Oh yes.
Some are unjustly treated because the women in their life have a habit of falling down the stairs and dying, or drowning in the tub.
Roughly normal folks facing undue suspicion.
I never said anything about unjust treatment in my comment.
I don’t see the point of linking different articles about people being killed in bad faith like it’s some kind of gotcha. I’m well aware that murderers murder people and that murder is bad. My initial comment was in response to you citing Edmund Kemper as though he’s anything like the typical murderer, which he isn’t since he went on to become a serial killer. Linking random murders doesn’t refute my point at all, which is a fact agreed upon by the relevant experts and authorities on the matter. Most murderers kill a single time for personal reasons or to eliminate criminal rivals. Most murderers don’t commit any more murders after being released from prison. Most murderers aren’t bloodthirsty psychopaths like Bundy, Kemper, Rader, etc. These are facts that a basic knowledge of criminology would tell you.
This article does go into some details about the psychiatrist. Though irritatingly spends lots of time of the soap opera details of his personal life brought up in the trial, none about how the evidence was allowed and not judged to be privileged.
Who mentioned murders being committed in bad faith? Should we be discussing good faith murders? 
What are your thoughts on Bathtub guy being paroled, especially if he promises never to have another tub in his home?
*The other guy got out of jail but the ladies might express a preference for having him precede them down the stairs.
**My favorite alternate theory on the first staircase death is that an owl did it. You could look it up.
Yeah that seems like the obvious reason. Absent any other factors a crime where you spend 25 years in prison on average is going have a much lower recidivism rate than crime when you spend 1 year in prison on average, simply because old people commit less crimes
Which you again fail to acknowledge the reason for or simply refuse to understand it. After serving decades in prison for being convicted of murder 1) they are no longer going to have criminal rivals to eliminate because they have been incarcerated for decades unable to engage in criminal activities out in society in order to have rivals or have personal reasons to want to kill someone when they’ve had no direct contact with the outside world for decades 2) because they are being released as old men, and recidivism of all crimes drops dramatically at older ages, both because people are less physically capable of committing crimes and because they’ve (generally) acquired some wisdom with age and 3) having spent decades of their lives incarcerated with no freedoms at all, they are dramatically less likely to want to spend what’s left of their lives back behind bars.
The irony is palpable.
Oh, and most murderers are convicted of the single act of murder they were caught and convicted of doing. That’s not the same thing as most murders only kill once. Kind of the same way the first time someone is convicted of drug dealing doesn’t mean it’s the only time they’ve dealt drugs. Not even serial killers are convicted on all the murders they are suspected of being responsible for, only the ones where there was enough evidence to secure a conviction on.
I meant you were linking them in bad faith. You don’t seem to have a desire to meaningfully engage with the OP. I don’t see what Edmund Kemper and random wife killers have really anything to do with the Menendez brothers and whether they should be released. All criminals aren’t the same. All murderers aren’t the same. The world isn’t a simple cartoon caricature.
If the parole board genuinely believes the person is rehabilitated (which the US prison system isn’t very good at doing) and won’t harm others again and has strong evidence of such, then I support their release. If not, then they should stay in prison to protect society. This should apply to any criminal.
100% agree. It adds zero to the discussion and the manner in which is being done is dickish.
Frustrating. Not all states (I think) have psychotherapist-client privilege, but California does and did at the time of the murders/trials. I have gathered it may be covered by section 1014 of the California Evidence Code. That said, there are some exceptions, and this article indicates that one of the exceptions applied (or at least, the prosecution successfully argued that it did):
Specifically, the dangerous patient exception (which applies to future dangerousness, not mere past dangerousness, but the therapist argued that he was subject to a thinly veiled threat by one of the brothers during one of their therapy sessions).
The APA, however, took some issue with California’s decision to admit the therapist’s testimony on the basis of that exception, and filed an amicus brief in the case that goes into some detail on the nuances:
https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/menendez
ETA: The specific exception to privilege applied appears to be covered by section 1024 of the code:
There is no privilege under this article if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger.
Kemper probably wasn’t the best example.
Better ones are Jack Henry Abbott and Edgar Smith. Their supporters (and in Abbott’s case, the parole board) were convinced of their rehabilitation. Smith’s backers even fell for his claim of innocence, similar to how the Menendez brothers’ supporters have accepted the idea that the murders of their parents were justified.
The parole board decided that the Menendez brothers’ behavior to this point indicates potential harm if they’re released, so that continued separation from society is justified.
Enough said.