There’s been rumors for years that Manson still has followers. A lot of The Family weren’t directly involved in the killings and didn’t get arrested. Squeaky Fromme was on talk shows for years defending Manson before trying to kill Ford. She escaped once to try and see Manson. Squeaky is out of prison right now on parole.
There’s other female Family members out there too that may support Manson.
Try to imagine what a letter of support from Lynette Alice “Squeaky” Fromme would look like, and how much it would influence the parole board’s decision.
I meant supporting Manson’s crazy plans if he got paroled. The killing could start all over again.
Manson has never given up his crazy ideas and paranoia.
After all this time, it might be cruel and unusual punishment to let him out. Dude’s been institutionalized. Even before the murders, I believe, he spent significant amounts of time in prison.
Letting him out could almost be considered vengeful. I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea.
jus·tice
noun
I don’t see how you’re having such a hard time understanding such a simple concept. Manson was convicted of helping to murder several people in 1969. Did those people stop being dead in 1984? Did they stop being dead in 1989? No. They’re still dead so Manson should still be in prison.
There’s no reason to keep asking me the same question. This is my answer and I’m not going to come up with something different if you ask me a fourth or fifth time.
Is it then your opinion that all who kill should be in prison for life?
With respect, that is a ridiculous argument.People should be released from punishment if they demonstrate that they are fundamentally changed.
Many crimes have consequenses that last forever. It doesn’t mean that someone should be punished forever.
Suppose someone steals and destroys a unique work of art. It can never be replaced. It is gone forever. Should that person remain in prison forever?
“Did the artwork stop being destroyed in 1984? Did it stop being destroyed in 1989? No. It’s still destroyed, so the thief should still be in prison”
Makes as much sense as yours.
Note - I do in fact think Manson should remain in prison, but your argument is not a logically valid reason for it.
What about the safety of others? The fact that allowing Manson to go free would endanger a great many people?
I don’t want to make a blanket rule. But I think that most people who commit murder should be in prison for life.
Really? What happens if they experience this fundamental change after a week in prison? (Not at all unlikely - hearing that cell door close is probably a big wake-up call for many people.) According to your logic, they should be released.
I’m speculating that you don’t actually think that. Your actual position probably has some minimum prison time in it. Something like “fundamental change plus ten years”. In order to get out of prison after committing murder, you have to have a fundamental change. But only in your eleventh year or later. A fundamental change that happens in your ninth year is too soon.
This standard seems much more ridiculous than mine.
No, this doesn’t follow. The original crime wasn’t as great. Destroying a piece of property isn’t as big a crime as killing a human being so the magnitude of the punishment should be less.
I’m not arguing that Manson should go free. I don’t believe he should for that very reason.
Somehow I missed this response before I posted. I’ll leave it to Peter Morris to complain about moving the goal posts if he wishes and concentrate on the fact that other variables are involved in determining the magnitude of the crime. Given the arbitrary nature of your theory of punishment then essentially you believe in lifelong punishment for murderers because you feel that is what’s appropriate. Again not very convincing. I’m more comfortable relying on tangible considerations (deterrence and community safety) as guidelines.
It is arbitrary. I have a standard I feel applies. You have a different arbitrary standard that you feel applies. Neither of us can claim that our standard is based on some objective fact.
I’ve explained what I’ve based my standard on and shown that it’s reasonably consistent (at least as consistent as any other standard that’s been mentioned in this thread). It appears that the flaw that you feel exists is that my reasoning arrives at a different conclusion than yours. So be it.
I don’t feel I moved any goal posts. I stand by what I said. Peter asked about a different subject so I gave a different answer. But it’s the same principle. The magnitude of the punishment should be based on the magnitude of the crime.
Kidnapping a person isn’t as great a crime as murdering a person. Stealing a piece of property isn’t as great a crime as destroying a piece of property. A crime against property isn’t as great a crime as a crime against a person. You weigh these factors when you determine the magnitude of the appropriate punishment.
I seem to be doing a poor job of communicating in this thread. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with your reasoning. I understood that we were working from different assumptions and wouldn’t necessarily come to a final agreement. I was just examining your standard. Certainly my own standard isn’t perfect but it is more consistent. Punishment is for reasonable deterrence and once that has occurred prisoners should be released if it is safe to do so. There can be disagreement over how much deterrence or assurance of public safety is enough but I think those issues make more solid ground for arguments (because they are measurable) than arguing personal opinions about how much punishment is enough.
I hope that was clearer.
I’m afraid not. I have a hard time seeing how you feel your standard is more consistent. My standard is pretty consistent - you commit murder you go to prison for the rest of your life. Say what you will, it’s a clear objective standard.
Your standard, which is based on reasonable deterrence, seems a lot more variable. It’s hard to define how much punishment it would take to cause a person to renounce crime and the amount is going to vary from one individual to another. You’re going to be seeing a lot more subjective judgement calls in your system than in mine. And I don’t see how you can say these factors are measurable. If release is a result of demonstrating deterrence there’s an obvious incentive to fake a sense of deterrence.
There’s also a question of effectiveness. Even if we grant that imprisonment has a deterrent effect on criminals, the problem with your system is that it removes people from the prison once the deterrence point is reached. If it was the prison environment that was creating the deterrence, how do we know that deterrence will last once the subject is out of that environment? He was a criminal before, presumably due in part to the environment he was in “on the outside” and now you’ve placed him back in that environment. Isn’t there a likelihood that this environment will cause his sense of deterrence to fade away? If the outside pushes an individual towards crime and prison pushes that same individual away from crime, then isn’t prison the best environment for that individual?
Yes, he must. Well, that’s a good start.
And the moral superiority is that we don’t go around hurting anyone that doesn’t hurt us first. Don’t want to be disemboweled? Then don’t disembowel.
Unless we’re convinced they are about to do it, or convict the wrong guy, or decide they’re the person allowed to disembowel someone, and … well, we hardly ever disembowel someone who hasn’t disemboweled someone else, and that’s all the moral superiority I need.
For that one crime, perhaps. But what about all the others? How is the magnitude of the crimes of rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, and the like determined? This is what I said when disagreement would be based on personal opinions. Also there would be disagreement over your standard based on their opinions of the magnitude of the crime of murder. Many people I expect would object to seeing the same sentence handed down to a murderer of innocent children and the father who in a rage kills said murderer.
My point in introducing that scenario was to illustrate that we have scruples about torturing criminals even if they are torturers themselves.
I don’t know what to say in response to this.