Manson family member released

[PureX]

I think viewing punishment as justice is a mistake. Justice is the crime never having been committed, and that is not achievable once it has been.

Instead, I think we need to view this as a security issue. People that cannot be trusted to live freely with other people without abusing and harming them should be denied that opportunity for everyone else's sake. The duration depends on them, and so does the means we employ of removing the threat. Up to and including execution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's irrelevant how old she was when she committed her crime and if she's that close to death's door then there's no point in releasing her.

That doesn't address what possible good or benefit there is in keeping her in.

Execution is a legitimate level of punishment for sufficiently heinous crimes as hers and the others. It's not sinking to their level, it's indicative of a person unfit to be within society.

Killing someone who killed is sinking to their level, it is revenge ans retribution. Further death solves amd fixes nothing.

She was originally sentenced to death. California failing that, the closest substitute would be life without parole.

Still nothing as to why she should still be in. Just that you believe she should still be in but without amy actual reasons why. Thats retribution and revenge. Justice baaed on those is not justice and it serves no good except making criminals better amd more dangerous criminals.

Moving on doesn't mean a person should not receive the full measure of their punishment.

That doesn't address my point they must move on the same regardless of what happens to her.

It's not revenge, she received due process. She wasn't ensnared, she chose to be a part of the Family and engage in their activities. Evidenced by the fact she allegedly has been a model prisoner since the day she began her incarceration. That shows she did, in fact, at that age knew right from wrong yet chose to join them and stay involve. Of course once arrested, the defense is to claim manipulation and to denounce Charlie and the lot she chose to be a part of.

You don't know much about cults and their leaders tend to be good at reqruiting from the vulnerable, do you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Justice is the crime never having been committed, and that is not achievable once it has been.

That's not hlw it works amd can't be because justice cannot be rendered unless a crime has been committed.

 

[Callisto]

That doesn't address what possible good or benefit there is in keeping her in.

It's good for people to bear the full brunt of responsibility for their actions. How is it good or beneficial to society to release her?

Killing someone who killed is sinking to their level, it is revenge ans retribution. Further death solves amd fixes nothing.

Disagree. That can be true if there's no just cause; however, someone participating in the slaughter of two innocent persons has forfeit their right to freedom and, in this case, was deemed a menace that needed to be removed from society. Had her original sentence been carried out, the matter would be over. Nothing is fixed by releasing her, nothing was fixed by keeping her alive.

Still nothing as to why she should still be in.

Still nothing as to why she should be released. You see nothing if you deny the fact that a deplorable crime occurred and the appropriate response was to permanently remove her and the others from society, either by execution or life without parole.

Just that you believe she should still be in but without amy actual reasons why.

Wrong. Yet you fail to give any reason to the benefit of releasing her.

wThats retribution and revenge. Justice baaed on those is not justice and it serves no good except making criminals better amd more dangerous criminals.

Wrong.

That doesn't address my point they must move on the same regardless of what happens to her.

It does address the point, others moving on with their life is not reason for the culprit not to bear the full responsibility for their actions.

You don't know much about cults and their leaders tend to be good at reqruiting from the vulnerable, do you?

Apparently far more than you. Try to stick to the conversation instead of your usual backslide into personal attacks, especially when you don't know the first thing about the person. That's not debate or discussion, it's just juvenile and shows you lack of knowledge and anything salient to say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's good for people to bear the full brunt of responsibility for their actions. How is it good or beneficial to society to release her?

She has paid for her crimes and has been found to not be a threat anymore.

Disagree. That can be true if there's no just cause; however, someone participating in the slaughter of two innocent persons has forfeit their right to freedom and, in this case, was deemed a menace that needed to be removed from society. Had her original sentence been carried out, the matter would be over. Nothing is fixed by releasing her, nothing was fixed by keeping her alive.

That doesn't show why killing is necessary and how it isn't revenge and vengeance. She was removed from society for many decades amd she may not have anymore of those left to live.

Still nothing as to why she should be released. You see nothing if you deny the fact that a deplorable crime occurred and the appropriate response was to permanently remove her and the others from society, either by execution or life without parole.

I have not denied a crime occured. I'm just not violent or bloodthirsty like the Manson family and others who demand death.
And the reasons why, as has been mentioned, she has been deemed not a threat and keeping her locked up does not serve a benefit to society. She's an old lady, she won't be harming anyone, it's a waste and tax burden to keep her locked up especially considering American prisons are already stuffed beyond capacity.

Wrong.

All you've done is say she should have been killed herself and not released based on what she did as an emerging adult decades ago amd under the influence of nefarious cult leader. But Charles Manson himself is dead and she's an old woman now. That does change everything.

It does address the point, others moving on with their life is not reason for the culprit not to bear the full responsibility for their actions.

It's the fact that regardless of what happens to her, it doesn't matter 9f she lives or dies, the survivors must move on all the same. Nothing changes for them.

Apparently far more than you. Try to stick to the conversation instead of your usual backslide into personal attacks, especially when you don't know the first thing about the person. That's not debate or discussion, it's just juvenile and shows you lack of knowledge and anything salient to say.

That was a question, and you've not shown any indication of acknowledging she had a terrible influence that ensared her.

 

[Callisto]

She has paid for her crimes and has been found to not be a threat anymore.

Partially paid, to what extent she's a threat is secondary to that. The fact remains she wasn't a productive member of society before her arrest and, according to you, she's too old to be of much use now. She was granted a second chance when her life was spared, the price was and should be to spend it in prison.

That doesn't show why killing is necessary and how it isn't revenge and vengeance. She was removed from society for many decades amd she may not have anymore of those left to live.

Because of the notion that the penalty should fit the crime. You don't execute someone for jaywalking but it is an appropriate one when someone engages in the wanton murder of innocent people. Some crimes are heinous enough that the forfeiture of the criminal's own life is the closest society can hope to get for justice.

I have not denied a crime occured. I'm just not violent or bloodthirsty like the Manson family and others who demand death.
And the reasons why, as has been mentioned, she has been deemed not a threat and keeping her locked up does not serve a benefit to society. She's an old lady, she won't be harming anyone, it's a waste and tax burden to keep her locked up especially considering American prisons are already stuffed beyond capacity.

Freeing her does not benefit society at all. Keeping her incarcerated when she should have been gone decades ago does give some sense of justice. She is a burden no matter what. Taxpayers had to pay for keep all these years. What is she going to do now freed? You keep pointing to her being old. Society is completely different from the 1970s. She's either going to profit off her crime with book & movie deals, which is revolting and a slap in the face of the families who are just suppose to suck it up and move on. Or, she'll continue to be a burden by collecting Social Security (which she never paid into), Medicare and other programs - which is money better spent on lower income citizens who have never participated in murder.

All you've done is say she should have been killed herself and not released based on what she did as an emerging adult decades ago amd under the influence of nefarious cult leader. But Charles Manson himself is dead and she's an old woman now. That does change everything.

It changes nothing.

It's the fact that regardless of what happens to her, it doesn't matter 9f she lives or dies, the survivors must move on all the same. Nothing changes for them.

And once again... Moving on doesn't mean a criminal should not bear the full punishment for their crime and she only paid partial. The fact she was allowed to grow old when her victims were denied so is generosity and mercy enough.

That was a question, and you've not shown any indication of acknowledging she had a terrible influence that ensared her.

She was a 19 year old from a middle class background who got into drugs and rebelled against her parents. She chose her path. There were many Manson members, people came and went. She was neither his hostage or under his attention 24/7, she was just one of many. Deprogramming doesn't happen overnight, she and the others stopped mimicking him once reality of their futures began to set in. That's lucidity and a sense of right and wrong, just like she knew right from wrong to be a model prisoner. Compare that to one of his true believers, Squeaky Fromme.

According to The Trial of Charles Manson by Douglas Linder:​

Van Houten dismissed three defense lawyers in succession for claiming her actions were attributable to Manson's control over her.​

​

And in Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi:​

​

When her lawyer was asking an expert witness about the effect of LSD on judgment, Van Houten shouted that, "This is all such a big lie, I was influenced by the war in Vietnam and TV."​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Partially paid, to what extent she's a threat is secondary to that. The fact remains she wasn't a productive member of society before her arrest and, according to you, she's too old to be of much use now. She was granted a second chance when her life was spared, the price was and should be to spend it in prison.

Because of the notion that the penalty should fit the crime. You don't execute someone for jaywalking but it is an appropriate one when someone engages in the wanton murder of innocent people. Some crimes are heinous enough that the forfeiture of the criminal's own life is the closest society can hope to get for justice.


Freeing her does not benefit society at all. Keeping her incarcerated when she should have been gone decades ago does give some sense of justice. She is a burden no matter what. Taxpayers had to pay for keep all these years. What is she going to do now freed? You keep pointing to her being old. Society is completely different from the 1970s. She's either going to profit off her crime with book & movie deals, which is revolting and a slap in the face of the families who are just suppose to suck it up and move on. Or, she'll continue to be a burden by collecting Social Security (which she never paid into), Medicare and other programs - which is money better spent on lower income citizens who have never participated in murder.

It changes nothing.

And once again... Moving on doesn't mean a criminal should not bear the full punishment for their crime and she only paid partial. The fact she was allowed to grow old when her victims were denied so is generosity and mercy enough.

She was a 19 year old from a middle class background who got into drugs and rebelled against her parents. She chose her path. There were many Manson members, people came and went. She was neither his hostage or under his attention 24/7, she was just one of many. Deprogramming doesn't happen overnight, she and the others stopped mimicking him once reality of their futures began to set in. That's lucidity and a sense of right and wrong, just like she knew right from wrong to be a model prisoner. Compare that to one of his true believers, Squeaky Fromme.

According to The Trial of Charles Manson by Douglas Linder:​

Van Houten dismissed three defense lawyers in succession for claiming her actions were attributable to Manson's control over her.​

​

And in Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi:​

​

When her lawyer was asking an expert witness about the effect of LSD on judgment, Van Houten shouted that, "This is all such a big lie, I was influenced by the war in Vietnam and TV."​

None of that shows anything but emotional reasons that you think she should be dead. You can't point to any actual gain or benefit if her execution or keeping an old lady in jail. But the death penalty doesn't deter crime amd there is no justice is demanding that someone else must die. That's bloodlust. That's revenge. That is cold, eye for an eye retribution. That is not justice. This is because it fixes and solves nothing.

 

[Heyo]

Partially paid,

According to the #1 in incarcerating people.
Civilised countries have abandoned capital punishment and many don't lock up people longer than 20 years if they are not deemed a threat.
Add to that that in the US some people are shielded from responsibility (law enforcement) and the hypocrisy is perfect.

 

[The Hammer]

Everything she knows and is used to will be left behind when that door closes. No one will come by to check on her a few times a day and no one will care. She wont have any money, won't be qualified to get any kind of good job and is likely completely unaware of computers, technology, the Internet, cell phones, etc... social media... yikes

Afaik they still have access to these things in prison. And it isn't like she hasn't heard and interacted with probably hundreds of people that have filled her in on these things during her stint. It may be a shock but I don't to the extent it seems you are implying.

 

[Valjean]

I know people in their 70s and 80s who are still active and hold jobs because they choose to. The question can be asked as what's the point in releasing her since she provided nothing of value to society even before being a criminal and is not likely to offer anything if, at her age, she's going to sort of settle and take in the next decade or two?

It would be criminal if she profits from her notoriety and crime in any way (interviews, books & movie deals, podcasts, etc.).

But she has offered back. She's counseled and tutored other inmates. She's edited the prison paper. In half a century she's had only one prison infracton, and that was just for communicating with other prisoners when she wasn't supposed to. She's been in therapy for half a century; her therapists say they've 'never seen anyone so rehabilitated'.
She's been recommended for parole five times. Opponents claimed she was a danger to society, but those familiar with her said this was ridiculous. Still, the Governor vetoed her parole all five times, under political pressure.

Her continued incarceration is largely political. Criminals convicted of multiple, sometimes more serious crimes, have been released earlier.

Consider: What benefit comes with her continued incarceration? What is its purpose? If it serves no useful purpose, why waste taxpayer dollars on her? Is she in prison only to assuage public ire? Is she there only because of her notoriety?
Are we just being vindictive?

 

[Valjean]

I have watched tv shows about people being released from prison and they have extensive training classes that teach them what they need to survive. It is not necessary to have a computer anyways. I bought a radio in case my computer does not last much longer. doing arts and crafts and listening to the radio is pretty fun.

She's earned a bachelors and masters degree in humanities whilst in prison. She's counseled and tutored other inmates. She's edited a paper. She's no dummy. I think it likely she could find some useful employment.

 

[Callisto]

None of that shows anything but emotional reasons that you think she should be dead.

Wrong. There's nothing emotional about it. Your argument, however, is emotional. "oh but she was only 19... She was under Manson's influence..She's old and frail what threat could she pose?" As if that somehow negates she is forever guilty of a heinous crime that took two innocent lives.

You can't point to any actual gain or benefit if her execution or keeping an old lady in jail. But the death penalty doesn't deter crime amd there is no justice is demanding that someone else must die. That's bloodlust. That's revenge. That is cold, eye for an eye retribution. That is not justice. This is because it fixes and solves nothing.

I have repeatedly stated exactly why, you keep ignoring it. I'll ask you yet again, what benefit is it to release her?

 

[Heyo]

I'll ask you yet again, what benefit is it to release her?

Been answered

And the reasons why, as has been mentioned, she has been deemed not a threat and keeping her locked up does not serve a benefit to society. She's an old lady, she won't be harming anyone, it's a waste and tax burden to keep her locked up especially considering American prisons are already stuffed beyond capacity.

 

[Callisto]

According to the #1 in incarcerating people.
Civilised countries have abandoned capital punishment and many don't lock up people longer than 20 years if they are not deemed a threat.
Add to that that in the US some people are shielded from responsibility (law enforcement) and the hypocrisy is perfect.

The US is not other countries and has a culture that is much more aggressive and has a larger population than many with the problems that go with such. The homicide rate in the US is exponentially higher than in European countries. The US needs to fix the many societal ills that contribute to the violence that's become ingrained. Prison reform would logically follow after such headway was made and with that possibly alternate ways of handling inmates convicted of heinous crimes.

 

[Callisto]

Been answered

By who, as I've not seen it despite having asked a few times. Post number will suffice, thanks.

 

[Heyo]

By who, as I've not seen it despite having asked a few times. Post number will suffice, thanks.

I included the relevant quote (which automatically includes a link to the original #25). If you didn't see that you may have put @Shadow Wolf on ignore?

 

[Callisto]

But she has offered back. She's counseled and tutored other inmates. She's edited the prison paper. In half a century she's had only one prison infracton, and that was just for communicating with other prisoners when she wasn't supposed to. She's been in therapy for half a century; her therapists say they've 'never seen anyone so rehabilitated'.
She's been recommended for parole five times. Opponents claimed she was a danger to society, but those familiar with her said this was ridiculous. Still, the Governor vetoed her parole all five times, under political pressure.

Sounds like she would do well to remain in prison and continue to aid other inmates. Seems like the place she would do the most good.

Her continued incarceration is largely political. Criminals convicted of multiple, sometimes more serious crimes, have been released earlier.

It's not political, if it were Newsome wouldn't have passed on the opportunity. Others guilty if equal or greater crimes doesn't validate her release, two wrongs don't make a right. Lots of people who committed lesser offenses have been locked up for as long or longer, others too who were wrongly convicted. But somehow her incarceration would just be political. Ok.

Consider: What benefit comes with her continued incarceration? What is its purpose? If it serves no useful purpose, why waste taxpayer dollars on her? Is she in prison only to assuage public ire? Is she there only because of her notoriety?
Are we just being vindictive?

Apparently, she would continue to help other inmates.

It's not vindictive to state the punishment should fit the crime. And she's already been allowed a life sentence, originally she was sentenced to death. I would say that in itself has been sufficiently merciful.

 

[Callisto]

I included the relevant quote (which automatically includes a link to the original #25). If you didn't see that you may have put @Shadow Wolf on ignore?

Thanks. I read #25 before and responded to it previously. I still don't see what benefit to society is achieved. I do see the argument that she's old, likely not around for long and presumably not a threat; and supposedly she remaining incarcerated would have no benefit (which I responded to). What part indicates her parole benefits society?

ETA: it's a tax burden? And failing gainful employment, likely at her age and being a felon, she'll continue to be a tax burden.

 

[Valjean]

Wrong. There's nothing emotional about it. Your argument, however, is emotional. "oh but she was only 19... She was under Manson's influence..She's old and frail what threat could she pose?" As if that somehow negates she is forever guilty of a heinous crime that took two innocent lives.

OK, so what useful social function does her continued incarceration serve?

What is the purpose of prison, anyway? Is it to rehabilitate; to fix defective people so they will pose no further problem" Is it to revenge; to hurt those who harm or annoy us? This would make incarceration a psychotherapeutic modality for vindictive citizens. It would be treating the non-incarcerated, to prevent vigilantism.
Most prisoners are eventually released. In the US most soon return. No effort has been made to fix whatever was dysfunctional. In Scandanavia most never return and go on to lead productive, crime-free lives. Heyo can probably attest that this is true in Germany, also. If your purpose is a safe, crime-free society, rehabilitation seems to work better than retribution. It may not be emotionally satisfying for those angry about crime, but it does reduce the crime their angry about.

Punishment is for little children, at low Kohlberg levels. In adults, it only generates anger, resentment, and anti-social behavior.

I have repeatedly stated exactly why, you keep ignoring it. I'll ask you yet again, what benefit is it to release her?

I think you have it backwards. Liberty should be the default, not a privilege awarded by the state. We're supposed to be "endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights" -- including liberty. You don't imprison people because there's no benefit in letting them free.

Meanness and vindictiveness are counterproductive, and are not Christian values

 

[Callisto]

OK, so what useful social function does her continued incarceration serve?

As I stated in an earlier post, it is the only semblance of justice for the rest of society. As evidenced by the many times she and others have been up for parole, public opinion did not in favor such. Releasing prisoners of particular heinous crimes generally are not popular. Even in countries with higher parole rates, there are feelings of injustice when a murderer is released after only a few years.

What is the purpose of prison, anyway? Is it to rehabilitate; to fix defective people so they will pose no further problem" Is it to revenge; to hurt those who harm or annoy us? This would make incarceration a psychotherapeutic modality for vindictive citizens. It would be treating the non-incarcerated, to prevent vigilantism.

Rehabilitation in the US prison system is touch and go. Both crime rates and the number of prisoners have continued to grow. As I stated elsewhere, there are various societal ills that need to be address before any overhaul of the prison system would occur. For now, we have a developed country with a high homicide rate compounded by such ills as poverty, lack of education, and mental health care being in shambles. Though, none of those factored in this particular case, she was an educated young adult from a middle class family who rebelled against her family and got swept up in the counter culture of the era. Just like millions of other young adults, except the overwhelming majority didn't engage in murder and mayhem.

We're supposed to be "endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights" -- including liberty. You don't imprison people because there's no benefit in letting them free.

She was imprisoned for participating in the brutal murder of a married couple.

Meanness and vindictiveness are counterproductive, and are not Christian values

There is nothing mean nor vindictive about applying a sentence proportional to the crime. Christianity nor any other religion don't have any bearing on the civic laws of a pluralistic society. Justice is blind.