Death Penalty

[elvis]

Charles Manson will never be paroled, as the man has clearly never repented or been proven innocent in any of the crimes he committed.

What crime did he commit?

Conspiracy to commit murder I believe is what he was charged with.

Yeah it's an interesting case. I don't think the girls that actually did the killings have ever been up for parole, have they?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What crime did he commit?

Conspiracy to commit murder I believe is what he was charged with.

Yeah it's an interesting case. I don't think the girls that actually did the killings have ever been up for parole, have they?

I'm not all that familiar with the case, to be honest. I don't know whether they've ever been up for parole or not, but I do remember reading a week or two ago that one of them was seeking to be released because of an illness that leaves her partially paralyzed. I believe she was denied.

 

[alan1]

Charles Manson will never be paroled, as the man has clearly never repented or been proven innocent in any of the crimes he committed.

He doesn't have to be proven innocent to get paroled.
He's been before a parole board more than once.

Yes, and he's been denied every time, because he is still deemed a threat to society.

Then what's the point of keeping him alive?

 

[elvis]

Charles Manson will never be paroled, as the man has clearly never repented or been proven innocent in any of the crimes he committed.

He doesn't have to be proven innocent to get paroled.
He's been before a parole board more than once.

Yes, and he's been denied every time, because he is still deemed a threat to society.

Before the murders, he was in prison and BEGGED the parole board to keep him in prison. they did not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He doesn't have to be proven innocent to get paroled.
He's been before a parole board more than once.

Yes, and he's been denied every time, because he is still deemed a threat to society.

Then what's the point of keeping him alive?

It costs more to kill somebody than it does to incarcerate them for life, and it's equally as wrong for the government to kill somebody as it is for a private person to do the same.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He doesn't have to be proven innocent to get paroled.
He's been before a parole board more than once.

Yes, and he's been denied every time, because he is still deemed a threat to society.

Before the murders, he was in prison and BEGGED the parole board to keep him in prison. they did not.

I'm not sure I've ever heard this before. They probably didn't feel he was worth the price they were paying to keep him incarcerated, but hindsight being 20/20 I'm guessing they regretted that decision.

 

[alan1]

Yes, and he's been denied every time, because he is still deemed a threat to society.

Then what's the point of keeping him alive?

It costs more to kill somebody than it does to incarcerate them for life, and it's equally as wrong for the government to kill somebody as it is for a private person to do the same.

Then you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree, because, at this point his appeals are exhausted, so I fail to see how feeding, housing and clothing him for the rest of his life is cheaper than a few volts of electricity.

 

[elvis]

Then what's the point of keeping him alive?

It costs more to kill somebody than it does to incarcerate them for life, and it's equally as wrong for the government to kill somebody as it is for a private person to do the same.

Then you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree, because, at this point his appeals are exhausted, so I fail to see how feeding, housing and clothing him for the rest of his life is cheaper than a few volts of electricity.

He was supposed to fry. the supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, then a few years later, they gave the rights back to the states, but with double jeopardy laws, there was no frying him.
As for the rest of your argument, there were no appeals, those were parole hearings. Death penalty cases are ALWAYS appealed. By the time the prisoner is executed, it costs far more than it would have if he had just been put in prison for life with no chance of parole.

 

[alan1]

It costs more to kill somebody than it does to incarcerate them for life, and it's equally as wrong for the government to kill somebody as it is for a private person to do the same.

Then you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree, because, at this point his appeals are exhausted, so I fail to see how feeding, housing and clothing him for the rest of his life is cheaper than a few volts of electricity.

He was supposed to fry. the supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, then a few years later, they gave the rights back to the states, but with double jeopardy laws, there was no frying him.
As for the rest of your argument, there were no appeals, those were parole hearings. Death penalty cases are ALWAYS appealed. By the time the prisoner is executed, it costs far more than it would have if he had just been put in prison for life with no chance of parole.

It's not the cost of life imprisonment that is cheaper than the death penalty, it is the cost of litigation (constant appeals) that may be.
Kind of a bogus argument.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree, because, at this point his appeals are exhausted, so I fail to see how feeding, housing and clothing him for the rest of his life is cheaper than a few volts of electricity.

He was supposed to fry. the supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, then a few years later, they gave the rights back to the states, but with double jeopardy laws, there was no frying him.
As for the rest of your argument, there were no appeals, those were parole hearings. Death penalty cases are ALWAYS appealed. By the time the prisoner is executed, it costs far more than it would have if he had just been put in prison for life with no chance of parole.

It's not the cost of life imprisonment that is cheaper than the death penalty, it is the cost of litigation (constant appeals) that may be.
Kind of a bogus argument.

How is it bogus? They're going to get those appeals and it is therefore going to be more expensive to kill them. If you take away their appeals you increase the likelihood that the government is going to murder an innocent person.

Even taking the cost out of the equation murder remains wrong, whether it's state sanctioned or otherwise.

 

[elvis]

Then you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree, because, at this point his appeals are exhausted, so I fail to see how feeding, housing and clothing him for the rest of his life is cheaper than a few volts of electricity.

He was supposed to fry. the supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, then a few years later, they gave the rights back to the states, but with double jeopardy laws, there was no frying him.
As for the rest of your argument, there were no appeals, those were parole hearings. Death penalty cases are ALWAYS appealed. By the time the prisoner is executed, it costs far more than it would have if he had just been put in prison for life with no chance of parole.

It's not the cost of life imprisonment that is cheaper than the death penalty, it is the cost of litigation (constant appeals) that may be.
Kind of a bogus argument.

It's not bogus because they are ALWAYS granted appeals. Why? because there is no room for error. In Illinois, there were 13 people on death row who were set free because more evidence came out about the murder.

 

[ItsFairmont]

I've read a lot about Manson. He was horribly abused growing up by several of his mother's boyfriends, etc. He was sexually abused and more. He was basically a tortured child.

He got in a LOT of trouble growing up. He robbed, stole, beat, etc. He was a bad dude.

He was in prison before and he did, in fact, want to stay there. He felt comfortable there because he had spent (even before his current prison term) most of his life in prison.

He did commit conspiracy to murder. He orchestrated it, and there are quite a few people lucky to have gotten away from him (Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys could have easily been killed by him).

And, yes, all the people in the "family" have been up for parole many times, and each time are denied parole.

They are not safe. It's, I believe, four people altogether: two men (Manson and Tex) and two women. I forget their names.

Others weren't as heavily involved and, therefore, either had shorter sentences or were never convicted of anything.

Oddly, Manson had many financial opportunities and recording opportunities. He wanted to murder instead.


He was and is a sick person.

 

[alan1]

He was supposed to fry. the supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, then a few years later, they gave the rights back to the states, but with double jeopardy laws, there was no frying him.
As for the rest of your argument, there were no appeals, those were parole hearings. Death penalty cases are ALWAYS appealed. By the time the prisoner is executed, it costs far more than it would have if he had just been put in prison for life with no chance of parole.

It's not the cost of life imprisonment that is cheaper than the death penalty, it is the cost of litigation (constant appeals) that may be.
Kind of a bogus argument.

How is it bogus? They're going to get those appeals and it is therefore going to be more expensive to kill them. If you take away their appeals you increase the likelihood that the government is going to murder an innocent person.

Even taking the cost out of the equation murder remains wrong, whether it's state sanctioned or otherwise.

It's not more costly to enact the death penalty than to feed house and clothe somebody for a lifetime, it's more costly for endless litigation.
Your assumption is that endless litigation should occur. Thus justifying your false argument.

 

[alan1]

He was supposed to fry. the supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, then a few years later, they gave the rights back to the states, but with double jeopardy laws, there was no frying him.
As for the rest of your argument, there were no appeals, those were parole hearings. Death penalty cases are ALWAYS appealed. By the time the prisoner is executed, it costs far more than it would have if he had just been put in prison for life with no chance of parole.

It's not the cost of life imprisonment that is cheaper than the death penalty, it is the cost of litigation (constant appeals) that may be.
Kind of a bogus argument.

It's not bogus because they are ALWAYS granted appeals. Why? because there is no room for error. In Illinois, there were 13 people on death row who were set free because more evidence came out about the murder.

See my previous post as response to your first sentence.

Now, pick an argument,
1st choice is it more costly or less costly to enact the death penalty?
2nd choice, are you for or against the death penalty?
You are trying to mix apples and oranges.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's not the cost of life imprisonment that is cheaper than the death penalty, it is the cost of litigation (constant appeals) that may be.
Kind of a bogus argument.

How is it bogus? They're going to get those appeals and it is therefore going to be more expensive to kill them. If you take away their appeals you increase the likelihood that the government is going to murder an innocent person.

Even taking the cost out of the equation murder remains wrong, whether it's state sanctioned or otherwise.

It's not more costly to enact the death penalty than to feed house and clothe somebody for a lifetime, it's more costly for endless litigation.
Your assumption is that endless litigation should occur. Thus justifying your false argument.

No, my assumption is that endless litigation is going to occur, and if people are going to be put to death then I agree with it 100%. As I said, you take away those appeals and there's a higher likelihood of innocent people being put to death. That's far worse than spending the money that could potentially exonerate them.

My opinion, however, is that nobody should be put to death by the state because it's wrong, which would put an end to the endless litigation you're against.

 

[elvis]

It's not the cost of life imprisonment that is cheaper than the death penalty, it is the cost of litigation (constant appeals) that may be.
Kind of a bogus argument.

It's not bogus because they are ALWAYS granted appeals. Why? because there is no room for error. In Illinois, there were 13 people on death row who were set free because more evidence came out about the murder.

See my previous post as response to your first sentence.

Now, pick an argument,
1st choice is it more costly or less costly to enact the death penalty?
2nd choice, are you for or against the death penalty?
You are trying to mix apples and oranges.

I am for the death penalty if the accused is guilty. The system has a bad record of determining that fact. what is it you want me to say? that I'd rather have innocent people die than not have the death penalty?

 

[RodISHI]

Manson.

Manson, "You made your children what they are.... These children that come at you with knives, they are your children. You taught them. I didn't teach them. I just tried to help them stand up.... You can project it back at me, but I am only what lives inside each and every one of you. My father is your system.... I am only what you made me. I am a reflection of you. You made your children what they are.... These children that come at you with knives, they are your children. You taught them. I didn't teach them. I just tried to help them stand up.... You can project it back at me, but I am only what lives inside each and every one of you. My father is your system.... I am only what you made me. I am a reflection of you." Charles Manson:

Release story?

Tate, the wife of director Roman Polanski, was 8 1/2 months pregnant when she was killed with 16 knife thrusts by cult members at her hilltop home on August 9, 1969.

Coffee heiress Abigail Folger and three others were stabbed and shot to death at Tate's home in the frenzied attack. The word "Pig" was written on the front door in blood.

The next night, two others were stabbed to death at their homes. "Death to pigs" was written on a wall, and "Helter Skelter" on the fridge door.

The cult leader was first sentenced to death for conspiring to murder seven people.

Manson's co-defendants -- "family" members Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel and Charles "Tex" Watson -- were convicted with him. But their death sentences were commuted to life when the death penalty was briefly outlawed in the US in 1972.

Manson was also convicted of the earlier murder of musician Gary Hinman in his Topanga Canyon home, and the slaying of former stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea at the Spahn movie ranch in Chatsworth, where Manson had his commune.

The septuagenarian has made 11 failed bids for parole since 1978, the last in 2007 when he was ordered to continue serving life sentences. Manson's next parole hearing is scheduled for 2012.

Last year, Susan Atkins, dying of brain cancer, failed to win parole on compassionate grounds.

Susan Atkins;
http://www.daisydocs.com/auction/uploaded/9c381375bfde4ba32e5c455d10fed53a.jpg
Patricia Krenwinkle;

Leslie VAn Houten;
http://z.about.com/d/crime/1/0/x/D/vanhoutn.jpg

Chalie "Tex" Watson;

The first murder by the family was of Gary Hinman, a Los Angeles drug dealer and musician. His body was discovered on 1969-JUL-31.

The first series of murders, called the "Tate" homicides, occurred at the home of Sharon (Tate) Polanski on 1969-AUG-9. Three victims were shot and/or stabbed multiple times on the grounds of the estate. These were Abigail Folger, Steven Parent and Voiytek Frykowski. Sharon Polanski and Jay Sebring were murdered inside the house. Sharon, 8 months pregnant at the time, died from numerous stab wounds, five of which were by themselves fatal; Jay died of blood loss. Both had their necks loosely attached by a single rope over a rafter.

The next homicides, called the "LaBianca murders," occurred two days later in the home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. They were found stabbed to death with dozens of wounds.

Finally, Donald Shea was murdered. He was a former stuntman and hired hand at the Spahn Ranch.

The police appear to have been stunned by the horrific details at the mass murder crime scenes. They badly bungled the task of collecting evidence. They were unable to find the clothing worn by the murderers. A television news crew was able to locate the clothing later.

Although Manson is not believed to have killed anyone directly, he ordered his followers to commit the murders.

 

[alan1]

How is it bogus? They're going to get those appeals and it is therefore going to be more expensive to kill them. If you take away their appeals you increase the likelihood that the government is going to murder an innocent person.

Even taking the cost out of the equation murder remains wrong, whether it's state sanctioned or otherwise.

It's not more costly to enact the death penalty than to feed house and clothe somebody for a lifetime, it's more costly for endless litigation.
Your assumption is that endless litigation should occur. Thus justifying your false argument.

No, my assumption is that endless litigation is going to occur, and if people are going to be put to death then I agree with it 100%. As I said, you take away those appeals and there's a higher likelihood of innocent people being put to death. That's far worse than spending the money that could potentially exonerate them.

My opinion, however, is that nobody should be put to death by the state because it's wrong, which would put an end to the endless litigation you're against.

As I already stated, we have to agree t disagree, or we could continue to go 'round and 'round on this carousel.

 

[alan1]

It's not bogus because they are ALWAYS granted appeals. Why? because there is no room for error. In Illinois, there were 13 people on death row who were set free because more evidence came out about the murder.

See my previous post as response to your first sentence.

Now, pick an argument,
1st choice is it more costly or less costly to enact the death penalty?
2nd choice, are you for or against the death penalty?
You are trying to mix apples and oranges.

I am for the death penalty if the accused is guilty. The system has a bad record of determining that fact. what is it you want me to say? that I'd rather have innocent people die than not have the death penalty?

Well, isn't that a loaded and insinuating question?
Nice dodge.

 

[elvis]

See my previous post as response to your first sentence.

Now, pick an argument,
1st choice is it more costly or less costly to enact the death penalty?
2nd choice, are you for or against the death penalty?
You are trying to mix apples and oranges.

I am for the death penalty if the accused is guilty. The system has a bad record of determining that fact. what is it you want me to say? that I'd rather have innocent people die than not have the death penalty?

Well, isn't that a loaded and insinuating question?
Nice dodge.

what did I dodge? what's your question? I will try to answer it.