Manson Family Member up for parole

[clanglee]

But we are talking about when one person breaks a given society's social mores or taboos. That is indeed something that needs to be dealt with in whatever way. The needs of the many and all that. It's not about a government killing people, it's about a group of people living together trying to protect themselves from further harm. The death Penalty is a sure way to do that. ---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ---------- forced marriage, cannibalism, genital mutilation, rape, genocide, torture, slavery, pederasty, witch hunting, human and animal sacrifice. It is up to the culture themselves to decide what is best for themselves. But I'm gonna have to say that the death penalty is a good cure for most of the above crimes as well.

[krakenslayer]

But we are talking about when one person breaks a given society's social mores or taboos. That is indeed something that needs to be dealt with in whatever way. The needs of the many and all that. It's not about a government killing people, it's about a group of people living together trying to protect themselves from further harm. The death Penalty is a sure way to do that. Then how do we protect ourselves against the death penalty? How do we protect ourselves from the mass public's judgemental, knee-jerk, ill-informed tabloid morality? How do we protect ourselves from false or maliciously-orchestrated convictions that might lead to our actual death? There are no reprieves after you're fried.

[JDFP]

But we are talking about when one person breaks a given society's social mores or taboos. That is indeed something that needs to be dealt with in whatever way. The needs of the many and all that. It's not about a government killing people, it's about a group of people living together trying to protect themselves from further harm. The death Penalty is a sure way to do that. The death penalty is another certain way of ensuring that no one robs from you, rapes you or your loved ones, or assails you in any way. The death penalty is another certain way of ensuring that all those terrorist Muslims, thieving Jews, hate-filled fundamentalist Protestants, raping Catholics, and trashy proletariat people are dealt with as well so they don't assail you in any way (This is just an example and not meant literally). Do you see where I'm going with this? Like Kraken says, it's a slippery slope. When the State has the ability to impose death on citizens, where does it stop? Who in society (especially 'godless' societies) makes the ultimate moralistic decision of what should be classified as a "capital offense" or not? I don't think anyone disagrees that those who commit serious crimes should be punished/kept away from interfering with/harming others in society. But, it is about the government killing people. Society can be protected without taking this step -- for one the State shouldn't have the power to decide the life of an individual. The State's responsibility is in protecting people. Keeping individuals away from interfering/damaging society in succeeding in this role without the State determining the life of an individual. j.p.

[clanglee]

Then how do we protect ourselves against the death penalty? How do we protect ourselves from the mass public's judgemental, knee-jerk, ill-informed tabloid morality? How do we protect ourselves from false or maliciously-orchestrated convictions that might lead to our actual death? There are no reprieves after you're fried. That is the only problem there is with the Death penalty. I fully support it, but the judicial system needs to be really on top of its game. Non corrupt and exacting. ---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ---------- The death penalty is another certain way of ensuring that all those terrorist Muslims, thieving Jews, hate-filled fundamentalist Protestants, raping Catholics, and trashy proletariat people are dealt with as well so they don't assail you in any way (This is just an example and not meant literally). . Come on now. . . really? That happens now? In the US? frankly I find that argument kind of silly in this and most any democratic nation. We have here a bill of rights that would require a fair trial before you are sentenced. . .for anything. And since when is it a punishable crime in this country to be a certain religion?

[SRP76]

So you're saying we should all die of cancer? A cancer starts off as a "bad" cell. One in a body of billions. What do you do with it? Feed it? Clothe it? Keep it in your body forever because "it doesn't mean to be killing you"? No. You destroy the cancer. It cannot stay among the healthy cells. Unless you want it killing you, that is. And that's all a society is. You cannot coddle the killer cells, allowing them to destroy the whole group.

[clanglee]

I don't think anyone disagrees that those who commit serious crimes should be punished/kept away from interfering with/harming others in society. But, it is about the government killing people. Society can be protected without taking this step -- for one the State shouldn't have the power to decide the life of an individual. The State's responsibility is in protecting people. Keeping individuals away from interfering/damaging society in succeeding in this role without the State determining the life of an individual. j.p. So when we have a smaller group of people, a village of sorts. . mostly autonomous and bowing to no real effective higher government. . . .when this small group encounters a murderer among their ranks and decides to eliminate him. . . .this is the government killing? In our case, the government may pull the trigger, but we as a people have decided the criminals course of action by the laws we have set forth. And is a group of people decice that the wages of sin is death in their state, then well. . that is the decided upon course until the group changes their mindset, and then the government.

[krakenslayer]

So you're saying we should all die of cancer? A cancer starts off as a "bad" cell. One in a body of billions. What do you do with it? Feed it? Clothe it? Keep it in your body forever because "it doesn't mean to be killing you"? No. You destroy the cancer. It cannot stay among the healthy cells. Unless you want it killing you, that is. And that's all a society is. You cannot coddle the killer cells, allowing them to destroy the whole group. That's a pretty absurd analogy. A society is not one cohesive body made up of unthinking, automated cells - it is made up of human beings all with separate aspirations, beliefs, inter-relationships, moralities, personalities and individual consciousness. A society is not really a big juggernaut collective-composite being with higher aims and aspirations, it is just a product of its component parts (the human beings that make it up). A society is only people, that's it. Now, if someone commits a crime - let's say a cold blooded murder - and a group of people get together and decide to murder this guy in protracted and orchestrated execution as a punishment, even though there exists an alternative punishment that doesn't involve further blood-letting, then is that group of people really taking the wisest and most ethical course or are they being ruled by their own collective bloodlust, just as the criminal was ruled by his? The state needs to maintain dignity and a high ethical example in order to function well. The state is powerful enough not to have to deign to murdering criminals, so why should it sacrifice its dignity and morality to do that? I'm not saying it puts the state on the same moral plain a child murderer or something, but it does lower it in the same direction. Its one thing for a family member or friend, led by outrage and grief, to go out and kill someone who murdered a loved one. That's forgivable, almost honourable. Or stabbing to death an axe-welding manic - that's immediate self-defense where there is no other option to ensure your survival. Its something completely different when you have have an already too-powerful state, that is SUPPOSED to set a moral example, stepping in and coldly planning a death over months and years. What worked in 1700 doesn't have to be how we handle things today. Violence isn't what impresses people any more, we've moved on.

[Debbieangel]

Here is food for thought: Say they paroled Pat Krenwinkle, would you want here moving into your neighborhood? How about Jeffery Dahlmer, ( I know he is dead, just saying for example) or Son of Sam or any other convict that has done such heinous crimes? Charles Manson, I have heard people say well he didn't murder anyone. I believe peoples opinions change when it becomes real personal. hey don't get me wrong these people have their civil rights to be anywhere they want to be after they leave prison, where the courts allow that is. Could you personally forget their crime as they live next door to you? I know this is way far out there, but the way things have been going in the courts who knows what or who they will let out on parole. Another, example: if a known pedofile were to be released would you be up in arms if one of them moved in your neighborhood? I find this subject very interesting, especially when I saw there was a possiblity that Krenwinkle possibly be paroled.

[clanglee]

Its one thing for a family member or friend, led by outrage and grief, to go out and kill someone who murdered a loved one. That's forgivable, almost honourable. Or stabbing to death an axe-welding manic - that's immediate self-defense where there is no other option to ensure your survival. . This smacks of hypocracy. You call a cold state sanctioned execution murder. . . but a rage fueled revenge killing just a killing. And you give it a pass over a jury of peers and a decision of the court? No offence but your priorities seem out of whack.

[JDFP]

This smacks of hypocracy. You call a cold state sanctioned execution murder. . . but a rage fueled revenge killing just a killing. And you give it a pass over a jury of peers and a decision of the court? No offence but your priorities seem out of whack. I don't think K. is saying that it's "okay" for these things to take place. It's NOT okay just to go kill someone/anyone for whatever reason. But, it's understandable to kill someone while defending your life. It's also understandable that someone could literally snap and kill someone in a rage. It doesn't make these things "okay" by a long shot but they are more understanable as taking place. The State-sanctioned killing of someone is far worse than killing someone in mortal self-defense or truly psycholoigcally snapping and doing it because it's pre-meditated and the State making a decision to kill someone when it's not absolutely necessary (like self-defense may be) for the protection of society and the State is in (theoretically at least) full capacity of their decisions unlike someone who psychologically snaps and kills someone. j.p.

[krakenslayer]

I don't think K. is saying that it's "okay" for these things to take place. It's NOT okay just to go kill someone/anyone for whatever reason. But, it's understandable to kill someone while defending your life. It's also understandable that someone could literally snap and kill someone in a rage. It doesn't make these things "okay" by a long shot but they are more understanable as taking place. The State-sanctioned killing of someone is far worse than killing someone in mortal self-defense or truly psycholoigcally snapping and doing it because it's pre-meditated and the State making a decision to kill someone when it's not absolutely necessary (like self-defense may be) for the protection of society and the State is in (theoretically at least) full capacity of their decisions unlike someone who psychologically snaps and kills someone. j.p. Bingo. "Snapping" and going mano-a-mano with someone who has wronged you is more acceptable I think, because the person seeking vengeance has a genuinely uncontrollable emotional/psychological motivation. It might not be desirable, but it's understandable and it's not neccessarily a planned, premeditated thing. The object of their vengeance also has at least some kind of fighting chance against the attacker, which seems a little more honourable and dignified a way to do it than just strapping them into a chair and frying them.

[darth los]

Yes. Why not? Sure, she was part of the murdering of a couple -- but people that have done far more serious crimes have been incarcerated for far less time. The only reason that this is as "controversial" as it is is because of it being part of the "Manson Family" slayings and thus more attention surrounding it. Would the murder of any other individual that wasn't a wealthy socialite/actress, etc. have garnered nearly as much attention? Hell no. To say that other criminals have been rehabilitated for far more serious crimes and being in prison for a shorter sentence and yet deny Leslie the same opportunity because of the notoriety of who she had a hand in killing in sheer hypocrisy. Not to belittle the crime that she committed as being less than heinous, wasn't her only admission in stabbing someone that was already dead anyway? She has been in prison for close to 40 years of her life. Id' say that she should be able to spend the last 10 years of her life in society and she may actually be able to do some good in potentially lecturing on the threats of occultism in society as well. I think we all know the chances of our dear Charlie ever seeing the light of day are about as likely as David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) being released on parole from his 365 years he has been sentenced to. And it's a bit of a shame really, just imagine the cool as hell reality show that could be based on following Charlie Manson around on the outside world (you know, the sad thing is I'm only semi-joking regarding that -- if they actually released the man there probably would be offers for a reality show to the man and tons of people would watch it). (On a less serious note -- Leslie was pretty hot back in the day too, it would be awesome for her to do a commentary on the upcoming film "Leslie, My Name Is Evil" which looks like it's going to be a hell of a good horror/comedy film. The film would be far superior with a commentary track from her too. ) j.p. And if only we lived in a country where "all men were created equal" I'd agree with you. However, we don't. If you are convicted of murdering a welfare mom from brooklyn or a Socialite Jew from the upper west side in which case would you rather be the defendant in? Can I take a guess? Side note: I actually met Burkowitz briefly while doing time at Sullivan Annex. This is circa 02'-03' mind you. It was for a dental call out. They took us up to the main building (the Max Prison) and as were in the Holding pen, there's this little old man in the corner reading a book. Now of course, why would i normally pay attention to an old man in a corner? Answer is i wouldn't. In fact if it wasn't for a freind of mine who was there with me i wouldn't have known who he was. He turns to me "You know who that old man is over there is?" I say "no". He's like that's david Burkowitz Motherfucka, Nobody messes with him". How true that is who knows, but of course i don't trust a motherfucker so i had to verify with the co's that transported us and they were like yeah that's him. So as they took the men who were waiting for dental treatment into a second room i had to make some small talk so i Asked him a stupid question: "You here for dental too?" He looks up from his book and says "yeah" and then slipped back into his little world. What did you want me to ask him? Seen any good dog movies lately? So that was my encounter with a serial killer. Relavent to the thread. No. True story. Hellz Yeah! ---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ---------- I don't think K. is saying that it's "okay" for these things to take place. It's NOT okay just to go kill someone/anyone for whatever reason. But, it's understandable to kill someone while defending your life. It's also understandable that someone could literally snap and kill someone in a rage. It doesn't make these things "okay" by a long shot but they are more understanable as taking place. Legal term is Mitigating circumstances by the way.

[clanglee]

So you guys aren't so much against the death penalty as you are afraid of fascism. An understandable fear. . . I can get behind that. But, in this country at least, while fascism (or depotism, or what have you) is possible, it is highly HIGHLY unlikely due to our checks and balances. They are not putting people to death for stealing candy bars, and disagreeing with your senator. Matter of fact, it's really only the most severe crimes against humanity that get the death penalty. So I say your fears are mostly unfounded. Now let me expand the argument a bit. War. In what case is War ok? Would you consider a situation where our country has to attack another country to protect itself ok? What about a situation where we have to attack another country to protect that country's people from it's own government?

[krakenslayer]

So you guys aren't so much against the death penalty as you are afraid of fascism. An understandable fear. . . I can get behind that. But, in this country at least, while fascism (or depotism, or what have you) is possible, it is highly HIGHLY unlikely due to our checks and balances. They are not putting people to death for stealing candy bars, and disagreeing with your senator. Matter of fact, it's really only the most severe crimes against humanity that get the death penalty. So I say your fears are mostly unfounded. Now let me expand the argument a bit. War. In what case is War ok? Would you consider a situation where our country has to attack another country to protect itself ok? What about a situation where we have to attack another country to protect that country's people from it's own government? 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.

[clanglee]

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?