Manson Family Member up for parole

[Debbieangel]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...24-504083.html Do you think she should be paroled?

[JDFP]

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.

[fulci fan]

I think Manson should have been the first one out. It isn't like he killed anyone. Yet the one who cut the baby out has been released.... The reason why he isn't out is because his name is Charles Manson.

[Mr.G]

Denied! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38117847...me_and_courts/ Maybe the 20th time will be the charm?

[Eyebiter]

Chuck and his followers will rot in jail until they expire from old age.

[acealive1]

no parole. electric chair.

[Mr.G]

no parole. electric chair. Not possible in California. But a sentence of life in prison should mean LIFE in prison...not getting out for good behavior. It would be interesting to see how someone in prison for 40+ years reintegrates into society in 2010.

[JDFP]

no parole. electric chair. Fantastic idea. Let's kill another person -- after all, the State should play God, right? That's always worked well. That will certainly fix the issue of crime in society. Interesting to see the true colors of some people around here. Lots of folks claim to be more "liberal" or "left-leaning" minded and yet have barbaric approaches to thinking that executing criminals in a society where there is no inherent necessity in doing it to protect society from said criminal is justified. I find that ironic. At the same time, this is one category I'm going to have to rebel from most Conservatives (even though I, myself, am usually extremely Conservative) and just state I think the ability of the State to have the power of death over citizens is going too far and no government should have this authority save for extremely rare circumstances of protection to society that cannot be afforded by any other means. "The Sanctity of Life" -- unlike what some other Conservatives believe, does not begin at fetus and end at birth. j.p.

[clanglee]

Interesting to see the true colors of some people around here. Lots of folks claim to be more "liberal" or "left-leaning" minded and yet have barbaric approaches to thinking that executing criminals in a society where there is no inherent necessity in doing it to protect society from said criminal is justified. I find that ironic. j.p. Man I am liberal leaning, but I am all for the death penalty. As a matter of fact I am for public execution. Put the consequences of murder out in the open for all to see. The only problem with my belief is in our current judicial system it is difficult to "prove" someone guilty without some evidence to the contrary. And I am leary of executing someone without absolute proof.

[JDFP]

Man I am liberal leaning, but I am all for the death penalty. As a matter of fact I am for public execution. Put the consequences of murder out in the open for all to see. The only problem with my belief is in our current judicial system it is difficult to "prove" someone guilty without some evidence to the contrary. And I am leary of executing someone without absolute proof. Anyone here can tell you here that I'm many things (including an ass sometimes I'm sure) but I certainly wouldn't be accused of being "liberal leaning" by any measure of the word (anyone going to argue with me on that? ). However, I'm completely against the death penalty in a society that has other means of keeping prisoners from interfering in society (which we do). It's just not necessary. My main concern with this is that the ability to execute criminals is a liberty I do not believe that the government/'State' should have the power of inflicting over its citizens. This is one of the few categories I'm just in complete disagreement with the majority of other Conservatives regarding. Yeah, I can understand what you're saying about "just punishment" for people who commit terrible crimes in society and I won't disagree with you there. But, for the State to have this ability to make judgment calls on the very lives of citizens is just something that I think is going too far. Where do you draw the line on implementing executions as a matter of State-decided procedure? By what standard does the State, as the seemingly a priori Authority on the matter of dispensing justice, determine if something should be concluded as a "capital offense"? The government just should not have this much power. Is it justice to seek retribution against someone by imposing death upon them when it's not necessary for government to follow its mandate of protecting society from the criminal? I don't think so. It would be one thing if there was no other way to protect individuals from the harshest elements of society (say in a society in which there were not adequate protections such as fed-max penitentiaries, etc.) other than seeking to put that individual to death, but this is far from the case in our society where it's just not a necessary feature to upholding the protection/safety of American citizens. It's a case of the government going entirely too far with too much power that isn't necessary. The federal government should never have too much power -- and certainly shouldn't ever have the power of death over citizens. Anyway, it's just my opinion on the matter -- although I can understand and appreciate other perspectives on the matter. j.p.

[ProfessorChaos]

i do find that rather odd, jp, given your stance on many issues. i'm all for the death penalty, i say they put a fucking express lane on death row. while i do understand the saying "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", there are simply some people out there who's absence would make the world a better place. you seriously think it's more reasonable to waste federal funds keeping child rapists, serial killers, and all the other bottom-of-the-barrel scumbags alive and well-fed instead of just offing them? very strange, but everyone has their opinions.

[JDFP]

you seriously think it's more reasonable to waste federal funds keeping child rapists, serial killers, and all the other bottom-of-the-barrel scumbags alive and well-fed instead of just offing them? very strange, but everyone has their opinions. Ah, economics... you would think the "cost savings benefit" of executing someone outright would be less expensive than keeping someone locked up for life. Guess what? It's not. This article cites from various different sources to the cost associated with execution expenditures v. life in prison expenditures: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty Here's some interesting research from the Death Penalty Information Center: North Carolina spends $2.16 million per execution more than the costs of a non-death penalty murder case. Florida has spent around $57 million on the death penalty for just 18 executions. This averages to about $3.2 million per execution. In Texas, the death penalty costs an average of $2.3 million per execution, three times more expensive than imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. The State of Ohio spent $1.5 million to execute a mentally retarded man who wanted to be executed. California spends $90 million annually on the death penalty over the costs of their regular system. $78 million of that money is spent at the trial level, proving that the death penalty costs come almost completely from the trial level. Not the appeals process, like everyone thinks it does. Here's the link from Michigan State University discussing this and other associated misgivings about the Death Penalty: https://www.msu.edu/~millettf/DeathPenalty/6.html And, here's an excellent article from MSNBC showing that states have come to a conclusion (after studies) that it is, indeed, more expensive to execute prisoners than the costs associated with keeping prisoners alive for life: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ Here's a snippet from this article: After decades of moral arguments reaching biblical proportions, after long, twisted journeys to the nation's highest court and back, the death penalty may be abandoned by several states for a reason having nothing to do with right or wrong: Money. Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits. So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity. "It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row. Deep into retirement, he lost his faith in an eye for an eye and now speaks against it. What changed a mind so set on the ultimate punishment? 'Waste of time and money' California's legendarily slow appeals system, which produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection — the longest in the nation. Of the nine convicted killers McCartin sent to death row, only one has died. Not by execution, but from a heart attack in custody. Just some food for thought. j.p.

[krakenslayer]

I'm with JDPF all the way on this one. The death penalty sets a nasty tone for a society, that it's okay to kill people if you have a problem with them. It doesn't act as a deterrent because killers rarely expect to get caught (or want to go out in a blaze of glory if they do). It also sets a dangerous precedent, and, regardless of whether I have done anything wrong, I would rather not live in a country where I know that the state technically holds the power of life and death over me. It's a power that has been misused in the past, and it will be misused again. People who are all for the death penalty usually support it based on emotional (anger, hatred, vitrol) reasons as opposed to calm judicial logic, so these opinions hold about as much weight as a screaming tabloid headline, as far as I'm concerned.

[LouCipherr]

The reason why putting someone to death is more expensive is because of all the BS that has to surround someone going to the chair. Don't arrest the bozo, give him a trial, let him sit on death row for years soaking up OUR tax money for lawyers, meals, etc - just arrest them and just strap 'em in and let the juice fly! We'd spend a LOT less on keeping prisoners in jail and on death row - not to mention the prison's electricity bill will be a lot cheaper! BONUS! /sarcasm Ok, in all seriousness, I'm for the death penalty. People can complain about the government or the states playing god, but what about the schmuck that "played god" by killing someone else? or several people? So since we can contain them and keep them away from society, that's good enough? I personally don't think it is. The again, i'm an admitted athiest, so "god" and religion don't come into play when I make decisions. I'm an asshole, and I approve this message.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I'm an asshole, and I approve of this message. Glad we cleared that up... you were listed as a schmuck. j/k of course