Charles Manson follower denied parole again

[DragonLady]

Bah. Let Manson out.
He went to jail in a time before cellphones, ATM's, the internet, email, the entire electronic world in many ways.
He is happy safe and comfortable where he is. Release him and drop him in South Central L.A. where there are teenagers crazier than he ever was, with far more violent friends, all of whom are armed, in a world he has no idea how to interact with.

Jail is no longer punishment for him, if it ever was. The last interview I saw with him he revels in his notoriety and was enjoying hell out of himself attempting to terrify the woman that was interviewing him. The fact that he is a tiny old man in chains was apparently lost on him, probably because that's likely not how he is treated in jail.
Put him out on the streets where most young people only have a vague recollection of his name and are more likely to think 'Marilyn' if you say Manson than 'Charles'. His own high opinion of who he is would last maybe a week.

Good points!

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[SezMe]

They say that they have changed enough to understand the horror of their crimes, but the fact that they keep trying to get out just seems to indicate that they really have no understanding at all.

I don't see that indication at all. In fact, I find the opposite conclusion to be equally, if not more, valid. How does applying for parole imply (yes, you DID imply) that they don't have any understanding of their crime?

 

[SezMe]

Even if they are stuck in jail forever, it's a free life.

One of the most remarkable statements made on the JREF forums.

 

[SezMe]

It was such a horrific crime and scarred this country.

The first part I agree with but not the second. How do the Manson crimes manifest as scars on the country today?

However, if some weird thing were to happen and by some automatic glitch they had to parole her, I'd hope she had a peaceful life outside. It's very sad to think of someone spending their entire life in prison.

Agreed.

 

[SezMe]

Best they stay in prison because I feel, much like I feel for Mark David Chapman as well, that were they released, there would be a scene resembling the one from "Airplane", where they would be a long line of people on the outside armed with bats, hammers, boxing gloves and guns waiting to greet the parolees.

Huh? They should stay in prison because other people might act like jerks? That's illogical.

 

[SezMe]

So I'm assuming you haven't read up on this case or you wouldn't be asking this question.

Mojo's point is not about the details of the case. It rather is asking about the logical implications (yes, that is what they are) of your position.

 

[SezMe]

Because in this case they weren't eligible for parole at all. They were sentenced to death and a glitch in the system dragged them into a loophole.

Why was the change a "glitch"? Do you think the legislators, their staff, all the various attorneys involved and all others didn't think the matter through?

 

[Mojo]

So I'm assuming you haven't read up on this case or you wouldn't be asking this question.

I am well aware of the details of this case, but they are irrelevant to your stated position. Your claim was that they shouldn't get paroled because the fact that they have applied for parole means that they do not understand the nature of their crimes, not because of the nature of the crimes themselves:

I think I shifted into thinking that way when the Manson girls started trying to get parole. They say that they have changed enough to understand the horror of their crimes, but the fact that they keep trying to get out just seems to indicate that they really have no understanding at all.

You are now trying to shift the goalposts, and change your claim to one that they shouldn't be allowed out because their crimes were particularly horrifying (which would be fair enough as a position, but is not what you were arguing).

 

[truethat]

If I am talking about HER or the Manson convicts, I am only talking about them. Not all prisoners. What is so difficult about this for you to understand?

If you consider the specifics of HER case to be irrelevant to the discussion then you are having a different discussion.

 

[Mojo]

If you consider the specifics of HER case to be irrelevant to the discussion then you are having a different discussion.

No, if you think they are relevant, then you are "having a different discussion", or at least trying to. You are moving your goalposts.

Here is what you wrote:

I think I shifted into thinking that way when the Manson girls started trying to get parole. They say that they have changed enough to understand the horror of their crimes, but the fact that they keep trying to get out just seems to indicate that they really have no understanding at all.

And again, when asked for clarification:

You seem to be implying that if they apply for parole, then they shouldn't get it because they have applied for it.

That's exactly right.

You weren't saying that she should be denied parole because of the specifics of her case, but because she had applied for parole. The specifics of her case were not your stated reason that she should be denied parole.

 

[truethat]

Yep. I was talking about HER not SOMEONE or other prisoners. She has a very unusual and specific case which you seem to know nothing about. Until you do you are having a pointless conversation.

 

[Mojo]

Yep. I was talking about HER not SOMEONE or other prisoners. She has a very unusual and specific case which you seem to know nothing about. Until you do you are having a pointless conversation.

Yes, but you were not saying that she should be denied parole because of the specifics of her case; you were saying that she should be denied parole because the fact that she had applied for it meant that she is unsuitable for parole. You have also failed to establish that a parole application should indicate a lack of rehabilitation and contrition in this "very unusual and specific case" but not in other cases.

And as I have already said, I am well aware of the circumstances of the case. Until you are prepared to stop poisoning the well and accept that it is possible for someone to disagree with you without being ignorant, then further conversation is, indeed, likely to be pointless, and very probably uncivil.

 

[KatieG]

I know as much as is possible about this case. I was around when the Manson family was in their heyday and when the Tate-LaBianca murders happened. I wrote an extensive paper on this very subject in college, long before the internet. I actually had to go the library and spent hours heating up the microfiche machine.

When the Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional, all sentences were changed to life imprisonment. All prisoners in the state of California, serving sentences of life imprisonment, unless deemed LWOP, are eligible for parole. They don't have to ask, they automatically come up for parole.

Leslie Van Houten has repeatedly said she understands the enormity of what she did and she feels deep remorse for what she did. I don't think she deserves to be let out, but that's just my opinion. So, every few years the state holds parole hearings, she appears before the board and parole is denied. The circle of life sort of thing. Until recently, before Mason said why bother, he came up for parole also.

 

[truethat]

I know as much as is possible about this case. I was around when the Manson family was in their heyday and when the Tate-LaBianca murders happened. I wrote an extensive paper on this very subject in college, long before the internet. I actually had to go the library and spent hours heating up the microfiche machine.

When the Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional, all sentences were changed to life imprisonment. All prisoners in the state of California, serving sentences of life imprisonment, unless deemed LWOP, are eligible for parole. They don't have to ask, they automatically come up for parole.

Leslie Van Houten has repeatedly said she understands the enormity of what she did and she feels deep remorse for what she did. I don't think she deserves to be let out, but that's just my opinion. So, every few years the state holds parole hearings, she appears before the board and parole is denied. The circle of life sort of thing. Until recently, before Mason said why bother, he came up for parole also.

Wow, I'd love to hear your input on this case. Perhaps you can share with Mojo.

Curious though, when "parole" happens, is it an automatic thing? Or does she have to apply for it? If she's not applying for it herself then I might change my whole mind about the thing. That would be an entirely different situation.

 

[Mojo]

Wow, I'd love to hear your input on this case. Perhaps you can share with Mojo.

As I said, implying that people who disagree with you are ignorant is not conducive to a civil discussion.

Curious though, when "parole" happens, is it an automatic thing? Or does she have to apply for it? If she's not applying for it herself then I might change my whole mind about the thing. That would be an entirely different situation.

Why? Your objection to her getting parole was that she was "trying to get out". Unless she rejects any offer of a parole hearing, then she will still be "trying to get out".

 

[truethat]

Yes, but you were not saying that she should be denied parole because of the specifics of her case; you were saying that she should be denied parole because the fact that she had applied for it meant that she is unsuitable for parole. You have also failed to establish that a parole application should indicate a lack of rehabilitation and contrition in this "very unusual and specific case" but not in other cases.

And as I have already said, I am well aware of the circumstances of the case. Until you are prepared to stop poisoning the well and accept that it is possible for someone to disagree with you without being ignorant, then further conversation is, indeed, likely to be pointless, and very probably uncivil.

I was basing my statement on the specifics of her case and who she is. You wanted to generalize those statements into a theoretical discussion. My statements are not general so I'm not having that discussion.

But if you want to talk about HER that's fine.

I don't care if you disagree with me at all. You really think that bothers me around these parts? If you do then you don't know me at all.

But

I am not interested in having a generalized discussion.

 

[truethat]

As I said, implying that people who disagree with you are ignorant is not conducive to a civil discussion.




Why? Your objection to her getting parole was that she was "trying to get out". Unless she rejects any offer of a parole hearing, then she will still be "trying to get out".

Yes. As I stated. She was sentenced to death. As Katie G pointed out she was saved from death by those circumstances. IMO when someone is supposed to die, and then is saved from that, they are getting a "free life" that they are not supposed to have. Going for parole is a selfish motive on top of that.

I actually have the most sympathy for her. But I still think what she did was horrific and she should serve out her sentence. If she had gotten LWOPP this would be a non issue.

I'm not sure if you understand what I mean by that, so I'll wait for your reply.

 

[Mojo]

I was basing my statement on the specifics of her case and who she is.

No, you were basing your statement on the position that she shouldn't be allowed parole because she was "trying to get out". Whan I specifically asked if that is your position you replied, "that's exactly right".

 

[truethat]

No, you were basing your statement on the position that she shouldn't be allowed parole because she was "trying to get out". Whan I specifically asked if that is your position you replied, "that's exactly right".

What is confusing to you about this? You then took that statement and generalized it to other situations and other prisoners. I am not talking about them. I am talking about HER.

I don't understand your confusion here?


Are you aware that she's been out of prison for a while and then was reconvicted?