Should Charles Manson be released?

[Scumpup]

Fuck him. No.

[Steken]

@ZPG_Zealot

I have always saw Charlie as more of a Facebook guy.

No no no no no, Charlie is indeed a cell phone kind of guy.

[BobLibDem]

Of course not. I don’t care if he’s too weak to feed himself, there are probably a few nuts out there that would join his cult in a heartbeat.

[Guinastasia]

@Mr.Excellent

That’s one option. But the point of our parole system is that we don’t necessarily believe that the only appropriate punishment is lifelong incarceration; we check now and then to see whether a given prisoner has been punished appropriately - whether they’ve been rehabilitated, deterred from further offending, and so on. It seems appropriate to weight these questions here, just as in any other case. /shrugs/ And, as mentioned, I’m not convinced Manson still poses a danger to society.

In a case like Manson’s, it IS the appropriate punishment. And if you think he’s “rehabilitated”, just watch one of his parole hearings. That’ll change your mind in a hurry.

Incarceration for life with the possibility of parole does seem to suggest the possibility that the prisoner might have, in fact, paid his debt before completing a life sentence. Of course, it would be inappropriate to release him if he is still dangerous - do we have evidence of this? (The brutality and evil of the Tate-LaBianca murders, while horrible, are not really evidence that Manson is still dangerous today).

Who cares if whether or not he’s still dangerous? He hasn’t “paid his debt to society”. He earned life in prison. Try reading Helter Skelter and THEN come back and tell us that there’s no evidence he doesn’t deserve what he got.

My own view is that it’s nearly always inappropriate to have geriatric patients in prison; it’s so hard for old people to pose a danger to others (though it isn’t impossible, of course) that release is nearly always appropriate. And also economical - consider the staggering costs of end-of-life care for the elderly.

Being old doesn’t make a person automatically a good person. Old people can be slime. Old people can be sociopaths. Let him rot.

And finally, I DON’T GIVE A SHIT IF HE’S A DANGER TO SOCIETY OR NOT!!! He’s not just in there to be “rehabilitated”, or to keep the rest of us safe – he’s in there because he committed an extremely heinous crime, and he’s earned his punishment. It’s the “penal system”, not the “safety system”.
I don’t care if he’s 100 years old – fuck him.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Guinastasia

I don’t care if he’s 100 years old – fuck him.

No, u.

[Typo_Negative]

I don’t think absence of a “terribly compelling argument against parole” is where we need to set the bar. I would prefer a “terribly compelling argument FOR parole”.

[Shodan]

@Mr.Excellent

Well, his health has likely declined…

If they’d carried out the sentence he deserved, his health would have declined a hell of a lot faster a good while ago. And we could have saved ourselves a good deal of trouble.

Regards,
Shodan

[Frank]

@Mr.Excellent

Even if Manson is still an evil bastard, what the hell is he going to do about it?

I believe his risk to society is still great. There are still some of his groupies that support him.

Above, in reply to pkbites, you said, “…we check now and then to see whether a given prisoner has been punished appropriately - whether they’ve been rehabilitated, deterred from further offending, and so on…”
Sure, we do check. Evidence indicates that he has not been rehabilitated nor deterred. The mere fact that he’s 77 years old does not make him incapable of further offenses.

[Sitnam]

If you were on the parole board would you bet your career a free Chuck Manson wouldn’t do anything crazy?

[Baker]

Heck yes, release him. Just let the relatives of the victims know when and where. And just shove him out the door without a protective escort.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Frank

I believe his risk to society is still great. There are still some of his groupies that support him.

Above, in reply to pkbites, you said, “…we check now and then to see whether a given prisoner has been punished appropriately - whether they’ve been rehabilitated, deterred from further offending, and so on…”
Sure, we do check. Evidence indicates that he has not been rehabilitated nor deterred. The mere fact that he’s 77 years old does not make him incapable of further offenses.

Fair enough. And for what it’s worth, the Holocaust museum shooter back in 2009 was 89 years old.

[Anduril]

Your question takes into account rehabilitation and the unlikelihood of recedivism but completely ignores retribution. From the standpoint of retribution, he shouldn’t be let out at all. He should rot in jail for the rest of his life. Even that is not enough retribution for what he did.

[Eve]

@ZPG_Zealot

I have always saw Charlie as more of a Facebook guy.

Charlie Don’t Surf the Internet.

[Alessan]

@Frank

I believe his risk to society is still great. There are still some of his groupies that support him.
.

And he probably has plenty of new groupies to fill the ranks. The man’s a celebrity. He’ll be swamped by followers the moment he steps out of prison.

[Satchmo]

@Mr.Excellent

My own view is that it’s nearly always inappropriate to have geriatric patients in prison; it’s so hard for old people to pose a danger to others (though it isn’t impossible, of course) that release is nearly always appropriate. And also economical - consider the staggering costs of end-of-life care for the elderly.

I think it’s pretty obvious that whether he stays in prison or is released, the taxpayers will be paying for all of Manson’s end of life care. What? You think he’s going to get a job? Going to contribute to society?

I say leave him where he is.

[Czarcasm]

Is there even a debate to be had here? I’m not seeing any organized groups clamoring for his release, and he certainly isn’t cooperating in the process. I suppose this might be worthy of an IMHO poll, albeit a rather lopsided one.

[Guinastasia]

@Baker

Heck yes, release him. Just let the relatives of the victims know when and where. And just shove him out the door without a protective escort.

Now THIS, I like.
I’m largely against the death penalty except in the most extreme cases (Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, etc). I’d put Charles Manson on that extreme list. At the very least, I wouldn’t shed any tears.

[Wheelz]

@Mr.Excellent

My own view is that it’s nearly always inappropriate to have geriatric patients in prison; it’s so hard for old people to pose a danger to others (though it isn’t impossible, of course) that release is nearly always appropriate. And also economical - consider the staggering costs of end-of-life care for the elderly.

I don’t agree that it’s difficult for an old man to pose a threat to others if he’s so inclined. Many crimes, including those Manson committed, have nothing at all to do with physical strength. Besides, this is only one part of the issue. Parole should be reserved for those who are truly remorseful, and who are deemed by professionals to be ready, willing, and able to function in society. Manson certainly doesn’t qualify.

I hold the view that prison is (and should be) as much about punishment as it is about rehabilitation. If the offense was heinous enough, then yes, it’s entirely appropriate to let some inmates die of old age in prison.

[The_Hamster_King]

Parole is warranted if a prisoner can make a convincing case that they’ve changed in prison and are capable of living a productive and law-abiding life on the outside. Manson is the same unapologetic fucked-up psycho he was 40 years ago, so, given the heinous nature of his crimes, I don’t see any reason he should ever be set free.

[XT]

I think the humane thing to do if we are planning to release him is to take him into the Mariana Trench (to make it sporting, let’s say half way to the bottom), then open a hatch and ‘release’ him, along with a small zip lock baggie full of air…and maybe a sandwich. Everything else would be up to him. He’s a smart guy (according to his own assessment), I’m sure he could think of something…

-XT