|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Apr 22, 2016 16:23:13 GMT -5
Since they were scheduled for death before the law change and nothing has really changed as far as their involvement.....I'm gonna say hell to the no.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Apr 22, 2016 16:24:00 GMT -5
Tough call. Emotionally, the answer is an easy no. If I look at it psychologically, some are still absolute "no" votes. Manson, Tex, those two were and still are sociopaths who may be able to gather followers. Thus, absolute no, not ever, not a chance.
I'd say you have to go case by case, determine what role, if any, the drugs and possible Stockholm Syndrome played. Beyond that, keep them where they are.
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Apr 22, 2016 16:41:46 GMT -5
If it's proven that they have somehow become well-adjusted persons capable of living in society without harming it then sure as I don't see any purpose in keeping someone who isn't a threat in prison, unless people really enjoy wasting tax money. I just don't see them ever rehabilitating. That brings up a very interesting argument found with regard to prisons and corrections. About every ten years or so, society changes its mind on what corrections is supposed to be and do. First it was for punishment, then for rehabilitation, then back to punishment, then back to rehabilitation, etc etc. What corrections is, and what it is supposed to accomplish, changes constantly. No other branch of law enforcement or emergency services has to deal with that. My personal favorite was a Director that up and decided his department was going to end recidivism. That we were somehow going to be proactive. But the nature of corrections, regardless of if we're here for punishment or rehabilitation, is reactive. We are the end result of the criminal justice system. We can only ever react, not act. Other people send inmates to us, and other people decide when they can leave.
|
|
|
Post by devondragon on Apr 22, 2016 16:46:54 GMT -5
Absolutely not
|
|
|
Post by Father Dougal McGuire on Apr 22, 2016 17:03:52 GMT -5
If it's proven that they have somehow become well-adjusted persons capable of living in society without harming it then sure as I don't see any purpose in keeping someone who isn't a threat in prison, unless people really enjoy wasting tax money. I just don't see them ever rehabilitating. That brings up a very interesting argument found with regard to prisons and corrections. About every ten years or so, society changes its mind on what corrections is supposed to be and do. First it was for punishment, then for rehabilitation, then back to punishment, then back to rehabilitation, etc etc. What corrections is, and what it is supposed to accomplish, changes constantly. No other branch of law enforcement or emergency services has to deal with that. My personal favorite was a Director that up and decided his department was going to end recidivism. That we were somehow going to be proactive. But the nature of corrections, regardless of if we're here for punishment or rehabilitation, is reactive. We are the end result of the criminal justice system. We can only ever react, not act. Other people send inmates to us, and other people decide when they can leave. I admit that some of US laws need to be reformed, like adding baking soda to a drug add a substantial amount of time. However, holding down someone that is getting butchered, I think we can agree this isn't something that can be talked through with therapy.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Apr 22, 2016 17:12:22 GMT -5
If it's proven that they have somehow become well-adjusted persons capable of living in society without harming it then sure as I don't see any purpose in keeping someone who isn't a threat in prison, unless people really enjoy wasting tax money. I just don't see them ever rehabilitating. That brings up a very interesting argument found with regard to prisons and corrections. About every ten years or so, society changes its mind on what corrections is supposed to be and do. First it was for punishment, then for rehabilitation, then back to punishment, then back to rehabilitation, etc etc. What corrections is, and what it is supposed to accomplish, changes constantly. No other branch of law enforcement or emergency services has to deal with that. My personal favorite was a Director that up and decided his department was going to end recidivism. That we were somehow going to be proactive. But the nature of corrections, regardless of if we're here for punishment or rehabilitation, is reactive. We are the end result of the criminal justice system. We can only ever react, not act. Other people send inmates to us, and other people decide when they can leave. I'll throw this in, as much of my grad work has been utilizing my particular field of psychology to impact recidivism. You will never, not ever, no matter what you do, end recidivism in an absolute sense. Looking at the old MICE theory of criminal motivation, training may stop the "money" motivated criminals. It would allow them a way to get money without crime, though only presuming, of course, that what they were paid was equal to the amount they "wanted". Ideology. You can't STOP this one. An ideologue is driven by an idea, a cause, a purpose. Unless you can refocus that purpose (it can be done, but it's damn hard, trust me) then the driving force will aways be there. Circumstance...maybe you can train to avoid certain situations. That's the only thing that I've found. Look at the behavior, look at what happens before it, where it occurs, and teach alternatives. Ego...this is the killer, this is the impossible. A "sane" person, you can help them, you an even work with the narcissist to modify the occurrence of behavior, but with what we used to call the sociopath (which Manson is, absolutely), you can't effect them because they don't see people as people. A person is a chess piece, a tool to be utilized, something to be molded to fit a goal. You can't "reform" that, no medicine fixes it.
|
|
|
Post by Hurbster on Apr 22, 2016 18:12:09 GMT -5
Referring to those involved in the LaBianca/Tate killings. No
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 42,368
Member is Online
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 23, 2016 3:15:19 GMT -5
If your threshold is "not involved in the killings" then Charlie shouldn't even have been convicted. He tied up the LiBiancas and then left to eat a sandwich. But he doesn't want out of prison anyway, so why bother?
|
|
魔界5号
Hank Scorpio
No. 1 FAN Poster You Want To Hug
Posts: 6,334
|
Post by 魔界5号 on Apr 23, 2016 5:57:35 GMT -5
..no.
..no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 6:16:08 GMT -5
I don't know. They were young, and if you agree Charles Manson was a great manipulator (Which almost everyone does) you need to take that manipulation into account.
I would pretty much side with how the family felt. Too gray for me.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,950
|
Post by Mozenrath on Apr 23, 2016 6:32:43 GMT -5
As Sharon Tate begged for her life, Susan Atkins told her "Look, bitch, you might as well face it, you're going to die, and I don't feel a thing behind it." Let them rot. Not a big fan of her diet, either.
|
|
Ultimo Gallos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 15,289
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Apr 23, 2016 12:48:21 GMT -5
Since Manson never murdered anyone. And it isn't 100% proved he ordered people to be killed I would say yes he should possibly be paroled one day. I don't see it happen.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Apr 23, 2016 13:03:40 GMT -5
Sharon Tate was about 5 days away from giving birth, and they killed her in cold blood while taunting her about it. Who does that?
|
|
Nr1Humanoid
Hank Scorpio
Is the #3 humanoid at best.
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by Nr1Humanoid on Apr 23, 2016 13:16:20 GMT -5
Sharon Tate was about 5 days away from giving birth, and they killed her in cold blood while taunting her about it. Who does that? Makes you think more than Manson's influence was at play.
|
|
|
Post by darbus alan on Apr 23, 2016 13:31:40 GMT -5
Manson and Watson, hell no. The others, I'd look at at a case-by-case basis.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,950
|
Post by Mozenrath on Apr 23, 2016 17:40:24 GMT -5
Since Manson never murdered anyone. And it isn't 100% proved he ordered people to be killed I would say yes he should possibly be paroled one day. I don't see it happen. He gets parole hearings, but deliberately makes as bad an impression as possible. I don't think he really wants out, though he seems much more broken down as of late. I get the feeling he's afraid of being out, prison has been his life for so long, and so many people are obsessed with him. I don't think him being out would be safe, but I guess he may not feel safe with the idea of being out, either.
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Apr 23, 2016 18:14:17 GMT -5
Charlie, what do you think?
Thank you for your time.
|
|