Why isn’t the death sentence carried out now that it is legal at this time?
They cannot go back and re-try her/resentence her under new statutes that were enacted after she was already in prison.
I thought I was being responsive to your objection, in that I already conceded that point to Czarcasm a couple of posts back. My position is, as you so astutely observe, that, while she is currently serving a life sentence with the possiblity of parole, the commuted sentence should have been without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court not only robbed the LaBianca family and the people of the state of California of justice, but made it possible for an appointed board to further slap the LaBiancas in the face by declaring that their loved ones’ murderer has more rights than her victim.
Once and for all, yes Van Houten now has the right to be considered for parole, and no, I don’t believe she should. Are we clear on that now?
In answer to your question, Tedster, once the sentence has been commuted, you can’t go back and stick 'em in the chamber. It would be something like double jeapordy. Any legal eagle want to make it more precise?
so, DG why are we even discussing it? Data doesn’t seem to matter, you’ve acknowledged that following the law doesn’t matter to you, why bother?
Where do you get the idea that following the law doesn’t matter to me? I agreed with you that the Supremes gave her the possibility of parole. Then I stated my opinion that they should not have done that. I did not say that the law should be ignored. If I had it in my power (which I have not) the law would be different. The OP asked what the members think obout the parole board’s decision. I agree with them…this time. That’s what I think. What more do you want? Why do you think your opinion valid while mine is not?
Except that all you’ve posted here is that while you agree that she should sit in front of the parole board, you don’t want her to get paroled. No matter what she does. doesn’t do. That isn’t ‘with possability of parole’, that’s life w/o possability of parole.
Since you apparently want her sentenced to something that she isn’t, I’m assuming that following the law in this case isn’t what you wish to see done. Could you show me where you’ve posted some acceptance that she may at some point be paroled (not merely sit in front of the board - to be ‘considered’ for parole, there has to be a realistic possasbility that it will be granted). Perhaps I missed it?
wring,
Does the fact that she hasn’t been paroled imply that she has no chance? It sounds to me that you’re saying that she can’t have her justice until she is, in fact, paroled. Because until that date you’re implying that the parole board is colluding to keep her in prison.
Either she is paroled, or she isn’t. It wouldn’t break my heart at all if she wasn’t, but as long as she goes before the board and they deny her parole, due process has been served, whether you like the result or not.
Airman you’re confused. My point here was that those in this thread are arguing that she should never be paroled. Which is contrary to her sentence by law.
I frankly do believe that the parole board involved will always refuse to parole her (and the others), but that their denial is based on the political fallout from paroling one of the Manson clan, not on the specifics of the case or the apparent rehabiliation of the individual. In the past they’ve just denied her parole. A judge this time ordered them to ‘truely consider’ a parole (ie give her a reason for the denial) and they (IIRC) demanded ‘further counseling’ or something like that, to ‘realize the enormity of her crime’ (again I may have the quote wrong).
Of course, the counselors there don’t think she needs more counseling. which is why I believe that the parole board won’t ever truely consider a parole for her.
If she goes before a parole board that has no intention whatsoever to grant her parole, to the extent of completely ignoring all evidence put before them, then due process has not been served, and they have broken the public trust, and the law.
But can you prove that, Czarcasm? Otherwise, your opinion isn’t worth the time it takes to type your response.
Fact is, you can’t. Nobody can. So we have to trust the parole board to do the right thing. And if you can’t do that, then you’ll drive yourself nuts banging your head against a situation you are helpless to do anything about.
I’m not going to ignore what is before my eyes. The judge told them not to deny her parole without good reason. The reason they gave for denial this time was that she needed more counselling, even though the councellors they questioned said that she was doing just fine, and that she didn’t need any more councelling.
If the possibility of parole was a part of her sentence, then the parole board must damn well consider parole when they see her. If there is evidence that they are not doing their job properly, they should be removed and replaced with people that will do their duty even when it goes against political expediency.
I don’t know why you’re having such trouble understanding this, wring, but I will try, yet again, to make it clear. I have not ever said the law should be ignored. I have stated my own opinion that Van Houten should not be eligible for parole. Stated another way, and slowly: I would be happier if this were not the case. I believe it ought not to be. However, I recognize that it is the case, and that we don’t always get what we want. Like every other good citizen, I will abide by the law as given. BUT I DON’T HAVE TO LIKE IT. The OP asked for opinions. I gave mine, and others have given similar ones. Nobody in my reading of this thread has suggested that if they do parole her we should storm the prison and take the law into our own hands. NOBODY.
You have given your opinion, and the rest of us have given ours. If you don’t feel that your opinion has received enough support, well, that’s the way it goes in a forum. Sometimes we’re with the majority, and sometimes we’re not. Can we move on now?
DG
The difficulty I’m having is that your position is contrary.
You say here
[quote]
. I have not ever said the law should be ignored.
[quote]
but also that
you recognize that her sentence requires the availabilty of parole, but your position is that it should always be denied. If the answer will always be ‘no’, then you are in fact denying the availability of parole, which is contrary to her sentence.
as for the ‘popularity’ vote, doesn’t bother me - I’m saying that the Parole Board aught to apply the same rules of parole to every case. And as Czarcasm has aptly pointed out, this doesn’t seem to be the case here, thus they seem to be circumventing the rules of law, and the judge’s order. You seem happy with that. Thus, my comment that you seem to be happy with the law being thwarted. Seems clear to me. Now, if you’re not happy w/your position being seen that way, perhaps the problem is more in the position than you’d like to admit.
I do not understand how a death penalty sentence can, in any world that even feigns rationality, ever be turned into a life sentence with the possibility of parole.
She was sentenced to death. Dead people do not enjoy the world of the living. Killing people for justice (except for terrorists, of course! And commies) was deemed wrong. So we don’t kill her.
Where did the getting out part come from?
You are really testing my vocabulary here, wring, making me find a way to tell you your basic understanding is limited with out saying something like “thick.”
I have stated repeatedly how I think things should be. That is, I don’t believe Van Houten should have been made eligible for parole. I know that she is eligible by the decision of the court, and I think it was a bad decision. I have never said that the parole board should ignore the law.
Let’s try another approach. I am not, as you say, “denying the availability of parole.” I am decrying the availability of parole in her case, or in any case involving murder. Furthermore, I have not the power to deny her anything. I am not a jurist, nor am I a member of the parole board. I just stated my opinion. If it’s still not enough, or not clear, I’m sorry. But I’ve been goaded enough, and won’t respond to you again in this thread.
Yeah, I know that. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Seems to me what should have happened is once the DP was again ‘constitutional’ all those originally sentenced to die would have their original sentences carried out.
Ted both you and DG seem to be advocating (wishing for etc.) a result that is not permissable under the current law.
You’re both entitled to your opinions, but I’ll point out in both cases that you’re both advocating the circumvention of the law as applicable in this case. How you can do so and believe that you’re on the side of law & order is an interesting ballet.
I’m sorry that you feel I’m trying to goad you DG. I understand that you have no power in the situation etc. but you and Ted both seem to be saying “ya, I know what the law is, but I don’t agree with how it’s applied in this case”. Again, you’re allowed to have your opinion, and advocate for changes in the laws etc. However, what isn’t supposed to be permitted in our system is for the system itself to break it’s own rules. That’s why the DP had been ruled unconstitutional in the first place, and that’s why it should be noted that the parole board is breaking their own rules now.
No. I’m thinking law shouldn’t be retroactive is all.
So if a law is unconstitutional, and people are in prison for violating the law, they should remain in jail? interesting perspective.