dammit, why they gotta hate on the Manson family members?

[Dilly_D]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/26/ma....ap/index.html

Like really, it's well known that the 3 of them were way too ****ed up on LSD and god knows what else to even really comprehend what the **** they were doing. they've had 35 years to sober up and figure out what the **** went on...and I'm 100% positive that the 3 women won't be a threat to anyone if they were released.

Sure, the 7 murders were pretty brutal...but I mean come on...it's time to let them out, they were young and seduced into a world of drugs, crime and murder by one of the most charismatic people of our time...should Manson ever get out? **** no...he's ****ing crazy. But I think it's high time that Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel, & Susan Atkins are paroled and allowed to return to society, to atleast attempt to live a somewhat normal life.

[Sandsnake]

Are you actually saying that Life in prison is too harsh for a group of people who stabbed a pregnant woman to death with forks??

I'm not even sure how to address that one. It's pretty hard to comprehend someone thinking "it's not that bad" because they were "seduced" or "on drugs"....I mean, that was their ****ing choice, was it not?

[Dilly_D]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Are you actually saying that Life in prison is too harsh for a group of people who stabbed a pregnant woman to death with forks??

I'm not even sure how to address that one. It's pretty hard to comprehend someone thinking "it's not that bad" because they were "seduced" or "on drugs"....I mean, that was their ****ing choice, was it not?

I never said what they did wasn't bad, and ya...if they were just plain ol sober teenagers doing it for kicks, let them burn. But really, have you ever been ****ed up on LSD? it is soooo easy to believe anything that someone tells you...and yes, I know it's not an excuse to commit a crime by any means, but shit....they know what they did, they know it was wrong and given the chance to take it back, I'm sure they would. They've 'learned their lesson', now just them be.

I guess here in Canada, some of us take a different look at these kinds of things cuz most of my family and friends all feel the same way about this issue.

/edit: oh...and of course, this is in my opinion, feel free to dispute what I have to say. And no Sandsnake, life in prison is not too harsh for murder...but that's where our 2 legal systems differ...here, life is 25 years..in the US, life is till you die (as I'm sure most people know, but just for shits and giggles I thought I'd point that out).

[Sandsnake]

so drugs absolves you from personal responsibility? Is that it? I know exactly what it's like to be ****ed up on LSD, (harder shit too, for that matter) but I don't expect myself to be somehow any less responsible for what I did during those periods than if I'd been stone sober.

The fact is that you can never get those 7 lives back, so why should those who took them get theirs back? What you suggest makes human life trivial, hardly worth noticing. "Oh, they learned their lesson!"

Really? Even if they did, could they possibly ever pay enough? no. Take them out of society and keep them there. Or would you be fine if we sent all of our trash up there instead?

I guess here in Canada, some of us take a different look at these kinds of things cuz most of my family and friends all feel the same way about this issue.

spoken like a man who's never lost a loved one to violence.

[Dante Hicks]

Have to agree with Sandsnake on the responsibility thing.

Although I don't really see the point of proper life sentences. Since there's no issue over their innocence it seems more sensible to execute them (I know that wasn't possible in this case because of the Supreme Court decision).

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

spoken like a man who's never lost a loved one to violence.

Although I agree with your point overall, I think this is slightly unfair.

[Sunday8pm]

Yah Dilly, while I appreciate that you are talking in respects to your family, usually expressing something by trying to slant your consensus behind it by mentioning a nation isn't a good idea.

Personally I think those other three are safer in than out, if they were to be let out I don't doubt they'd cash in on their infamy and not to mention there would be more cost incurred in protecting them from those who are vengeful than well you know....

I think they should be happy they are still waking up in the morning tbh and that our society has advanced beyond the eye for an eye shit. They've already got more freedom than they deserve imo.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Although I agree with your point overall, I think this is slightly unfair.

ok, ok, it was, but only slightly. However, I lost a friend in a very, very brutal slaying, so hearing this kind of naive drivel is somewhat disconcerting.

[Dilly_D]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

spoken like a man who's never lost a loved one to violence.

actually I have, ta...and I still believe that people deserve a second chance...including the 3 women in prison for the manson family murders. iirc, they were perfect kids, straight a's in school, etc etc...they just got involved with the wrong 'hippie movement' in the 60's and made a very very very VERY bad mistake.

[wu_trax]

it wont bring anyone back if they keep her / them in prison forever, will it? i dont see what anyone can gain out of this. it wont stop anyone from doing the same thing. (and after 35 years their lives are over anyway.)

about that drug-thing: if they really were on drugs, especially lsd, i dont think they ever were fully responsible. i dont know the details of that case, but i do know that a bad lsd-trip can turn you completly insane.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

it wont bring anyone back if they keep her / them in prison forever, will it? i dont see what anyone can gain out of this. it wont stop anyone from doing the same thing. (and after 35 years their lives are over anyway.)

about that drug-thing: if they really were on drugs, especially lsd, i dont think they ever were fully responsible. i dont know the details of that case, but i do know that a bad lsd-trip can turn you completly insane.

There have to be serious consequences for serious crimes. If you want to commit a crime like what was committed by these individuals, you should pay for it. I'm somewhat amazed that these people are even eligible for parole since they're only alive due to a decision by the supreme court after they were put on death row (which was subsequently reversed).

As for the LSD thing, you are responsible for what you do, period. They chose to do LSD and therefore, they must accept responsiblity for what they did while on it. We cannot move society in a direction of excuses and lack of personal responsibility where no one is at fault for their own actions. You make the choices that lead to something bad happening, you take the lumps.

[wu_trax]

what do you gain by 'making them pay for it'? i just dont get this whole obscure concept of justice
i dont say there shouldnt be any consequnces for crimes, but it just doesnt seem right to me to lock up some stupid teenager and throw away key, or even worse, kill them on your own.
now if there is any chance at all that they go on like they stoped after they are released they should stay in prison, but if not everyone deserves a 2nd chance.

[vampire_lestat]

to be honest, even if you could justify releasing them from a moral standpoint, which i myself find very hard to believe (i mean murdering seven people on LSD is still murdering seven people), the people of america would likely protest such actions in a way to dwarf the whole maxine carr thing over here. Even if they did let them out, they'd have to undergo plastic surgery before relocation, as any idiot with a computer could find out what they look like quite easily.

It is still totally immoral to release a murderer of seven, and how is taking illegal drugs an excuse for breaking the law?

[Sunday8pm]

The issue imo is that can any of them be expected to fit into society again?

The costs would be stupendous imo and they are safer in than out, not to mention when you let them out of prison we'll be bombarded by people who seek to cash in on them by buying 'their story' of the events and so on and so forth.

I don't think it's right to drag this shit back up, they should be thankful they didn't fry/pass on etc and that they still have some amounts of freedom.

[vampire_lestat]

in my opinion they deserve to die, as do all murderers (at least, the ones who it can be proved without a doubt are guilty).

[Dilly_D]

Originally Posted by vampire_lestat

in my opinion they deserve to die, as do all murderers (at least, the ones who it can be proved without a doubt are guilty).

why? executing someone doesn't bring back the murder victim...2 wrongs don't make a right

[Kurashima]

If they come out and prove that Manson forced the drugs on them, handed them the forks and then held each of their arms as they were in the motion of stabbing someone to death, then hey, **** it, theyre completely innocent in the eyes of the law.

If they cant, they chose to take the drugs, they liked the lifestyle, they live with the consequences.

Life should mean Life.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dilly_D

why? executing someone doesn't bring back the murder victim...2 wrongs don't make a right

It's justice, not rehabilitation.

[Dilly_D]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's justice, not rehabilitation.

and that's where the system fails

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Dilly_D

and that's where the system fails

No , rehabilitation fails.

If you lock a criminal up for life for murder, hes never coming out, hes never reproducing, hes never bringing up a child of his own who develops a healthy disrespect for the law because of his fathers opinions and doctrines.

If you let a junkie back on the street because hes done his time for stabbing someone to death trying to score $20 for a hit, wheres the justice? You havent rehabilitated him, because hes scored more drugs in Prison, and the system designed to wean him off the drugs has basically just made his addiction easier and state funded.

Junkies are the scum of the earth. When im god, everybody dies, but the Junkies die first, and they die beaten to death by their victims , those whos houses they robbed, whos shops they stole from, who they mugged or pickpocketed on the streets.

Thats justice. Rehab is for celebrities with too much money and too little current exposure.

[Raging.Retard]

Originally Posted by Dilly_D

why? executing someone doesn't bring back the murder victim...2 wrongs don't make a right

Its cheaper.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dilly_D

and that's where the system fails

It's nice to see you're opposed to the concept of "justice" in the legal system. Incidentally I'm not being sarcastic or anything, if you prefer rehabilitation to justice then that's the sort of fundamental difference that's not going to be resolved by argument.

However, for the good of the forums, to what measure would you prefer rehabilitation to justice? I'm sure if we all gave all armed robbers enough money to keep them comfortably middle class for the rest of their lives the amount of armed robbery committed would decline. Or is there such a thing as an unrehabilitatable individual? Is there a line drawn between individual murders and, say, carrying out massive ethnic cleansing campaigns? What exactly do you mean by rehabilitation, providing education and enabling the prisoners to learn various trades? Could some individuals not want to be rehabilitated, in essence preferring their life of crime? Or even if they wanted to, could the amount of time required exceed their lifetime, thus meaning they should never be released?

[Dilly_D]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's nice to see you're opposed to the concept of "justice" in the legal system. Incidentally I'm not being sarcastic or anything, if you prefer rehabilitation to justice then that's the sort of fundamental difference that's not going to be resolved by argument.

I'm not opposed to justice at all...but I am opposed to punishment alone. Absolutely an individual needs to be punished for a wrong, but that alone is usually not enough. A person also needs to be rehabilitated(and no, I don't mean the Betty Ford Clinic)...I'm talking education, anger management programs, life skills programs etc, etc...

However, for the good of the forums, to what measure would you prefer rehabilitation to justice? I'm sure if we all gave all armed robbers enough money to keep them comfortably middle class for the rest of their lives the amount of armed robbery committed would decline. Or is there such a thing as an unrehabilitatable individual? Is there a line drawn between individual murders and, say, carrying out massive ethnic cleansing campaigns? What exactly do you mean by rehabilitation, providing education and enabling the prisoners to learn various trades? Could some individuals not want to be rehabilitated, in essence preferring their life of crime? Or even if they wanted to, could the amount of time required exceed their lifetime, thus meaning they should never be released?

well, to answer your first question...rehabilitation is part of the justice system if you will. There's 2 parts to it(as far a I'm concerned anyways), punishment & rehabilitation. Now, for people like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy, they're just sick people...sick sick sick people. You know that no matter how hard anyone tried, neither of them would have ever changed their ways and thus purely need punishment...which they recieved, death.

Now, people like the 3 ladies here in the Manson family, they're not sick people...they were 'seduced into a life of crime' by Charles Manson, and really weren't bad people. These are the ones that can be helped, and therefore, imo, should be. And also imo, spending the rest of their lives in prison is not a way to help them, unless they're just keeping them in prison so they themselves don't get killied on the outside(but I'm sure that's not why they're still in)

I dunno..I mean, I understand what everyone is saying here...and it's all valid stuff. I guess I'm just used to our system in Canada, which only sees someone spend the rest of thier natural life in prison if they are found at trial to be 'dangerous offenders'. Otherwise, they're out no later than 25 years after their sentence begins. meh *shrugs*

[Kurashima]

Anger Management is a myth. Rage is a primal instinct, much like the instincts to mate and to eat/sleep/drink. It cannot be managed, only suppressed, which in the end simply results in a far more severe eruption.

[Dilly_D]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Anger Management is a myth. Rage is a primal instinct, much like the instincts to mate and to eat/sleep/drink. It cannot be managed, only suppressed, which in the end simply results in a far more severe eruption.

it's not a myth...but it's not as simple as saying 'gooze frabaa' either. There are ways to control anger without supressing it.

[Sandsnake]

how is mass murderer not "dangerous offender'?

The difference is that you are approaching this from an aspect almost akin to "we owe them something"....well, we don't owe them a thing. They are lucky enough to be breathing.

The cost of 7 lives is a hefty one. They have to pay it.

[wu_trax]

i dont get it. so basicly you people see the purpose of whole justice system as a tool of revenge?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i dont get it. so basicly you people see the purpose of whole justice system as a tool of revenge?

The justice system, as a whole covers a massive array of offences. Traffic violations, court order enforcements, civil matters, etc. Violent crime forms only a tiny proportion of what the justice system as a whole does.

But yes, one of the functions is to aid revenge, yes. It is not the sole purpose, but it is a purpose nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Dilly_D

2 wrongs don't make a right

Indeed. But killing someone is not necessarily wrong in some contexts. Killing someone in self-defence is not wrong. Killing someone (imho) in direct revenge for another killing is not wrong.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i dont get it. so basicly you people see the purpose of whole justice system as a tool of revenge?

If you want, we can rewrite the justice system Bible Style, and go back to "An eye for an eye". So if you steal from me, ill take off your hands. You kick out at me, ill chop off your feet. You kill someone, their relatives get to kill you.

We do that, were no better than the barbarians that currently haunt the Arab world. You know, the ones we keep saying are terrorists and evil men, because they dont follow our religion, and they dare to keep their natural resources to themselves.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

We do that, were no better than the barbarians that currently haunt the Arab world. You know, the ones we keep saying are terrorists and evil men, because they dont follow our religion, and they dare to keep their natural resources to themselves.

That's fairly specious reasoning kura. Most people would find <what's generally held to be> arabic law objectionable due to the severity of the punishments for the crimes (nobody here has yet proposed cutting off someone's right hand for stealing) and for what is defined as a crime (being pregnant outside of wedlock etc), rather than allowing capital punishment. Certainly nobody's supporting the concept of revenge (you touch me I kick your head in) replacing justice or anything like that.

[wu_trax]

if, lets say, i kill your brother/ sister / parents and for that you kill me, whats the big difference to me beeing put into prison for the rest of my live? sure, one form of punishment is carrie3d out by the society as a whole, the other one by an individual, but i dont see much of a difference in the concept behind it.
(and, tbh, id rather be dead than spending the rest of my live in a 4 m²-room.)

[JonnyBGood]

Well, I'd have to show afterwards, in a court of law, that you did kill my xyz, and that that action (by you) was not a justified "revenge" killing. Other than that I wouldn't object.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if, lets say, i kill your brother/ sister / parents and for that you kill me, whats the big difference to me beeing put into prison for the rest of my live? sure, one form of punishment is carrie3d out by the society as a whole, the other one by an individual, but i dont see much of a difference in the concept behind it.
(and, tbh, id rather be dead than spending the rest of my live in a 4 m²-room.)

1 - The difference is you're drawing breath while you deprived someone else of theirs.

2 - it's easier to say you'd rather be dead than to actually choose to actually be dead. While most of us would say exactly what you have, actually being faced with that exact dilemma would most likely change our tunes quite rapidly.

3 - Living criminals are a drain on society as a whole, dead ones are not. Living capital criminals have the potential to commit again and cause great harm, dead ones on the other hand....

While I don't necessarily believe that the death penalty is always the answer, there are some crimes that are so heinous as to make my head spin. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the Hague thinking the deaths of over 2000 people is only worth 17 years, or how Dilly can believe that 7 lives are only worth 35.

[wu_trax]

if a society executes people in my opinion its not much better that the people it executes. killing people is bad.

[Ninja_spammer]

Why was the death penalty reduced to life in prison?

Life means life, get over it.

You commit murder (x7) then you lose your right to ever be a free and productive member of society, you may be rehabilitated (IE you would never ever kill again or even sneeze on someone) but you are still due punishment for your acts.

That is what prison is (meant to be) rehabilitation and punishment.

[Dilly_D]

just out of curiosity, did these 3 women actually take part in any/all of the murders? I cba to look into it, and I can't think of it off the top of my head, but for some reason I'm thinking that they had very little to do with the actual commital of the murders. But, ofc as always, I may be wrong on that one...pleace correct me if I am.

[Sandsnake]

Leslie Van Houten personally stabbed Rosemary LaBianca 16 times. She maintains that Rosemary was already dead when she stabbed her.

Susan Atkins was in on the Tate murders and "giggled, snickered and shouted out insults, even while testifying about [Sharon Tate's] last breath, she laughed."

Patricia Krenwinkel participated in both sets of murders and is considered the most 'active' of the 3 as far as actual participation goes. She was the one that carved "War" into Leno LaBianca's chest.

Picture from the day they were sentenced to death

[Superpig #1]

"Image hosted by tripod"

[Sandsnake]

"right click, copy link location, paste"

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

You kill someone, their relatives get to kill you.

As I've posted innumerable times elsewhere, I support this.

We do that, were no better than the barbarians that currently haunt the Arab world.

No, they're barbarians because they kill sixteen year old girls who have had sex outside of marriage. Not because they kill rapists or mass-murderers. If you can't see the difference there's not much hope in me explaining any other opinion.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the Hague thinking the deaths of over 2000 people is only worth 17 years, or how Dilly can believe that 7 lives are only worth 35.

So exactly how many people were your Founding Father Heroes responsible for killing?

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

As I've posted innumerable times elsewhere, I support this.
No, they're barbarians because they kill sixteen year old girls who have had sex outside of marriage. Not because they kill rapists or mass-murderers. If you can't see the difference there's not much hope in me explaining any other opinion.

16 year old rape victims in this case. Being raped is a death sentence in the middle east. If the courts don't kill you, your family will.

Originally Posted by Leshy

So exactly how many people were your Founding Father Heroes responsible for killing?

gee, don't know. I mean, there was this revolutionary war thing, a couple duels, and a couple of them might not exactly been great people, but I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, or how it relates to the officers leading the serbian mass executions or drug-crazed teenagers I was referencing. History is full of less than desirable people who did great things, but we're not even remotely touching on that particular subject.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

History is full of less than desirable people who did great things, but we're not even remotely touching on that particular subject.

I'm just wondering how you can attach a certain worth to a life in terms of prison years, when history is filled with people who achieved a certain heroic status for killing thousands of others.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Leshy

I'm just wondering how you can attach a certain worth to a life in terms of prison years, when history is filled with people who achieved a certain heroic status for killing thousands of others.

Well, in terms of historical figures we can't actually carry out punishments for them. We can't go beat up Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves, or whatever else. We can only deal with people who are alive today, and for those we can try as reasonably as sure that justice is done.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Leshy

I'm just wondering how you can attach a certain worth to a life in terms of prison years, when history is filled with people who achieved a certain heroic status for killing thousands of others.

You would need to quantify the similarities between my "founding father heroes" and manson's kids before I consider it anything more than a troll. You're entirely too smart to think that there has never been a time where thousands had to die to stop something far worse.

That said, the injustices of the past do not set unchangable precedence. The people who are beyond our reach are not our concern..

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

We can't go beat up Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves, or whatever else. We can only deal with people who are alive today, and for those we can try as reasonably as sure that justice is done.

Yet these people in the past are still hailed as great people to look up to. They still appear on bank notes, in commercials, they are still re-enacted in plays, et cetera. The fact that they caused the death of a large number of people does not hinder this. At the very least, I do not see anyone claiming that General Custard, for example, should have been incarcerated for his crimes against the Native Americans.

So how can you justify claims that their crimes are worth more than 35 years in prison when at the same time you openly respect people who've committed far worse acts?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Leshy

anyone claiming that General Custard

heh.

So how can you justify claims that their crimes are worth more than 35 years in prison when at the same time you openly respect people who've committed far worse acts?

It's possible to respect some deeds from a person but not all. Undoubtedly many of the musicians I like aren't very nice people, and some scientists doing important work probably beat their wives. If you're talking about respecting people for their deeds in slaughtering native populations and similar then obviously I don't.

As I say, when reviewing things historically we can take a different approach. Custer might be liable under some sort of human rights legislation if such a thing existed at the time, and we can certainly condemn him retrospectively for his crimes. However, we cannot imprison him,charge him, let him answer his crimes. He is dead, and there's not a lot we can do. The historians can argue over moral liability, or his place in American culture or whatever.

Whether people respect him is of no concern to me. Similarly, there might be people who respect, admire or even fancy someone like Charles Manson. He might be a genius, he might be brilliant. That doesn't matter. He has committed crimes, crimes (unlike Custer) of whom we can punish. So we do.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That doesn't matter. He has committed crimes, crimes (unlike Custer) of whom we can punish. So we do.

Surely you must see the ambiguity in the following scenario:

"Daddy, why is Charles Manson in prison?"
-"Because he killed seven people, son. He is an utterly despicable common criminal, the lowest of the lowest.
"So daddy, who is Christopher Columbus?"
-"He was a great man, son. He first came to this part of the wold from Europe!"
"So daddy, did Columbus kill people too?"
-"Well, yes, son. He returned and slaughtered thousands of natives."
"But daddy, isn't Columbus an utterly despicable and common criminal then? Even lower than the lowest of the lowest?"
-"Erm, I guess you are right..."
"Then why are there statues of him, does he appear on stamps and are boats named after him?"

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Surely you must see the ambiguity in the following scenario:

I can, but I don't see the problem as such. People could name boats after Manson if they wished, and I would never heap praise on someone like Columbus (not because I think he was particularly bad, but he wasn't particularly amazing afaik).

I remember reading about Oliver Cromwell and thinking he was pretty cool and going home mentioning something to my (Irish) mother who then proceeded to tell me at great deal of why she thought Cromwell was an evil ****.

The point is that there is always a balance. Did Cromwell's achievements make up for his crimes? My mother didn't think so, maybe others think differently. But that's history judging people, not the adminstration of justice. It's easy to imagine a scientist who cures cancer but is a child molestor. We'd still admire his accomplishments as one of the greatest breakthroughs in medicene ever, but ultimately he'd still need to be punished for his crimes.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The point is that there is always a balance.

So now we are at where I wanted to go.

What you're suggesting is taking away this balance. By allowing criminals to be killed as an act of revenge, or even incarcerating them for life as punishment for serious previous crimes, you are forcing them to go down in history as evil people by denying them the chance for redemption. Perhaps some of these people would do good after their evil deeds, but you'll never know as you had them either executed or imprisoned for the rest of their lives. How is this in any way a fair solution?

[Dante Hicks]

You're conflating two different things I think. How someone is "going down in history" is not relevent to the application of justice.

I agree that killing someone is often a waste of a life, especially if the person in question is young. If a member of my family was killed I might ask for leniency (I don't know). However, if your family member was killed, I would support your right to seek retaliation against those guilty.