Manson Family Member up for parole

[Debbieangel]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20009724-504083.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. :D)

j.p.

[fulci fan]

I think Manson should have been the first one out. It isn't like he killed anyone. :shifty: 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/ns/us_news-crime_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? :p). 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. :D

I'm an asshole, and I approve this message. :lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I'm an asshole, and I approve of this message. :lol:

Glad we cleared that up... you were listed as a schmuck.

:lol:


j/k of course

[LouCipherr]

Glad we cleared that up... you were listed as a schmuck.

schmuck, asshole, whatevah.. it's all good. I never claimed to be a "nice guy" :lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

schmuck, asshole, whatevah.. it's all good. I never claimed to be a "nice guy" :lol:

Oh really? when you got your current job did you tell the boss you were an asshole/schmuck/whatever? or did you say... Oh no, I am a really nice guy?

[LouCipherr]

Oh really? when you got your current job did you tell the boss you were an asshole/schmuck/whatever? or did you say... Oh no, I am a really nice guy?

I didn't say a thing - but I'm sure during the interview he realized I was an asshole and that's why he hired me.

Dj, you of all people know in our field you are REQUIRED to be an asshole! That's what Quality Assurance is all about! :lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I didn't say a thing - but I'm sure during the interview he realized I was an asshole and that's why he hired me.

Dj, you of all people know in our field you are REQUIRED to be an asshole! That's what Quality Assurance is all about! :lol:

Its about being the good cop and bad cop... QA, we ARE the enemy.

[Mr.G]

schmuck, asshole, whatevah.. it's all good. I never claimed to be a "nice guy" :lol:

I prefer the term schmohawk...Larry David uses it and it cracks me up.

[Debbieangel]

I think Manson should have been the first one out. It isn't like he killed anyone. :shifty: 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.

The baby wasn't cut out of Sharon Tate, it was Susan Atkins that said" she wanted to cut the baby out but she was afraid to do it" Something like that she told that to a fellow inmate. I think her name was Ronnie Howard.

I think they all should stay in jail, they aren't any better than Dahlmer or son of sam, Bundy. All heinous crimes!
Yes, Charlie should stay in jail too he as much as said he murdered people. What about Shorty(can't remember his last name) from Spahn Ranch? He came up 'missing' during the whole "Tate/LaBianca murders. He was never seen again. The 'family' also said there were others in those hill that no one would ever find.
Patricia Krenwinkle, I believe helped stab Rosemary LaBianca some 42 times. Now that is overkill.
Krenwinkle saying Rosemary Labianca was dead anyway speaks volumes,she had murder in her heart and she enjoyed it. Then for them all to sit and eat and take a shower in the home..wowwwww that's truly beyond sick.
I do hope someone could be rehabilitated from doing such a crime. But, I don't know, this goes deep in the pyschie.

[clanglee]

http://www.deathrow-artwork-thornton.com/hanging500.jpg

Worked for centuries, and is nice and cheap.

[BillyRay]

http://www.deathrow-artwork-thornton.com/hanging500.jpg

Worked for centuries, and is nice and cheap.


And it works for Wall Street Fatcats, too!

[krakenslayer]

http://www.deathrow-artwork-thornton.com/hanging500.jpg

Worked for centuries...

So has forced marriage, cannibalism, genital mutilation, rape, genocide, torture, slavery, pederasty, witch hunting, human and animal sacrifice... The societies that practice(d) these things all thought they were the "right" thing to do too.

Just because it's been done for a long time does not, in itself, have any effect on whether or not we should still be doing it.

[acealive1]

http://www.deathrow-artwork-thornton.com/hanging500.jpg

Worked for centuries, and is nice and cheap.





they still hang people in the south, but they dont want you to know that. shhh

[JDFP]

So has forced marriage, cannibalism, genital mutilation, rape, genocide, torture, slavery, pederasty, witch hunting, human and animal sacrifice... The societies that practice(d) these things all thought they were the "right" thing to do too.

Just because it's been done for a long time does not, in itself, have any effect on whether or not we should still be doing it.

What Kraken said (and very well said it was as well). :)

j.p.

[bassman]

they still hang people in the south, but they dont want you to know that. shhh

As someone that lives in the south, I would have to disagree with this. Now I know for a fact that there are still morons in Klan meetings(some even in my area), but to suggest that hangings are a normal or casual occurance is a bit much.

I'm sure a few hate crimes occur here and there and I hate that it happens, but to say that it's the norm is just stereotyping. A stereotype that isn't necessarily true.

There are tons of racist assholes around here, but they're not killing people and walking away scott free.

[SRP76]

People can complain about the government or the states playing god...

I don't even give them that much credit. It's not playing "God" (like there is one), it's playing SOCIETY. As in, a whole group of people have come together and agreed to live under certain rules. No one person is bigger than the society. When one person thinks they are, and break the rules of that society, fuck them. They should be eliminated immediately.

[krakenslayer]

I don't even give them that much credit. It's not playing "God" (like there is one), it's playing SOCIETY. As in, a whole group of people have come together and agreed to live under certain rules. No one person is bigger than the society. When one person thinks they are, and break the rules of that society, fuck them. They should be eliminated immediately.

I realise you are talking about crime here but this is a verrrry slippery slope. Where in that model do you work in the ability to change society, if and when members of that society decide they want to protest something? Are they just to be eliminated immediately before they can "rebel" against the status quo? Then you end up with a dystopian 1984 scenario, where everyone hates living in society and everyone suffers equally, but no one can do anything about it because the system is one big self-perpetuating machine held together by violence and fear.

[JDFP]

I don't even give them that much credit. It's not playing "God" (like there is one), it's playing SOCIETY. As in, a whole group of people have come together and agreed to live under certain rules. No one person is bigger than the society. When one person thinks they are, and break the rules of that society, fuck them. They should be eliminated immediately.

Hmm... sounds familiar...

IQBhxOFjCn0

Oh yeah, that worked out really well...

(The Horst Wessel Lied is a catchy tune though :sneaky::)).

I realize that you are stating this in a negative connotation as people who degrade society through criminal activity. But, at the same time, it could be just as apt and valid for individuals who try to better themselves more than the standard of society. Fuck people who attempt to become better than the standard of society? Hmm...

To quote Ayn Rand: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

j.p.

[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. :D)

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? :sneaky:

So that was my encounter with a serial killer.

Relavent to the thread. No.

True story. Hellz Yeah! :thumbsup:

:cool:

---------- 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.

:cool:

[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?

[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. . . . .:evil:

[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. . . . .:evil:

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_162-20009724-504083.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. :):sneaky:

j.p.

[Neil]

Roman, just be careful at those after-parties though. Make sure ID's are checked at the door. :):sneaky:

That, and resist the temptation to drug and sodomise children of course... Poor chap :rockbrow:

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 :rockbrow:

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 :rockbrow:

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.