never proven in a court of law ) I later remember Geraldo Riveras bragging in the 80's, when discussing Manson's parole hearing, how he thought Charlie was a punk and not that tough. I always imagined this Joker locked in a cell with the punk, and the authorities turning thier backs for just five minutes. How long would it have taken for Geraldo to start crying to be let out. Wayne Z It was so quiet, one of the killers would later say, You could almost hear the sound of ice rattling in cocktail shakers in the homes way down in the canyon. Helter Skelter, Vincent Bugliosi with Curt Gentry

[acealive1]

stoned to death......firing squad....uh........have her be killed the same manor she killed those people. it all works

[clanglee]

No, of course not. Go in with guns blazing, but only if there is no other way to prevent it. It's exactly like if you've got someone holding a hostage at gunpoint, if all negotiations meet with no success, well - an innocent's life is in immediate danger, so by all means bring in the police snipers and take him down. Totally different situation to strapping an unarmed, handcuffed, helpless shitbag into an electric chair. . Ok so it's ok to kill someone for killing someone but only while the person you are killing is in the act of killing someone else. Let's take a war criminal, like Hitler or Stalin. . . .have them be tried and convicted. . . what then, a nice cell, 3 squares and a dry bed for the thousands or tens of thousands of deaths they were responsible for? Nah, the world is better off without them. No need for that type of human to take up space in the world anymore. Now. . . . .if we were to bring back chain gangs. . . . .

[krakenslayer]

Ok so it's ok to kill someone for killing someone but only while the person you are killing is in the act of killing someone else. Let's take a war criminal, like Hitler or Stalin. . . .have them be tried and convicted. . . what then, a nice cell, 3 squares and a dry bed for the thousands or tens of thousands of deaths they were responsible for? Nah, the world is better off without them. No need for that type of human to take up space in the world anymore. Now. . . . .if we were to bring back chain gangs. . . . . No, I never said I thought it was okay to kill someone for killing someone, I never said that at all. I said it's "okay" to kill someone if its the only way to immediately prevent them from killing others.

[Wyldwraith]

Here's my problem: If you read the main statement of the parole board officials for Houten's last hearing, they say "The heinousness of her crime must be considered." So, what they are actually saying is: "We know that a Court which our society established to interpret our laws, that possesses more authority in this matter than we do, just ruled that Parole could not be denied based on the heinousness of the past crime, and that there must be EVIDENCE of the continuing "dangerousness to society" of the individual in order to deny parole, but we've decided to ignore the high court's ruling and just do what we want anyways. I don't CARE WHAT the woman did, I care that this parole board is flouting the court's ruling(s) concerning parole, while professing to draw on the Rule of Law for the authority to make such life-altering condemnations of individuals that fall to them to judge what their futures will consist of. Everyone here NEEDS to understand that it is IRRELEVANT in EVERY WAY what Leslie Van Houten did! ALL that matters is that this parole board KNOWS the Courts have ruled you cannot deny parole based on the details of the convict's crime(s), and that they are so arrogant that they don't even pay lip-service to the Court's authority by pretending they denied Van Houten's parole for some other reason. No, instead they DEFIANTLY DECLARE "The heinousness of her crime must be considered." We are either a society of laws, or we are not. If that parole board is not bound by the legally valid ruling of the Courts, then what should bind me from going down there and blowing their brains all over their families with a 12-gauge, before gunning down their families as well? Why can't I be like the parole board and say "I'm only bound by the laws I like and agree with, and since I don't like the statutes against premeditated murder, of course I'm not bound by them and I'll be going home now." It is EXACTLY the same principle. Robert Doyle and Carol Bentley chose to disregard a law they didn't like or agree with, but they get away with it because their victim is someone who did something awful enough that most of us don't consider her "worthy" of justice. The judge and jury in Van Houten's trial had the option of giving her life without parole. They did not. Who are these stuffed shirts to break the law in one breath, justify their breaking of the law by telling us basically that they can read Van Houten's mind, then declare how important the rule of law is in their next breath? If there was any justice Robert Doyle and Carol Bentley would be tossed in a jail cell for contempt of court for the duration until they decided Van Houten's next hearing would be. They won't be, of course. Which is why I say that law is worthless, because people with power can ignore it consequence-free whenever it suits them. If there is no justice for an accessory to murder after the fact, there is no justice for ANYONE. The moment we allowed this sort of hypocrisy our legal system lost all credibility and moral authority. Which is why I consider criminals to be heroes and cops to be villains, and always will.

[Wyldwraith]

Thought about this some more, Several people here have voiced a dissatisfaction with the inequities governing the release of criminals who have committed serious crimes. Namely, that one guy who rapes and strangles his girlfriend to death may get paroled in 7-8yrs, but another guy who commits the EXACT SAME CRIME may be denied parole until he dies of old age in prison. Or worse, a brutal multiple-murderer may be released in 7-12yrs, but a non-violent drug charge may result in what in truth is life without parole, except it isn't called that, because they simply keep denying the drug trafficker's parole. What's the #1, absolutely INDISPUTABLE cause of such unequal treatment/punishment of criminals, even when one is clearly far more dangerous to society than the other? Prison Overcrowding. It's that simple. We just don't have ROOM to house even a mere 35% of convicts for their full sentences. So, we end up with early-releases, dubious paroles etc. What ISN'T simple is WHY our prisons are overcrowded. It's a combination of factors at work. Mandatory Minimum sentencing guidelines that tie the hands of the very judges who are the most qualified to decide who needs to be locked up for how long...the Prohibitionist Economic Engine designed to feed the government more yearly revenue than income and capital gains taxes combined that we also call the War on Drugs...the oldies, racism, class disparity, superficial physical appearance...all of these things have vastly more impact on Who spends How Much Time in jail than the law. Our society is VERY SICK. If American society was a person, it would currently be in the hospital in serious and declining condition, relying on multi-organ transplants, transfusions, dialysis etc. to stay off life support. We the People have allowed our Elected Representatives to convince some of us and force the remainder that the correct course of action regarding recreational drug use is for the Government to seize the offender's assets in a medieval manner, and then incarcerate them for equal or greater periods of time as rapists and murderers. Why? So the government can make HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of $$ per year, and (in earlier times, and perhaps the future) to allow it to persecute dissenters/protesters, who often seem to favor some sort of illicit substance. Then we have Mandatory Minimums, for everything and anything these days it seems. Almost every statute resulting in a Mandatory Minimum sentencing guideline owes its existence to....you guessed it, those same Elected Representatives, this time to help them secure middle class and conservative support bases to aid their re-election by seeming "Tough on Crime" Finally we have the States, who all want their piece of the Corrections Department pie. Federal subsidy grants INTENDED for new prison construction, expansion or maintenance of existing prisons, and after-incarceration programs are ALL dependent on the NUMBER OF INMATES in a State's prison system. Now of course the States are only REQUIRED to use a small % of those Prison Subsidies on ::gasps:: Prisons, so the more convicts they can pack into the system in the least amount of cell space, (like probationer, parolee and house-arrests), the more Federal $$ they can re-route to other destinations. It ALL comes down to money. Mandatory Minimums help the politicians get re-elected and the States keep their convict numbers high, Strict drug laws provide huge revenues and again, increase the convict population to still higher money-making levels.... At every single turn, SOME PART of the government is MAKING MONEY off of each and every conviction. The idea that the Prison system is some huge drain on cash resources in only accurate if you mean they're huge drains on We the People's wallets. With so much economic incentive to do otherwise, why would the Government kill the Goose that Lays the Golden Convicts by running the legal system in a just fashion?

[Neil]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...24-504083.html Do you think she should be paroled? Only seems fair... Roman Polanski has just been let off...

[JDFP]

Only seems fair... Roman Polanski has just been let off... Yay! Maybe he can celebrate his release by doing a new film more often than every 5 years. Would love to see him be able to film in America again -- would open up a wide range of actors he hasn't been able to work with previously. Roman, just be careful at those after-parties though. Make ID's are checked at the door. j.p.

[Neil]

Roman, just be careful at those after-parties though. Make sure ID's are checked at the door. That, and resist the temptation to drug and sodomise children of course... Poor chap Strange how some paedophiles are above the law... Anyway, I'm going off topic...

[AcesandEights]

That, and resist the temptation to drug and sodomise children of course... Poor chap Strange how some paedophiles are above the law... Anyway, I'm going off topic... More like ephebophilia, no? Or would it be hebephilia(sp?)? I always get them mixed up. Either way, more apt to call him a rapist.

[JDFP]

That, and resist the temptation to drug and sodomise children of course... Poor chap Strange how some paedophiles are above the law... Anyway, I'm going off topic... Hey now, I didn't mean it like that... I'm not condoning his actions or saying he shouldn't be incarcerated for his actions. It's not my call. All I'm saying is that I enjoy the man's films (his personal life aside). Since he's been cleared this means he can make more films that I can enjoy. That's all I'm hitting at here. j.p.