How ironic that the man who’d have spared his life is the one he killed.
When the victims can once again enjoy life, then so can Atkins and the rest. Until then, rot in prison.
“Look up ‘thinking logically about serious issues’.” :rolleyes:
If the prisoner is being denied parole on the basis of the nature of his crime then it is not possible for him to be paroled.
-FrL-
Actually, I’d never thought of that, because he wouldn’t have killed anyone. Course, thats probably not how he meant it.
But as for the Family, they were dangerous to all, and may still be.
Did someone finally rule on this case.
(Yeah, I could Google it myself, but what are the odds of that happening?)
Too bad. Some people commit such serious crimes that they should be locked away forever to protect society.
If Atkins is released, why shouldn’t we release the other Manson members, and even Manson himself?
I agree, and that is why most, if not all states have enacted a penalty of life without a possibility of parole. Such a penalty wasn’t enacted in California in 1969 when her crime was committed, so it is NOT A POSSIBLE PENALTY for Susan Atkins, or Sirhan Sirhan for that matter.
Because Manson continues to believe that he was right, shows no remorse, has had discipline problems in prison, and other things which make him an unsuitable candidate for parole. Other members, such as Leslie Van Houten, have an excellent argument for parole…
I couldn’t find this when I googled but I recall seeing a photo in a magazine (probably Life in the 1980s) of a Nazi war criminal who was in prison. IIRC they were saying he was terminal, had six months to live or something, and some were arguing he should be released.
In some ways it’s a good parallel—mass murderer for mass murderer. In another way, it isn’t: I’m more bothered by someone like Susan Atkins, who did the deed with her own hands, than someone who signed a paper ordering others to do it. But then, there’s the matter of numbers. Killing X people with your own hands is “worth” signing a paper condemning how many?
Anyway I wish I knew what they’d decided about said war criminal. If they released him, it might be an interesting comparison/matter for comparison and debate.
Okay… so… like I said, you are endorsing the view that he should do more than “the time” for “the crime” he committed, despite your own citation of that slogan.
See previous comment.
-FrL-
I think you’re oversimplifying the issue here. I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that the possibility of parole means that you get to go before a parole board. It does not mean that the board is obligated in any way to release you. There’s no guarantee that you’ll get out if you do x, y, or z. Otherwise it would be a certainty instead of a possibility, wouldn’t it?
If you can give me a legal cite or precedent that’s relevant, I’ll be happy to reverse my opinion, but until then, I think that Ms. Atkins has the possibility of parole in the same way I have the possibility to be president. There’s nothing stopping me from running for president, in the same way there’s nothing preventing Ms. Atkins from sitting in front of a parole board. The fact that neither of us have a chance in hell doesn’t even enter into it. Right to parole deals only with the opportunity. It has jack to do with the odds.
Once again, I could be wrong, but you’ll have to do better than your individual interpretation of the law. Until then, let her stew behind bars. Now matter where she kicks or how bad her death is, it’s loads better than the death she brought to her victims. I’m more than happy knowing she’s right where she is.
I don’t know the legalities of it, I’m just taking the phrase “with the possibility of parole” for what it says in English. If there is no possibility of parole, then the sentence isn’t being carried out correctly.
I didn’t say the board is obligated to release you. I said they are obligated to make things such that it is possible for you to be paroled. But if they are taking the severity of your crime into account, saying they will not parole you because of it, they are making it not possible for you to be paroled. For the severity of your crime is a constant–it’s not like it’s going to have been less severe next time you go up.
-FrL-
No, but you could have a parole panel made up of different members the next time around, and they might feel that the crime was not severe enough to deny you parole after serving X years imprisonment.
But the parole board now is making it impossible to be paroled now if it is basing its decision on the severity of the crime. You’re right that this is compatible with the possibility that he be paroled later, but it doesn’t make sense to have a parole hearing now unless it’s supposed to be possible now for the prisoner to be paroled.
-FrL-
Well, you’re not going to know what the current parole board is going to decide, until they actually hold the hearing, and make a decision. (Barring, of course, public statements made prior to the hearing by the board members that they will never grant parole to the applicant.)
Isn’t it possible that even if the parole board is made up of the very same members as it was last time, they may change their minds and grant parole? They may all be in an exceptionally good mood this year (say, because Obama wins the election 
), and decide to be lenient and merciful.
If the sentence is “Life with the possibility of parole”, the default is not “Parole”. It’s “Life”. Therefore, if the parole board wants to keep someone in prison until the day they die, if they want to go through the charade of having a hearing every year, they are well within their rights to do so. You’re thinking that “possibility” should equal “certainty”. That’s just not so. There’s a possibility that you’ll win the lottery tomorrow, that is by no means a certainty.
Given a “Life” sentence, it’s not possible to do more time for a crime. You’re already doing the maximum time unless they feel like letting you out.
As Doors has pointed out, possible != certain. What you’re not grasping here is that what you’re proposing is a right to certain unconditional parole if you complete a certain tasklist and, presumably, do a specific amount of time, although you don’t even specify the latter condition in your scenario.
Look, suppose Atkins completed all the rehab and education and lived as a model prisoner, jumping through all the hoops 30 years ago. Under the scenario you’ve laid out, what would have prevented her from being paroled in 1978? Or 1972, the date of her first parole hearing, for that matter? Why would it have been inappropriate to grant her parole then but not now? A life sentence with the possibility of parole includes the possibility of a life sentence, and I don’t think the possibility of parole means what you think it means.
Parole is a privilege, not a right, and it is entirely up to the members of the parole board. They have decided not to grant her parole based upon the severity of the crime, and everything I’ve read supports their right to do that, and I’m happy with the decision. Again, if you’ve got the legal cites and precedents that support you’re opinion, please post them. Otherwise, it’s just opinion. One which I–and probably the law–disagree with rather strongly.
I agree with Frylock. If you are going to deny someone parole SOLELY because of the severity of the crime, then you have, in my opinion, increased the penalty of that crime to life without parole unlawfully.
Implicit in the word “possibility” of parole is the idea that parole will be carefully considered under a fair set of guidelines. Not “possibility” as in half a chance in hell. Not as in it is possible the Earth could crash into the Sun tomorrow.
Isn’t it plausible to weigh the potential risk to society, and not just the prison performance of the convict? All else being equal, Atkins should have a better shot now than in 1972 or 1978 because with brain cancer, one leg, and sixty years on her, the amount of harm she can do to society is somewhat reduced.
I’ll repeat my request as often as I have to: Would you please provide a legal cite or precedent that shows this is unlawful in any way?
And I’ll also repeat that I consider the severity of the crime to be a perfectly fair guideline in deciding parole. The law, as far as I can see, agrees with me. A half a chance in hell is still a possibility, which is why I probably wouldn’t be able to sue whoever when I get trounced in the 2012 primaries. However you spin it, you are still taking a possibility and trying to turn it into a certainty.
Manson goes in front of the parole board regularly. He was refused 10 times. No parole board will ever let him out. Theoretically he could be released.