Except that each time he appears, it’s obvious to all what a freakoid he still is. Does anyone remember that nephew of Jimmy Carter who was in prison for armed robbery? He was interviewed a lot when he got out. Seems he was in a cell next to or near Manson’s and managed to befriend him, I think by repairing some small appliance of his. So the nephew got to listen to Manson a lot and said society had better hope they never let that man out.
Oh, and put me down squarely in the “Let Susan Atkins rot” category.
Actually, parole boards are often instructed that they should take the severity of the crime into account in just the way that they often do. Rule 5120:1-1-07 - Ohio Administrative Code | Ohio Laws. My point is not the kind of legal point you are looking for, but rather, that this makes a mockery of the notion of “the possibility of parole” in these cases. It’s like calling the administrative department in charge of war the “Ministry of Peace” or the propaganda department the “Ministry of Truth.”
I don’t know why you’re hanging on to this notion. It’s been explained a couple of times to you that this simply isn’t true. Taking the severity of crimes into account means just that: Taking the severity of crimes into account. It does not mean that you must decline parole if the crimes are gruesome enough, and it doesn’t mean that if you grant parole after considering the severity of the crimes that this parole isn’t valid. It’s just that the parole board is allowed to consider just how badly the prisoner screwed up. And Atkins screwed up plenty.
As has been mentioned before, someday, Atkins might sit in front of a parole board that decides she’s ready to be paroled, multiple murder be damned. The fact that it’s not likely to happen anytime soon doesn’t even factor in; It’s a possibility, even if it isn’t a probability. What part of any of this do you have trouble understanding?
No, it’s like following the law just like it’s written down whether or not you personally agree with it. If anything is Orwellian, it’s your attempt to take the word “possibility” and change the basic meaning.
Nitpick about Sirhan Sirhan: suppose he had shot but NOT killed RFK. If RFK were wounded but recovered…RFK would be both a victim and a person able to speak on Sirhan Sirhan’s behalf. Not saying he would—just pointing out a possibility.
People recognize that justice is supposed to afford a criminal a fair trial. E.g. lawyers will dismiss prospective jurors who have seen things about the crime on TV or read about it in the newspaper because we aren’t supposed to try a suspect in the media, it’s potentially prejudicial, etc. and we’re supposed innocent until proven guilty.
Of course Atkins et al have already been convicted by a judge or jury so now it’s a question of parole. If I’m on that parole board, am I going to turn her loose and possibly set myself up as the guy who let her loose if she decides to murder again? The crimes were about as high profile as they come and the mere possibility of parole hasn’t gone unnoticed.
It seems the question of whether she has been rehabilitated is a “guilty until proven innocent” thing and maybe that’s as it should be or maybe not. But in the vein of “Is she REALLY eligible for parole, as the state says, or is that just nice words with no meaning behind them?” it’s relevant. The state isn’t supposed to make hollow promises—that doesn’t mean she has to be paroled, but it does mean she needs a fair shot at it rather than a slam dunk “no fucking way, we already decided that almost 40 years ago.”
I had a psych prof who said more than once that the insanity defense, even if successful, is like shooting yourself in the foot. If you don’t try to use the insanity defense, you might get ten years in prison and then be released. But if you’re innocent by reason of insanity, what psych hospital is going to say, “He’s got that goat’s head killer thing all behind him now, so we’re turning him loose.”?
At what point is the past so prejudicial to the present decision that the possibility of parole is out of the question? I don’t know, but I think the courts need to say what they mean and mean what they say. If they left open the possibility of parole, they need to honor that possibility in good faith.
This particular point (the one I emphasized) hasn’t been “explained to me a couple of times.” It hasn’t even been brought up. Also, if I’m understanding your meaning correctly, it is false.
If a parole board is allowed to deny parole because of the severity of the crime, and does so, then if the parole board is going to act consistently from hearing to hearing, then the next time the prisoner comes up for parole, he should be denied parole again. If the parole board denies parole because of the severity of the crime one year, and then the next year allows parole despite the severity of the crime, (all other considerations being equal,) then that is capricious and inconsistent.
Again, in other words.
If severity of the crime *can* be taken into account, then:
if it *is* taken into account in one prisoner's case in one year, then:
if the board is to act non-capriciously and consistently, then:
it indeed *must* deny that prisoner parole at each subsequent hearing.
endif
endif
endif
That was in respnse to my
“What part of any of that do you have trouble understanding?”
You said that I’m committed to the view that once a prisoner complies with a certain set of explicit conditions, a sort of “checklist” of requirements, then the prisoner should be guaranteed parole.
In response, I pointed out tha what I’ve said in this thread is compatible with a parole system which decides parole based on the flip of a coin. Obviously such a system would not guarantee any prisoner parole, ever. Hence, I am not committed to the view that prisoners should be guaranteed parole under any circumstances. Another system that would be compatible with what I’ve said in this thread would be one that has such a checklist, but once the prisoner fulfills it, he is not guaranteed parole but rather is only guaranteed the opportunity to call heads or tails on a coin flip, and is only released if he gets it right. No guarantee of release, but nothing I’ve said rules such a system out.
Of course I’d never endorse such a system, to be clear. I’m just pointing out that nothing I’ve said rules out such a system. And since such a system does not guarantee that any prisoner is ever paroled, you are wrong to think I am committed to any system that guarantees parole to anyone.
In my previous post, the “code” portion has a poorly worded bit. Let me redo from start:
If severity of the crime can be taken into account, then:
if a prisoner is denied parole because of the severity of the crime in one year, then:
if the board is to act non-capriciously and consistently, then:
it indeed must deny that prisoner parole at each subsequent hearing.
endif
endif
endif
That should all be read under an “all other things being equal” umbrella, i.e., the severity of the crime should be understood as the only free variable. That’s artificial, of course, but I’m just making a point about the logic of the situation so that’s okay.
Arthur Bremer shot George Wallace who survived. Bremer served 35 years prior to being released last November. Wallace was alive at his first parole hearings, but I’m not sure if he testified either way. (Bremer remained incarcerated because he was outspokenly unremorseful as late as the 1990s and by all accounts [including that of a student where I work who was once his cellmate] he’s barking mad, but apparently he’s “much better now”.)
If it were Leslie Van Houten, who seems truly remorseful, then I might feel differently about a compassionate release due to terminal illness. In all of the clips of Susan Atkins however (there are several on YouTube) even when she’s expressing remorse it’s all about her; she talks about how her actions and Manson destroyed her life, and seems almost belligerant in talking about "there’s nothing I can do to atone… " but “I’m no longer a danger”, etc…
I might be wrong but I just honestly can’t imagine doing what she did even when on drugs and under the spell of a charismatic madman. I’d have killed myself first, or kill the other murderers. The same goes for Van Houten of course, but she at least didn’t laugh at Tate’s mother or boast of how sexually gratifying the stabbing was.
One of the freakiest things on the Internet is a review of the HELTER SKELTER remake by the Reverend Charles “Tex” Watson on his web site. http://www.aboundinglove.org/sensational/sen-006.php
But again, he’s “much better now”.
First of all, the severity of the crime in this case is not a free variable. I’m having trouble picturing a parole board looking at what Atkins did and saying it was anything less that “pretty fucking severe.” What’s open to variation is how the parole board views that severity balanced against the other factors. It’s not even really an equation as much as it is a spreadsheet with “Reasons to let her go” on one side and “Reasons to let her rot” on another.
This only makes sense if the parole board consists of the same members year after year after year, and if none of the members are allowed to change their minds ever under any circumstances, and if they cannot even consider mitigating circumstances that might or might not crop up. In other words, it doesn’t make sense.
Capricious? Inconsistent? I don’t think so, but even if it were, that’s how we set it up!! One year the parole board might consist of people who agree with me. The next year, it might consist of people who agree with you. If two different boards rule differently, how is that capricious?
Again, in other words.
If severity of the crime *can* be taken into account, then:
if it *is* taken into account in one prisoner's case in one year, then:
if the board is to act non-capriciously and consistently, then:
it indeed *must* deny that prisoner parole at each subsequent hearing.
endif
endif
endif
?FATAL LOGIC ERROR LINE 4: INCORRECT SYNTAX “MUST”
No “must” about it. It’s up to the parole board. You can substitute “should,” if you really want to, but you can’t play fast and loose with the definition of “must” any more than you can with the definition of “possibility.”
You say you would never endorse that method, but in the very next sentence, you say that nothing you’ve said rules it out. Speaking of inconsistent and capricious . . .
What you’ve typed forms a strong argument against your point of view. Flipping a coin? Could we at least make it a 20-side die? You’re talking probability, not possibility. It’s actually worse than a guarantee. This is America, not Bartertown.
Yeah, that’s the one…in Spandau, now I remember. Thanks!
Hess was nutty before the whole Nazi thing anyway, IIRC.
In the early 1970s, the U.S., British and French governments had approached the Soviet government to propose that Hess be released on humanitarian grounds due to his age. The Soviet official response was apparently to reject these attempts and reportedly “refused to consider any reduction in Hess’s life sentence.”[11] U.S. President Richard Nixon was in favor of releasing Hess and stated that the U.S., Britain, and France should continue to entreat the Soviet Union for his release.
I posted upthread,
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?
But the wikipedia article says:
He was declared guilty of “crimes against peace” (“planning and preparation of aggressive war”) and “conspiracy” with other German leaders to commit crimes. Hess was found not guilty of “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity.”
He wasn’t as villainous as the rest…he didn’t have the power or influence they did.
I meant the “free variable” to be the value of the following measurement: “Whether the parole board bases its decision on the severity of the crime or not.”
What I am doing in this conversation is arguing that “how we set it up” is a bad way to set things up.
You do not understand what “must” means, then, I take it.
There is a sense of the word “must” which means basically exactly the same thing as a particular sense of the word “should.” Both “must” and “should” can be (and very normally are) used to mean “according to such-and-such standard, it is required that…” In other words, “X should Y” and “X must Y” can both be (and very normally are) used to mean “According to the standard that holds in the present context, X is required to Y.”
“You should help the old lady” can very normally be used to mean “Standards of decency require you to help the old lady.” Similarly, “You must help the old lady” can also very normally be used to mean “Standards of decency require you to help the old lady.” Granted, the force, the connotation, of “should” usually lighter than that of “must” but that does not necessarily equate to a difference in meaning. If you should help the old lady, then standards of decency require that you help the old lady. If you should help her, then according to those standard, you must help her. If you don’t help her, you are falling short of those standards. You’re not doing what, according to those standards, you must. You’re not doing what, according to those standards, you should.
Should and must share this particular sense, then, though of course each word has other senses not shared by the other.
What I said is correct. Standards of consistency require that the parole board deny the prisoner parole at each subsequent hearing, if in one hearing they have denied the prisoner parole based on the severity of his crime. If they deny it on this basis once, then to be consistent, they should keep denying it. To be consistent, they must deny it–because if they don’t continue to deny it, they are not being consistent.
You don’t understand what compatibility means, or how “ruling things out” works. “What X says is compatible with Y” does not imply “X endorses Y.” For example, you have said nothing in this thread to rule out the view that rocks are edible, yet of course you don’t endorse that view. Similarly, I have said nothing that rules out the view that parole should be decided by coin flips, though I don’t in fact endorse that view. To reiterate, the point here is that since what I’ve said is compatible with parole-by-coin-flip, it follows that I have not proposed (as you claimed) that prisoners should be guaranteed parole after fulfilling a checklist of requirements. There is nothing I have said in this thread which implies that any prisoner should be guaranteed parole, ever.
You’re not even following the basic structure of this conversation. I’ll not refuse to respond further, but I will strongly suggest that if there is anyone reading this thread who finds my own view cogent, it would be a great favor if you could explain what I am saying in terms other than my own, as the way I am putting it seems to be confusing Linty Fresh at least for the moment.
Actually, I think I understand you just fine. The problem is that you’re wrong, and you don’t know the law.
Your argument is as follows:
The parole board should not pay attention to the severity of the crime when deciding whether to parole or not. Nonsense, it’s a perfectly valid consideration, and indeed the parole board is urged to take it into account.
If the parole board takes the severity of the crime into account one year and denies parole and then takes the severity of the crime into account another year and grants it, this is inconsistent and capricious. Nonsense again. The parole board is free to consider other factors such as her risk to society and her behavior in prison. If it decides that this year the severity of the crime is outweighed by the other factors, they grant parole. If not, they don’t. The severity of the crime is just one factor they take into account, and there’s nothing inconsistent or inappropriate about it.
Standards of consistency require that the parole board deny the prisoner parole at each subsequent hearing, if in one hearing they have denied the prisoner parole based on the severity of his crime. This goes beyond nonsense. This is bullshit. There are no standards of consistency in this sense. You’re making this up.
Should and must share meanings. No they don’t. “Must” means you don’t have a choice. “Should” means you do. Even if the parole board should reject parole to be consistent, it doesn’t follow they must. Again, this hypothetical doesn’t hold up.
You don’t understand what compatibility means, or how “ruling things out” works. “What X says is compatible with Y” does not imply “X endorses Y.” For example, you have said nothing in this thread to rule out the view that rocks are edible, yet of course you don’t endorse that view. Similarly, I have said nothing that rules out the view that parole should be decided by coin flips, though I don’t in fact endorse that view. OK, you got me. I really don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about here.
In short, Frylock, if we ignore your hold coin-flipping and endorsement thing (I really don’t know where you were going with that.), you’ve expressed your views well enough for me to get the gist. The problem is that you’re wrong. You’ve based your view that we should change the system on faulty logic.
By your standards, Frylock, someone who ran a child brothel for twenty years, buying newborn children and raising them to be prostitutes for the wealthy, should get the same treatment from the parole board as someone who was caught with an ounce of marijiana. They both commited a crime. Don’t judge them the crime they commited.
I can’t imagine a good argument for the claim that the view is “utterly ridiculous.” The two should recieve vastly different treatment from the people responsible for sentencing. I can’t see why they shouldn’t recieve substantially similar treatment from the parole board.
I can’t see why the parole board, at the first parole hearing for the madame sixty years into her sentence, shouldn’t take pretty much the same kinds of considerations into account as those it takes into account when it has a hearing for the marijuana user six months into his sentence.
Can you give me a reason other than the one already under debate, to wit, “But the crime was so severe!”
From your previous comments, I suspect you’ll say something about recidivism. But do you really think that what the madame did sixty years ago (granted I pulled that number out of a hat but you get the idea) is more relevant to her chance of repeat-offending than what she’s been doing in the last 10?
Where have I claimed to know the law? To the contrary, I’ve specifically told you that I’m not making a legal argument here. I’ve said twice now that I’m making an argument about how the system should be set up, not how it legally is set up. I’ve already pointed out that legally speaking, things are set up opposite to the way I think they should be.
That is, indeed, the conclusion of my argument. You counter-assert here that it’s a valid consideration, and you make the irrelevant (for reasons given just above) observation that the legal set-up differs from the way I argue it should be set up.
In your response here you’re insisting on the fact that the severity of the crime is never the only factor considered. I’ve already explained that in order to focus on the “severity of the crime” issue, I’m telling you what I think should happen if that were the only relevant consideration. In other words, we’re talking about cases where the prisoner’s “good behavior” or whatever generally would incline a parole board to release him, but in the first meeting where that is the case, they still deny him parole because of the severity of the crime. What I have argued is that in such a case, they should deny his parole at every hearing after that, if their standards are to remain consistent.
[/quote]
It’s an obvious consequence of the basic notion of practical consistency. If situations are relevantly the same, then the same considerations apply. If you apply for a loan and I give it to you because you have a good credit rating, then if you come to me again later with the same finances but a lower credit rating, it makes sense for me to deny you the loan now. But if you have the same finances but also the same credit rating, and I still deny you the loan, then I have acted inconsistently. If the relevant considerations are the same, and I act differently, then I am acting inconsistently.
We are talking about cases where the prisoner is relevantly the same from parole hearing to parole hearing. He’s “behaving” well and so on. The severity of his crime, of course, can’t change. And since the prisoner is relevantly similar from hearing to hearing, and since the parole decision based its decision on the severity of the crime in the first case, to remain consistent, they should base it on the severity of the crime in later cases.
I tell my kid “You must clean your room.” And he doesn’t. He clearly had a choice. So “must” does not mean you don’t have a choice.
Indeed.
No, you don’t get the gist. You’ve quoted several statemens from me, but have shown no understanding (indeed in one case have actively denied that you have understanding) of how they fit together logically with one another, or how they contribute to an argument for my conclusion. You’ve counter-asserted several things in response to these several quoted statements, but given no real counter-arguments.
I feel a little guilty for using harsh language here, but on the other hand, you are the one who has consistently introduce phraseology such as “What is it you’re not understanding here” and “This has been explained to you several times” and so on. You’re trying to assume a kind of intellectual high ground which quite frankly you haven’t earned, to say the least.
