No, they can never deserve release. I wouldn’t necessarily be morally opposed to compassionate release, but not because they deserve it.
A 20 year old murderer who kills someone while during an argument while drunk or while panicked during a robbery gone bad I can see someday meriting release, but the Manson family were convicted for stalking and committing the premeditated multiple murder of eight people in the most brtual fashion imaginable, for no reason that made any sense. If they jointly cured cancer tomorrow they couldn’t deserve release. That said, if they were very literally on their deathbeds and it would cost the state five or ten times the amount to care for them while incarcerated as it would to provide indigent care, I wouldn’t consider it a great moral outrage if they were released to go die somewhere more cheaply, although the wishes of the victims’ families would be of paramount importance, if not decisive. It’s all academic, though, because they’ll never be released, compassionate or otherwise. They committed arguably the most shocking and notorious mass murder of the 20th century and nobody nowhere nohow who has any say in the matter will ever, ever agree to their release.
Remember too that they did not commit one crime. They did the horrors two times, and might have done it more times if they had not been caught.
Good fucking night. How many times does a person have to do something unspeakably evil before society realizes the only solution is to put them to death or lock them up and throw away the key?
ETA: Tex Watson indeed. Why not Charles Manson himself?
I don’t care if they’re sorry. I don’t care if they’re different.
Like Pravnik said, these crimes were not youthful, impulsive “mistakes.” I can actually believe that a 17 year old gang banger who shoots somebody in a drive-by can grow up in prison and comprehend his mistake and change, but the Manson killings went far beyond immature, stupid decisions. They were premiditated, repeated and sadistic in a way that most people simply are not capable of, drugs or no drugs.
Hell, I did a lot of acid and it’s not something that will make you do anything you would ordinarily find morally repulsive. If anything,the moral repulsion is amplified. Some dirty freak handing me a knofe and telling me to go into a house and literally butcher innocent people would be a recipe for the worst trip of all time. I don’t believe for a second that it’s something anyone could do who wasn’t already evil.
I don’t know if there are any videos, but Watson had a jailhouse conversion too and now runs a prison ministry of some sort and has declared himself “forgiven by God.” It always bugs me when people like this (Son of Sam is another one) say that God has forgiven them, because God isn’t one of thir victims. God has no right to forgive them. Only their victims do. Declaring themselves forgiven by God seems to m to be a way of trying to put themselves above the judgement of other humans. To hell with that.
I see your point. I’m just wondering if they pose a real danger to anyone anymore. But agreed, what they did was way beyond the pale, and they were old enough to have known better.
Fair enough. Watson wrote a book about his crimes and declared himself a born again Christian, so I think only Manson remains unrepentant. In a twisted way, he might be the only honest one of the bunch.
I would be against releasing any of the Manson family on parole, or compassionate release where they’re still in relatively good health and aren’t going to die soon. However, in Susan Atkin’s case, her doctors say her condition is terminal (given six months to live in April 2008), she’s partly paralyzed and can’t sit upright without assistance, and her care in hospital is costing a fortune - including $300,000 alone for the security guard. In this particular case, I could possibly agree with “compassionate release” - not really because I feel compassion for her, but because it’s a waste of money. She is absolutely no danger to anyone in her current condition, she will die soon, and the cost of caring for her in a hospital after release would be way less than the cost of hospital care, imprisonment, and paying for a guard.
Certainly not exonerating her, but she was a minor at the time of the murders (14 at the time of her capture). This probably made a huge difference in the parole hearings.
No release. It’s like Sirhan Sirhan…why even bother applying for parole, dude? Some crimes are so heinous that barring a needle in the arm, the worst we can do is make you sit in a tiny little room to contemplate your crimes.
I agree the age probably made a difference, as well as the fact that the extent of her involvement was never really clear. It was the best i could come up with, though.
The only situation I can think of that is comparable to The Manson Family is Jonestown. The members gunned down Rep. Leo Ryan and some members of his entourage, but at least most of them had to courage to drink the poisoned Flavorade, sparing us all the mess of bringing them to trial.
Here again, some of the members begged Ryan to let them leave with him. They knew Jim Jones was evil and wanted no more to do with him.
In the thread about Susan Atkins, I and some others felt that the problem here is in the sentencing. If the jury had, at the time of the trial, sentenced her to life without possibility of parole, so be it. But they didn’t…they left that option open.
So that part is already decided. But why give the possibility of parole and then say there’s no possibility, realistically? The courts have to say what they mean and mean what they say IMO. It’s cruel, in a way, to let them think they might get out. If there is absolutely nothing they can do to show they’ve rehabilitated, felt remorse, etc. then the original sentence is a sham.
Should she be released? I don’t know…but she should have a fair chance at it because that’s what a jury decided years ago.
[Hijack]In a weird irony one of Ryan’s daughters, Shannon, sought comfort after her father’s death… by joining a cult (that of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh).[/Hijack]
