Defending Permanent Imprisonment

Great Debates
1

The title isn’t really reflective of what I want to talk about, but it’s the best I could think of. This is an issue I can’t really sort out my own feelings on, so I want to hear the opinions of others. And that is, is there and should there be a point at which people convicted of terribly violent murders should be paroled?

Just for the purposes of this discussion, I’m taking execution off the table, because it really isn’t germane except in a very glib way. I’ll choose as an example, because it gets to the heart of what I’m talking about, people involved in two of the most notorious, horrifying crimes of the 20th century: the Manson Family murders.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the people in prison for these crimes participated willingly, even gleefully. Even given Manson’s “mind control” and powerful personality, the people who committed these crimes did so of their own free will.

By all accounts, three of them – Charles Watson, Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houten – have been model prisoners for pretty much their entire penal careers:

–Watson and Atkins converted to Christianity (not that that is an argument for or against anything in and of itself). Watson started Abounding Love Ministry, married and fathered four children, and seems sincerely penitent. Atkins is involved with a ministry called The Dove’s Nest, and also seems sincerely penitent. She has also married, and has taken up art; proceeds from the sale of her art go to a Victims Restitution Project that she has helped start.

–Van Houten has earned both a bachelors and a masters degree in prison, and while she does attempt to minimize her role in the LoBianco murders, she does admit to participating and has apologized for it. She seems sincerely apologetic. She has no black marks on her prison record.

So I have some conflicting feelings. They all come up for parole regularly, and are all denied regularly. It would seem that no further penal purpose is served by their continued imprisonment. All have been in prison for more than 30 years, are unlikely to ever commit another violent crime, and appear to be as rehabilitated as they’re going to get. Keeping them in prison takes up resources that could be used to imprison other violent criminals that are more likely to be recidivist. In fact, it would appear that a lot of taxpayer money has been spent on their care, feeding and education well after they posed any real threat.

On the other hand, there is the not-insignificant matter of the families of the victims. Even if they do not have spelled-out Constitutional rights like criminals and accused criminals have, they do have rights and their feelings do matter. And they, personally, seem to derive emotional benefits from the continued imprisonment of these people. They always appear at or write letters to the parole boards when hearings are held regarding these three, and argue against their release.

So what do other Dopers feel about this? I’ve never been the victim of a violent crime, or had a family member involved in one, so from that view I have no experience. I do have a friend who was convicted of murdering his parents, and he is eligible for parole soon. Is there a point at which the most violent criminals, showing proper rehabilitation and penitence, should be released from prison? Is it a waste of resources to continue to imprison people who pose no further threat, or is “making an example” a legitimate deterrent? Are the feelings of the victims’ families sufficient cause to continue imprisonment?

What say you, Dopers?

2

One of my favorite lines and moments in the recent movie “Changing Lanes” was when Sam Jackson’s character’s AA mentor lost patience with his disaster-junkiedom. “Everything decent in this world is held together by an agreement to not go apeshit.”

It seems to me that murder is a breaking of that simple basic covenant of life that can never be repaired. It just can’t. So I find myself untroubled by life sentences remaining unparoled, period. I view it pretty much like this: I don’t see how being truly penitent (now), non-violent (now), and unlikely to freely choose to be a monster (again) makes the past victims less dead. It’s a theft that can never be repaid.

It seems to me that the justice system shouldn’t be about revenge. Neither should it be about forgiveness.

3

If it is not about revenge, then it is about removing dangerous persons from our midst. Perfectly justifiable, of course. But if we extend this imprisonment beyond such a point of need, if the criminals have truly changed themselves to such a degree that they are not a plausible threat… Well, then, it is revenge, isn’t it?

Besides, we need the room for the fresh crop of stockbrokers and CEO’s that will be flowing soon.

4

I disagree. IMO, punishment is not revenge, but a penalty for committing a crime. I see imprisonment as a sort of involuntary atonement for breaking the law. It is a way of balancing the scales, of making amends for trangrssing society’s rules.

In re the Manson followers, theese people have imprisoned for over 30 years, and they seem to have turned their lives around and pose no threat to society at large. do we hold them in prison forever for the crimes they committed so long ago? I don’t know.

If prison is meant to rehabilitate, then they should go free.

If prison is meant to punish, these people have lost the most productive years of their lives. They should go free.

If prison is meant to demontrate societal disapproval of their crime, 30 years in jail should suffice.

I don;t know if there is any further point in keeing these people in prison, although if I were related to one of the victims of the Tate-Labianca murders, I might see things differently.

5

Interesting topic, my thoughts on a few things:

I disagree, I think it’s very germaine. It reminds me of the line in Unforgiven when Clint Eastwood says “Killin’s a hell of a thing - you take away everything a man has, and everything he’s ever going to have”. Life without parole is no different in that respect. However, I can understand you not wanting to muddy the waters with a death penaly debate, and this is your thread, so I will bow to your request and avoid the subject entirely from this point forward.

** Yes, I believe there is. The purpose of prison is threefold: Act as a deterrent so anyone who is thinking of commiting a a crime will have to weigh the consequences, punish those who commit crimes so they won’t do it again, and (perhaps most importantly) remove from society those individuals who are most likely to harm society. If the second two are no longer a factor (as in the case of prisoners who are up for parole and truly rehabilitated), then I believe the detterence gained is insufficient to incarcerate the prisoner. Which brings us to:

**Yes, it is a waste of resources provided the prisoner has served the minimum sentence, i.e. his “debt to society”. If a “life sentence” is 40 years - eligible for parole in…X years (lawyers, little help?), then the defendent should actually be eligible for parole in X years. No additional deterence benefit is gained by holding a rehabilitated defendent longer than his minimum debt and rehabilitation time (whichever comes last). Criminals will still know they they can get out in X years, even if some other guy is held for the complete 40. There is an argument for the abolishment of parole entirely here, but in real world situations this would translate into lighter sentences due to prison overcrowding. It is best to ease the overcrowding by releasing the rehabilitated and incarcerating the hard cases as long as possible. Abolishing parole would hold the rehabilitated a little longer and release the hard cases a little sooner.

No, absolutely not. In fact they should have minimal effect on the sentencing and parole process. Imagine two scenarios (both extreme, but hey, cut me some slack). In the first, a 16 year old is run down by a reckless driver and killed. In its grief, the family wants the driver (who was convicted of vehicular manslaughter - no DUI) to spend the remainder of his natural life in prison. The families demands exceed the crime. In the second scenario, a 16 year old is abducted by a known sex offender. The sex offender tortures and rapes her for 4 days, after which he abandons he in the woods and she dies from exposure. After he is convicted of first degree murder, the Christian parents of the girl ask that the sex offender be forgiven because “God loves everyone” and be released in X years. Should the reckless driver serve a longer sentence than the sex offender? Of course not. The sentence must decided upon based on the pertinent facts rather than the emotions or feelings of the parties involved

The state is the only unbiased party able to decide the severity of sentencing. This is always going to make somebody unhappy. Unfortunately, the interests of society as a whole (represented by the state and including both the family of the victims and the family of the perpetrator) must come before the desires of any one member of that society.

6

To my mind, pldennison and beeblebrox, some crimes are so heinous that death and/or life imprisonment without parole are the only penalties that suffice, and the Manson Family Murders are among those crimes. I would grant parole to the average murderer after a certain time in prison, but those three can die behind bars. I think the imprisonment of Watkins et al. does serve a legimate penal purpose in that it demonstrates some things are beyond the pale of what a decent society can and will tolerate. Letting them go early, IMO, would diminish the horror of their crimes.

You argue well, beeblebrox, but I’m afraid that most of the time my sympathies and empathies lie with the slain, not with the slayers. You kill someone, especially in such a horrendous and literally senseless fashion as the Manson Family Murders, you deserve to suffer behind bars or die.

“Keeping them in prison takes up resources that could be used to imprison other violent criminals that are more likely to be recidivist.” I would point out, pldennison, that, according to the Department of Justice reports I have seen in the papers, violent crime rates have been falling steadily during the '90’s. It is perhaps a non sequitor to this debate, but I must note that if the government would quit jailing people for the hideous crimes of growing, selling, and using marijuana, we would have all the prison room we need for thugs, rapists, murderers and Enron executives.

“If prison is meant to punish, these people have lost the most productive years of their lives. They should go free.” gobear, Stephen Parent, Sharon Tate, and Abigail Folger were cut down before they even had a chance to get to the most productive years of their lives. Jay Sebring and the LaBiancas were cut down in their primes. And Watkins, Van Houten, and Atkins were partially responsible for those facts.

Also, pldennison, from what I have read about Watkins and Atkins (Vincent Bugliosi’s “Helter Skelter” among other sources), there is no way in hell I would ever trust those two loose in society. They can schmooze with the Christians all they want; I think they are world-class manipulators and cannot be trusted.

7

I am strongly in favor of permanent imprisonment for some offenses. These include premeditated murder, rape and child sexual abuse. I am actually more in favor of it for the last two than for premeditated murder, as premeditated murder can often be targeted toward a particular victim or have a specific motive that is not likely to be re-triggered. I believe it has a better chance of being situational rather than an aspect of the perpetrator’s psyche. However, that’s an opinion only and should be treated as such.

With sexual predation, particularly among those who victimize pre-pubescent children, the rates of recidivism are high enough to warrant permanent removal from society.

From “Sex Predators Can’t Be Saved”, Andrew Vachss, New York Times 01/05/1003:

“A 1992 study of 767 rapists and child molesters in Minnesota found those who completed psychiatric treatment were arrested more often for new sex crimes than those who had not been treated at all. A Canadian survey that tracked released child molesters for 20 years revealed a 43 percent recidivism rate regardless of the therapy. The difference between those simply incarcerated and those subjected to a full range of treatments appears statistically negligible. And the more violent and sadistic the offense, the more likely it is to be repeated.”
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9301_a.html

I’m currently trying to track down the referenced studies so I can cite them directly.

I would be willing to bow to accused rights advocates and make a second offense the trigger for life in prison, as there are indeed some offenders who do not repeat (as far as we know).

I don’t like this compromise morally (since it necessitates another victim that could have been prevented had the offender remained incarcerated after the first offense), but I also don’t like the idea of never giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. That’s the only issue I wrestle with, myself. I would make the prison term for first offense something along the lines of fifteen years-to-life so that the option of permanent incarceration is available and can be used discretionally.

For a second offense of any crime of sexual predation, even if it’s a different charge, I would put life in prison without parole as the only available sentence. I would also make it so that the jurisdiction didn’t enter into account. If you rape a child in Ohio, get out and 30 years later rape a child in Alaska, you should be locked away for life in Alaska, or locked away for your term in Alaska and then sent back to Ohio forever.

I certainly would not wait until the traditional third offense in order to invoke the so called “Habitual Offender” clause. That’s too much damage to too many victims to make the wait justifiable.

8

Good thoughts so far. Beeblebrox, I appreciate your comments re: the death penalty; I just didn’t want glib answers like, “If we just execute them from the get-go, we don’t need to have this discussion.” While it’s undoubtedly true, it’s not what I was getting at, as you obviously understood.

Peyote Coyote, I certainly agree with you about freeing prison space by not imprisoning nonviolent drug criminals. I don’t think those things should even be crimes in the first place.

I really am sympathetic to the views expressed by you and Drastic, but I tend to think more along the lines of Beeblebrox. I’m just still undecided.

I picked the Manson Family because it’s an extreme example, which I figured would get to the root of things. Maybe I should have picked a hypothetical. :smiley: As far as Atkins and Watson go, Bugliosi’s opinions of them, while valid, were constructed and written down only a year or two after the trials were concluded. I haven’t been able to find anything on the Web as to whether Bugliosi has ventured an opinion on them in the last several years. Still, “Helter Skelter” was written 30 years ago, and it’s entirely possible (indeed likely) for people to undergo a change in 30 years. My opinion is that Atkins and Watson were stupid kids who let themselves believe that Charlie was cool and that what they were doing was the right thing. Thirty years of perspective is a useful thing, especially when it’s spent in a maximum security prison.

9

“All the news that’s fit to be illuminated by a room full of ink-stained monks”? :wink:

10

best check out the source documentation on those sex offender stats. it doesn’t match what I’ve studied/seen/posted in a thousand threads. I’m familiar w/the Canadian study, and IIRC, the recidivism number you quote is not accurate for sex crimes (IOW, they may have written a bad check 15 years later, but not committed another sexual crime).

ON the OP.

The possability of parole is a valuable tool for the prisons to use in prisoner behavior issues. Taking that away makes a different situation (not that I’m necessarily against it).

Since I work in the field of rehabilitation, I do believe in the potential for people to change. Not all do. The problem comes in being able to accurately predict their future behavior.

In the case of the Manson folks, I understand that some of them have made great strides, progress, especially considering what they were like when they first were sentenced, and especially given the crimes involved.

I’m a bit leery, too of the argument about ‘some crimes are so heinous…’, since that, IIRC, is one of the basic tenets supporting the death penalty, yet when you examine the cases that get sent up for the death penalty, you don’t find that it’s ‘only’ those most egregious (the Bundys’, the John Wayne Gacy’s), but often as not, it’s the armed robbery gone stupid etc. Wrong, horrible crimes, yes, but certainly not what one thinks of when one uses the words ‘the worst’.

OTOH, I’m also a bit leery of the argument presented here about needing the space for all those pesky Enron execs. In the first place, as has been mentioned, send drug abusers to treatment vs. prisons and you’ll free up a whole lotta beds, not to mention all of those 3 strikes and yer out things. But the bald faced truth is that there simply aren’t a whole lot of folks who ** do ** get sentenced to life w/o parole. (percentage wise, a veritible drop in the bucket).

And, since I’ve run out of other hands, I’ll get to the main point.

If I were assured that LWOP was actually reserved for those crimes that were, by their nature, so heinous (similar to that which we use the DP for), I’d agree. There are indeed some actions where you have given up your right to walk amongst the rest of us. And, although I believe that at least Krenwinkle may not be a danger to others on the outside, to release her would be wrong.

She and the others apparently were able to be swayed by a strong personality. I may have some sympathy for ‘crazy mixed up young kid, buzzin on drugs, buzzin on the high of this character, rebelling against their childhoods’ or whatever, but they crossed the Rubicon. Out of all the people at that ranch, only certain ones were selected to go and kill. And, even out of that, one apparently chose not to kill.

11

I was unable to make one point in my earlier post because of pldennison’s ground rule of “taking execution off the table” (A completely understandable stipulation, and one I agree with completely because capital punishment will throw an otherwise intelligent discusion off the rails faster than a disgruntled Amtrak engineer). I think I’ve thought of a way to cover that point now.

Crimes have a price. Earlier I alluded to a “debt to society” incurred through a criminal act. Sometimes that debt is so great that a criminal can not pay it in his natural lifetime. In cases such as this, the criminal should be removed from society completely and permanently. This is the maximum penalty, and should be reserved only for those who have harmed the greater good more than they could ever even hope to repay, no matter what they turn themselves into. It is the job of the justice system to determine this “price”. That’s a hard job, and thankfully the ultimate price only aplies to a rare breed of criminal. Those that are not charged the ultimate price deserve a chance to redeem themselves, i.e. parole.

However, they have to earn, and deserve, the chance. Fallen Angel has a good point (regardless of the stats) about recidivism. I hate to sound cold, but there are those I consider “irredeemable”. The most notable example being Jeffrey Dahmer. He’s dead now, but if he was alive he should never get parole. There are people that must be removed from society the same way as a rabid dog is put down. The job of the parole board is to seperate those that can’t be redeemed from those that have a chance.

The job of the justice system is to decide what is the minimum and maximum “price” the convicted has to pay. The job of the parole board is to determine what price, within the framework, the prisoner has to pay. We have different sentences for different crimes and leeway in the sentences for different circumstances for the same crime. We should also have leeway for for what the convicted does after he becomes a prisoner. He’s still human.

But he still has to pay the “debt”.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by wring *
**best check out the source documentation on those sex offender stats. it doesn’t match what I’ve studied/seen/posted in a thousand threads. I’m familiar w/the Canadian study, and IIRC, the recidivism number you quote is not accurate for sex crimes (IOW, they may have written a bad check 15 years later, but not committed another sexual crime). **

wring, I’m still looking for the source cites, but I’m inclined to believe them as they correlate well to other research I’ve done on child abuse, sexual abuse and predation.

Also, as I noted in another thread where we talked about this, I had problems with your oft cited studies in terms of methodologies, structures, and measurements.

Lastly, if the Canadian study does apply only to general recidivism, that still puts the candidates in line for habitual offender status, which I realize is different than the POV of the OP, but still makes it valid in terms of law.

I’ve re-read and re-written those three paragraphs a few times now, and they sound kind of defensive to me. I apologize, as taking offense wasn’t my intent. I didn’t. Crud, that’s what posting at midnight will do for you.

My point in my first post to this thread, and in the thread where we talked about this before, really comes down to differentiation. There is a difference between “sickness”, “circumstance” “evil”. “Sick” people – cleptomaniacs, people with socialization disorders, etc. can benefit from therapy. People who commit a crime under a given circumstance – “Snapping” with rage, caught your wife in bed with another man, got fired by the boss who’s been riding you, etc. can benefit.

“Evil” people – predators who violently prey on society, particularly children are indeed too heinous to walk among us and should not be given the chance. There is no getting better for a violent rapist, child abuser or child rapist. Even if there is a chance for some of those people to fall into the first two categories, if there is even one repeat offense, there should be no chance of them ever seeing the horizon again.

13

I would say no, at least not in themselves. The feelings of the families have to be given significant weight by the parole board, but their views should not be enough, in and of themselves, to deny parole to the prisoners.

In my view, one of the basic principles of a justice system (and I’m including the parole board in that broad concept) is impartiality. The victims of a crime, by definition, cannot be impartial. The justice system has to pay close attention and respect to their views, but their views cannot be determinative.

wring and Beeblebrox have summarised my reason for not agreeing with life without parole. Again, in my view a justice system has to have discretion built into it, every step of the way. When you have two different accused, being sentenced the same day for similar murders, it’s clear what they’ve done. It won’t necessarily be clear if they are the worst cases, the ‘irredeemables.’ Only time can tell.

There is a need for subsequent, post-conviction review, to help identify the ones that need to be kept in indefinitely, to protect the public, and those that can be released after serving a substantial sentence.

By way of context, here’s how the Canadian system works. (I’m not putting this forward as the best system or anything, but just to give an example of one way to approach this issue. I expect there is substantial variation amongst the states in the U.S.)

The Canadian punishment for murder is life imprisonment, with the eventual possibilty of parole (possibility, not a right). For first degree murder, the convict is ineligible for parole for 25 years. (Although in some cases, individuals convicted of first degree murder can apply to a jury for a reduction in parole ineligibilty after 15 years (the ‘faint hope’ clause). but even if granted that only entitles the convict to apply to the parole board early.) For second degree, the convict is not eligible for parole for at least 10 years, although at the time of sentencing the judge can increased the period of parole ineligibilty, on the recommendation of the convicting jury.

Note that even if paroled, a murder parolee is still under the life sentence. Murder parolees are subject to conditions and supervision by parole officials for the rest of their life. If they commit any other offence, they are liable to have their parole on the murder sentence revoked immediately.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by FallenAngel *
**

Again by way of context, Canada doesn’t have ‘habitual offender’ status, nor ‘three strikes’ laws. We have what is called a ‘dangerous offender’ status, which applies only to those who have a record of committing certain violent crimes, such as sexual assaults and child molestation (i.e. - stealing a pizza with violence would not get a person a ‘third strike’ and life imprisonment.)

A person who gets a ‘d.o.’ sentence is imprisoned indefinitely. Parliament enacted that sentencing provision about 15 years ago. The experience has demonstrated that very few of the d.o. prisoners ever make parole. I think that responds to the concerns some have expressed about recidivism in areas such as child molestation/assault, and the difficulty of rehabilitation, compared to other offences such as murder, where the rehabilitation rates vary much more widely with the individual.

14

That one sentence says it all, don’t it?

15

Beeblebrox’s post has given me the idea for the title for the sequel to “Unforgiven” – “Irredeemable.”

16

I can’t believe anyone would consider paroling any of the Manson Family. What they did, the murder of Sharon Tate, and her unborn child, as she begged for his life, and the murder of the La Biancas, is beyond comprehnsion. Yes, some of them have found religion, got married, had kids, whatever. Yes, it’s been 30 years. So what? Just 30 years for murder and torture? Bah.

My favorite sentences are two life sentences served sequentially. Plus one day. Just for fun.

17

These people should never, EVER draw a free breath. They should have been executed.
Who cares how pentitent they seem? Prison conversions should always be looked upon with extreme suspicion. Their victims are still dead. The victim’s families lives still missing their presence.

18

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

19

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

20

In Sweden lifers always get parole. I think the longest a lifer ever spent in jail was 26 years.
In Norway they don’t have life sentence. The maximum penalty is 28 years or something like that.

I’m not sure about the exact numbers, can’t be bothered to look it up.