chapman is kept in prison , as he should be-my question is when they parole murderers, rapists, and child molesters every day somewhere in the US who go on to commit more crimes, why don’t the victims (or survivers of the victims) sue the crap out of the state that released theses monsters? is it legal to sue, because i never hear about it-
can parole boards be fired for their incompetence and be held accountable?
and finally, how CAN they legally keep chapman and sirhan sirhan and the manson killers in prison if they are up for parole and the only difference between them and other killers is that they murdered famous people?
They can’t be sued because the right to be paroled is part of the prisoner’s sentence. Granting them parole is not doing anything negligent; it’s one of the few rights that prisoners have. (Well, they have the right to a parole hearing, not parole, if that’s part of their sentence. Some really awful murderers are not given any chance at parole.)
State parole boards are usually accountable to the legislature. If a prisoner has proven that he is no longer a threat to society based upon his actions in prison, then he may be paroled. I doubt Manson falls into this category. It has nothing to do with whether their victim was famous or not.
I’ll take on the Parole question first.
Parole is a “conditional release from incarceration”. when a person is sentenced to a variable term in prison (3 to 15 years), they are LEGALLY eligible for parole at the 3 year point (in general, YMMV), but the parole not guarenteed.
That’s why there is a “parole board” they review the case, the sentence, the sentencing judges’ comments (if any), the victim impact statements (if any), in-prison recommondations (from counselors and the sort, if any) and the prisoner’s prison record. then they make their decision.
So, ANY prisoner, at least on paper, COULD be paroled at their minimum but it is NOT required.
Most states and governments have a “hold harmless” provision to allow the state to not be sued for doing their job. I suspect (and some one may find out differently) that may be why parole boards are not, in general sued.
Parole Board held accountable? you bet- in my home state of Michigan. Pretty much the entire Parole Board was replaced after a particulary hienous case, and the new parole board has taken a much harsher stance, (from my end of the spectrum, meeting folks who’ve just been released, hardly ANYONE gets paroled on their first eligible date. and for those of you who say “good”, well, this also means that we’re keeping folks in prison longer at a rate of about $80 per day, when it may not be necessary).
I don’t think the OP was referring to Charlie Manson himself, who thus far deserves to remain behind bars, but Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, et al, who seem to be doing rather well from waht I’ve seen. And what about Sirhan Sirhan?
Can’t states invoke sovereign immunity?
Mostly I want to say here that my name IRL is David Chapman and I sometimes get called Mark by people who want to offend me.
As far as the OP goes, it’s like the guilty until proven innocent thing. The killer has rights too. I’d like to see convicted criminal’s rights given a lower priority than they are currently given, but I wouldn’t like to see them ignored. It’s a fine line between clever and stupid.
Re the OP
What gives you the idea that most other murderers are paroled at the initial hearing? Sure, most will be paroled ( or conditionally released- not exactly the same in NY-there’s no discretion with a conditional release) eventually, but so will Chapman.Chapman just became eligible for consideration now, and it’s a rare violent felon who’s paroled at the initial hearing ( might happen if there are mitigating circumstances )rather than being told to reapply in 2 years as Chapman was.Members of the parole board can’t be sued and neither can the State unless they do something absolutely mind boggling ( like parole someone who tells them he’s going to continue to commit crimes). They don’t generally do that, nor do they have crystal balls to accurately predict the future.
Did he get to keep the autograph?
just lately I saw something on TV that indicated someone else found the album (it actually fell off a ledge or something near the crime scene as the crowd gathered around the scene). The album was used as evidence and he requested it back years after the trial, eventually getting it (Please don’t ask for a cite, I think it was the History CHannel).
I thought Manson’s parole was regularly reviewed, and rejected. Is that not true?