I’ve been reading of the Manson Family women and their crimes and it really got me thinking.
At the time of their crimes (Family Crimes, halfway down), there is no doubt that these women were amoral, frighteningly dangerous and, well, bat-shit crazy: warp factor nine.
Is this truly the case or are they projecting sophisticated facades? Is there any level of moral transformation and personal betterment that might warrant release or must we absolutely, on principle, maintain their imprisonment?
Also, to what level and for how long must we hold them responsible for their actions considering their ostensible impressionability and vulnerability at the time? How much of it was Manson’s fault?
Sucks to be them. They should rot in prison until they are dead, dead, dead. Repentance doesn’t cut it a bit. This is prison, not the Catholic Church. There is no forgiveness here. Manson is irrelevant. They were functioning, sane adults. If they fell under Charlie’s spell, that’s just too bad for them. They gave no mercy to Sharon Tate; they should get none from the State of California.
No. I don’t believe that sociopaths can be “transformed” (even though they can be very good at faking it), but even if the were transformed and repentant, I still don’t give a crap. Of what use is their repentance to their victims? They need to die in prison. I don’t even like it that they’re allowed to marry and have websites.
I definitely agree with this. Sociopaths are manipulative people by nature. It’s far more plausible that they’re faking their “reformed innocent Christian” bit to try to get out of prison than it is likely that prison actually “cured” them of their pathological lack of compassion or remorse. I mean come on, if you were sitting in a prison cell all day, what else IS there to do but sit around trying to think of how to convince people to let you out?
I also notice that people seem to have a hard time accepting the fact that women are capable of crimes like murder. Not all women are sweet innocent nurturers. Some are just as vicious and cold-hearted as any man. Those girls chose to kill. If they really had a conscience, they could have tried to stop the murders the way that Linda Kasabian apparently tried to.
Another “let them rot in prison until they die” vote, with a reason that not everyone will share:
I am morally opposed to the death penalty. But if there is no death penalty, you must have “life in prison without possibility of parole” on your menu choice of punishments, and you have to enforce it. Letting these women out would suggest that we may not necessarily mean it when we say we will throw the perpetrators of revolting crimes in prison forever. And that might serve as a legitimate basis for a pro-death penalty argument.
Their victim was robbed of a moral and fulfilling life. The only meaningful punishment we can give them is exactly that, and its unlikely we’ll achieve it. If do though, great!
I say NO as well for all the reasons mentioned in the recent Susan Atkins thread. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I honestly don’t believe most people have it in them to do the crimes these women committed for no reason, and “Gosh I was young and messed up but gee I’m sorry now” doesn’t cut it. If they’ve turned their lives around good, if it’s sincere they should know where they need to be.
Another reason I say no is conjecture as to what would happen if they were paroled. Suppose that Van Houten or Krenwinkel were to be released: when they entered prison they were 20 (or thereabouts), now they’re 60, not exactly an age to be entering the workplace for the first time (even if they are college graduates courtesy of taxpayers). There’s no way they’d ever be employable anyway (“so c’mon down to Skipper’s House of Veal and shake hands with the hand that held down Leno Labianca!”) and they’d live the rest of their life on welfare in a bad area of a world that has just completely passed them by- almost cruel to release them into it, though that doesn’t concern me. I can see either of them having a major problem with stalkers or curiosity seekers, including worshipful losers like they once were who’d probably give them an acceptance and respect they craved, and while I doubt they’d kill again I seriously doubt they’d pass up the chance to be worshiped by scummy lowlifes.
Of course that’s conjecture and slippery-slopish (as opposed to creepy crawly) at that, but the main reason has to do with the fact they slaughtered innocent people in cold blood for no reason, mutilated the corpses, and then giggled about it in the courtroom (long after they were under direct control of Manson or Watson). Good on them if they’ve turned their lives around in prison, but to paraphrase Chris Rock “What you want? A cookie? You’re not supposed to go to prison for killing people in the first place!”
I don’t think they’d end up on welfare, I think they’d do the celebrity circuit. Each and every talkshow host would have them in front of the cameras - repenting for cash - until the book deals come through and set them up financially for the rest of their free lives.
As I mentioned in the other thread, the crimes were horrific and there is no way they can ever repay their debt. The best penalty would be death, the only other option should be life in prison.
So we’re pretty much agreed that drugged up 20-year-old girls living in a time of major social upheaval and under the influence of a charismatic but evil leader can never grow up and learn from their mistakes?
Are you the same person now that you were at 20?
(Not that I have an opinion one way or the other, I’m just asking if you think that growing up is never possible.)
No, I’m not the same person I was when I was twenty. But I did not kill anyone when I was twenty.
I always compare the Manson Family women to Patty Hearst. Hearst was forced to join the SLA, never killed anyone for them, and couldn’t denounce them fast enough once she was free of them.
The Manson Family women went voluntarily, commited a horrible murder that put the whole city of LA into absolute fear, and supported Charlie for years. That only stopped when they realize they might maybe get out of jail by denouncing him.
Sincere repentance would imply the willingness to accept the established punishment for the wrongdoing one has committed. The fact that they’re trying to use a claim of sincere repentance as a method of escaping the established punishment for the wrongdoing they have committed makes me doubt the sincerity of their repentance.
One of the glorious things about being an adult (as these women were at the time they committed their crimes) is being able to make decisions purely at one’s own discretion. On the other side of that coin is that one must also take responsibility for the consequences of one’s decisions. Manson is at fault for what he did, but the women are at fault for what they did.