The Manson Gang and parole requests

[Rhea]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/leslie-van-houten-parole-manson-killings

The latest one is Leslie Van Houten. She was not there for Tate, but the next day's La Bianca murders. The article suggests she did not kill, but she stabbed the body afterwards and, of course, went along.

It makes me ponder the pros and cons of the parole request for them or anyone.

• When would you say yes?
• What would make you say no?
• Can anyone be rehabilitated enough to no longer be a danger to society?
• Is that enough to let them re-join society?
• Is there a non-rehabilitative reason for keeping them in jail?
• Is there a way to administer the death penalty decision with low or no risk of killing innocent people?

Thoughts on this case or the broader concept?

 

[jimrich]

Throw away the key

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/leslie-van-houten-parole-manson-killings
The latest one is Leslie Van Houten. She was not there for Tate, but the next day's La Bianca murders. The article suggests she did not kill, but she stabbed the body afterwards and, of course, went along.
It makes me ponder the pros and cons of the parole request for them or anyone.

• When would you say yes?

• 
  Never. Let 'em rot in jail!
  

  [*]What would make you say no?

  My own sense of morality and justice. I'd have executed all of them!
  

  [*]Can anyone be rehabilitated enough to no longer be a danger to society?

  Not cold blooded killers like them!
  

  [*]Is that enough to let them re-join society?

  I sure wouldn't want any of them living near me!
  

  [*]Is there a non-rehabilitative reason for keeping them in jail?

  Mad dogs like them need to be kept in cages away from everyone.
  

  [*]Is there a way to administer the death penalty decision with low or no risk of killing innocent people?

  I think that jail for life makes more sense than Revenge Killings.
  

  Thoughts on this case or the broader concept?

  they all need to stay in jail until they die of natural causes!
  If I was one of them, I'd ask for a rope to hang myself!

 

[bigfield]

When would you say yes?
What would make you say no?

Prison should be used to confine violent and dangerous people who cannot be trusted to remain in society without harming others.

On that basis, I would release an inmate as soon as I could be sure that they are not a danger to others. The duration of a convict's time in prison should be determined by rehabilitation officers, not judges, as the judge doesn't have the means to estimate the necessary time needed for rehabilitation.

Can anyone be rehabilitated enough to no longer be a danger to society?

I think that some people can be rehabilitated: some people are dangerous because they do dangerous things out of desperation, or because they have been conditioned by their environment to engage in antisocial behaviour. These people can be taught better or put into a more stable environment.

However, some people may be impossible to rehabilitate. A person with antisocial personality disorder cannot be taught empathy and cannot be medicated; the only way to prevent them from doing harm to others is to confine them.

Is that enough to let them re-join society?
Is there a non-rehabilitative reason for keeping them in jail?

Prison also protects the wider populace from being harmed by dangerous criminals.

Prison should not be used as a method to punish people. Punitive imprisonment has turned prisons into facilities intended to cause suffering, instead of places intended to reform offenders into productive members of society or indefinitely confine those who can't help but be dangerous.

Is there a way to administer the death penalty decision with low or no risk of killing innocent people?

I'm going to avoid this question by pointing out that Government should not administer the death penalty under any circumstances.

 

[Valjean]

Are these people really a danger to society, or are we just being vindictive -- at taxpayer cost?

 

[jimrich]

Vindictive criminals

Are these people really a danger to society, or are we just being vindictive -- at taxpayer cost?

When they BUTCHERED their innocent victims - were those criminals being "vindictive" or just having some fun?
The "taxpayers" are already paying for a lot of other government excess and waste so why not the board and care of those CRIMINALS who no longer deserve to even be alive?

 

[fast]

Not cold blooded killers like them!

I've been drinking, it's late, and I only briefly skimmed the thread (and didn't even bother to check out the link), so if I'm missing something, it'd still be strange since I am the epitome of awesomeness.

Anyway, if I kill someone, the person is dead, and if you later stab who I killed, then you have done something that in my opinion is wrong, but I wouldn't characterize you as a killer.

 

[Valjean]

Are these people really a danger to society, or are we just being vindictive -- at taxpayer cost?

When they BUTCHERED their innocent victims - were those criminals being "vindictive" or just having some fun?
The "taxpayers" are already paying for a lot of other government excess and waste so why not the board and care of those CRIMINALS who no longer deserve to even be alive?

Do you know what vindictive means?
I'm not trying to excuse the crime, I do question your attitude toward the perpetrators. Do you feel all murderers should be jailed for life, or are you singling out Van Houten because you're particularly annoyed at her crime?

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of Van Houten's incarceration? What function does it serve? Are you sure you don't just want to cause her misery?
It's been nearly fifty years. I'm sure many perpetrators of equally violent crimes are released from prison after serving a lot less time than this.

 

[jimrich]

Lucky to still be alive

Do you know what vindictive means?

Please offer us your definition of "vindictive" - in your own words.

I'm not trying to excuse the crime,

You are trying to EXCUSE both the Criminal(s) and their crime!

I do question your attitude toward the perpetrators.

Tough!

Do you feel all murderers should be jailed for life,

Yes!

or are you singling out Van Houten because you're particularly annoyed at her crime?

Take this up with the judge, jury and parole board!

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of Van Houten's incarceration? What function does it serve?

To HELP her understand that Crime doesn't always pay off and assure the law-abiding citizens that she is no longer a danger to them.

Are you sure you don't just want to cause her misery?

She's doing better in jail than many law abiding folks outside of a jail.

It's been nearly fifty years. I'm sure many perpetrators of equally violent crimes are released from prison after serving a lot less time than this.

Some parole boards and Governor's can be WRONG.
You need to take your beef up with the prison authorities or the Governor and not other members of a forum.
You should plead with god to get her out of jail so she can lead the kind of life that YOU want for her.

 

[Valjean]

Please offer us your definition of "vindictive" - in your own words.

Look in the mirror.

Originally Posted by seyorni
I'm not trying to excuse the crime,

You are trying to EXCUSE both the Criminal(s) and their crime!
Sheesh!

Originally Posted by seyorni
Do you feel all murderers should be jailed for life,

Yes!
OK, I'll reword that. Do you think murders should be jailed for life? (are you really thinking about this at all?)

Originally Posted by seyorni
or are you singling out Van Houten because you're particularly annoyed at her crime?

Take this up with the judge, jury and parole board!
Thanks for that concise and well thought out response.

Originally Posted by seyorni
What, in your opinion, is the purpose of Van Houten's incarceration? What function does it serve?

To HELP her understand that Crime doesn't always pay off and assure the law-abiding citizens that she is no longer a danger to them.
So you believe prison is a psycho-therapeutic modality? What would the point be, if she's never to be released?
And you seriously believe this old lady with only a single crime on her record is a danger to society?

Originally Posted by seyorni
Are you sure you don't just want to cause her misery?

She's doing better in jail than many law abiding folks outside of a jail.
You're quite the evasive one. I'm assuming seriously thinking about issues is new to you.

Originally Posted by seyorni
It's been nearly fifty years. I'm sure many perpetrators of equally violent crimes are released from prison after serving a lot less time than this.

Some parole boards and Governor's can be WRONG
You need to take your beef up with the prison authorities or the Governor and not other members of a forum.
You should plead with god to get her out of jail so she can lead the kind of life that YOU want for her.
Sounds like you're the one with the beef.
I can't figure out if you're just trolling or are a seriously paranoid, vindictive reactionary with an overgrown amygdala, who'd be happiest in a totalitarian police state.

 

[jimrich]

I can't figure out

I can't figure out if ......

Keep trying.

 

[DBT]

''My own sense of morality and justice. I'd have executed all of them!''

''Not cold blooded killers like them!''

Sorry, but is this unintended irony?

 

[Playball40]

Do you feel all murderers should be jailed for life,

Yes!

Does this include people who kill in wars, executioners, people who kill protecting others, people who assist a terminally ill person with suicide?

 

[ronburgundy]

Are these people really a danger to society, or are we just being vindictive -- at taxpayer cost?

Anyone that engaged in premeditated slaughter of strangers for mere fun of it (as they did) definitely was a lethal danger to all other members of society.
IT is highly plausible that whatever it was about their brains that made them such a lethal threat is still there. While it is possible it is gone and would not return, their prior actions have forfeited any benefit of the doubt, and any doubt should err on the side of that they still pose the threat the previously proved themselves to be.

Odds are that they remain close enough to the same person to remain a lethal threat. To change those odds in favor of being extremely unlikely to be a threat requires strong evidence or the sort that is very unlikely to be available for any such killer, unless maybe a tumor was found to be pressing against their amygdala. The scientific unreliability of talk-therapy and of therapists predictions of a person's future behavior don't come close to being as reliable a predictor as the person's past behavior, so they fall well short of the evidence needed.

Anyone that supports letting them out, takes on causal and moral responsibility for any future harm the person does.

Heat of the moment type of killings of a specific person with which one was engaged in some form of conflict are another matter, because the specificity of the victim and the context that triggered the killing made the killer less of a general threat to others even at the time of the killing and their is more reason to think that their is an impulse control problem is tractable and treatable. Feeling rage in a specific conflict is normal, so the problem is more controlling the impulse to act. Feeling glee about repeatedly stabbing strangers to death is not a normal mental state, so the problem and solution is harder to identify and implement.

 

[Valjean]

In Cult members, Stockholm syndrome victims, &c the indoctrination generally reverses after removal from the controlling environment. Patty Hearst is no longer Tanya -- she's walking the streets and harming no-one, and there are hundreds of 'deprogrammed' cult members who are now psychologically inoculated by their experience against the blandishments of radical or fundamentalist thinking.

Van Houten is an old lady and model prisoner who's long since abandoned any identification with Manson's night crawlers. Apparently she didn't kill anyone, she just tagged along. It took three trials before the state was finally able to incarcerate her permanently.

There are unrepentant gangsters and hit men living free under the Witness Protection Program. Most murders are walking the streets 20 years after their crimes. Van Houten -- who murdered no-one, is, essentially, a political prisoner.

You bring up public threat.
To create a functional soldier, the military must strip away 18+ years of socialization, religious training, &c. It must create an individual who's moral consideration is restricted to his own tribe and who is willing to kill anyone he's told to outside that tribe.
There are thousands of discharged soldiers walking the streets, none of whom have been deprogrammed, and most of whom still believe their tribal values right and proper. How are these individuals less dangerous than the thousands of reformed, deprogrammed cult members currently walking the streets?

 

[jimrich]

Yes!

Does this include people who kill in wars, executioners, people who kill protecting others, people who assist a terminally ill person with suicide?

What is your take? Give us your opinions on those questions.

 

[jimrich]

Realesed or not

Are these people really a danger to society, or are we just being vindictive -- at taxpayer cost?

Anyone that engaged in premeditated slaughter of strangers for mere fun of it (as they did) definitely was a lethal danger to all other members of society.
Anyone that supports letting them out, takes on causal and moral responsibility for any future harm the person does.

So do you want these killers to be released from jail or not?

 

[Valjean]

Jail is for people who are actually dangerous and need to be sequestered from the public, not for those who annoy us and whom we want to hurt in retaliation.

 

[bigfield]

Are these people really a danger to society, or are we just being vindictive -- at taxpayer cost?

Anyone that engaged in premeditated slaughter of strangers for mere fun of it (as they did) definitely was a lethal danger to all other members of society.
IT is highly plausible that whatever it was about their brains that made them such a lethal threat is still there. While it is possible it is gone and would not return, their prior actions have forfeited any benefit of the doubt, and any doubt should err on the side of that they still pose the threat the previously proved themselves to be.

Odds are that they remain close enough to the same person to remain a lethal threat. To change those odds in favor of being extremely unlikely to be a threat requires strong evidence or the sort that is very unlikely to be available for any such killer, unless maybe a tumor was found to be pressing against their amygdala. The scientific unreliability of talk-therapy and of therapists predictions of a person's future behavior don't come close to being as reliable a predictor as the person's past behavior, so they fall well short of the evidence needed.

This highlights another practical limitation of justice systems: we don't have the means to reliably determine whether some offenders have been rehabilitated.

Anyone that engaged in premeditated slaughter of strangers for mere fun of it (as they did) definitely was a lethal danger to all other members of society.
Anyone that supports letting them out, takes on causal and moral responsibility for any future harm the person does.

So do you want these killers to be released from jail or not?

He was clear about that when he stated that "It is highly plausible that whatever it was about their brains that made them such a lethal threat is still there...any doubt should err on the side of that they still pose the threat the previously proved themselves to be."

 

[jimrich]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/leslie-van-houten-parole-manson-killings

The latest one is Leslie Van Houten. She was not there for Tate, but the next day's La Bianca murders. The article suggests she did not kill, but she stabbed the body afterwards and, of course, went along.

It makes me ponder the pros and cons of the parole request for them or anyone.

Rhea, I'd like to see how you respond to these questions...

• When would you, Rhea, say yes?
• What would make you, Rhea, say no?
• Can anyone be rehabilitated enough to no longer be a danger to society?
• Is that enough to let them re-join society?
• Is there a non-rehabilitative reason for keeping them in jail?
• Is there a way to administer the death penalty decision with low or no risk of killing innocent people?

Thoughts on this case or the broader concept from you, Rhea,?

 

[jimrich]

delete this post

Can someone advise me how to delete this or any of my posts? I've looked in FAQ and all over the edit function here but have found no "delete post" function so far.