Charles Manson Dept.

[MajGenl.Meade]

...and I hope she has a lot of fun in jail with all the ill-gotten proceeds. Better there than in Bel Air

[Big RR]

So Meade--let me see if I get this right; a person who is presumably rehabilitated and has expressed sincere regret for the crimes and is no longer a threat to the public (the ordinary conditions for the recommendation of parole) should be kept in prison because of the chance that she might write a book and enjoy the money it generates? That's your position?

[rubato]

Pure sadism. And willing to spend $50,000 per year to enjoy it.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

So Meade--let me see if I get this right; a person who is presumably rehabilitated and has expressed sincere regret for the crimes and is no longer a threat to the public (the ordinary conditions for the recommendation of parole) should be kept in prison because of the chance that she might write a book and enjoy the money it generates? That's your position?

No, that's not my position. I imagine it's the position of people who don't want her let loose. That and the fact that she deserves to die in prison, not out of it.

rubato, you may perhaps get sexual release by hurting people - which explains your confusion - but (thus far) I do not.

[rubato]

So Meade--let me see if I get this right; a person who is presumably rehabilitated and has expressed sincere regret for the crimes and is no longer a threat to the public (the ordinary conditions for the recommendation of parole) should be kept in prison because of the chance that she might write a book and enjoy the money it generates? That's your position?

No, that's not my position. I imagine it's the position of people who don't want her let loose. That and the fact that she deserves to die in prison, not out of it.

rubato, you may perhaps get sexual release by hurting people - which explains your confusion - but (thus far) I do not.

You're only motive, admitted by you, is that she might experience something other than pain if she was released. And it is merely the possibility that this might happen, not that there is any real prospect of it, that is enough for you.

Sadism. Pure enough. You don't have much self-awareness though.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Pure sadism. And willing to spend $50,000 per year to enjoy it.


yrs,
rubato

Believe or not, I don't have a dog in this fight.

I believe the world of 2016 would blow her little mind not even 300+ hits of VERY HIGH-POWERED LSD could prepare her for "The Brave New World".

What on God's green earth could she do except maybe to write a book (I know of at least one).

Flip a coin and be done with it, already!

[RayThom]

What kind of risk could Van Houten pose at this point? Strapping on a suicide vest and visiting the LA Courthouse? Pfft! Release her from prison and let her die on her own dime. And may God have mercy on her misguided soul.

[BoSoxGal]

Holding down a pregnant woman while she's stabbed to death seems to rate right up there with most despicable crime deserving life imprisonment. If she gets out she's unlikely to die on her own dime, as many felons end up on public benefits after release from prison. What if she decides to renew Daddy Manson's work upon release from prison? I've prosecuted pretty old violent offenders - there is nothing that says advanced age will necessarily diminish a person's desire to behave antisocially. If I was Sharon Tate's sister or brother I would sure never want to see her walking free. Much for the Board to consider.

[Lord Jim]

Jim--just so I'll understand your position, I would think the parole recommendation was premised on the findings that she is rehabilitated and no longer a danger to society. Assuming they are correct (and you can use your "Mother Teresa behind bars" example to assume this), what possible benefit is gained by keeping her incarcerated at taxpayer expense?

I have no problem explaining what "benefit is gained"...(and it has nothing to do with some sort of "sadism" that the addle-brained Santa Cruz Pseudo Scientist suggests...)

There are some crimes one can commit that are so heinous, (and this one would certainly seem to qualify) where "rehabilitation" and "danger to society" don't even enter into the equation...

There are some crimes, where a basic sense of decency and justice demands that the perpetrator spend the rest of their life behind bars...without regard to "rehabilitation" or "threat to society"...


It's a matter of morality, not an economic equation...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Rubato wrote:

You're (sic) only motive, admitted by you, is that she might experience something other than pain if she was released. And it is merely the possibility that this might happen, not that there is any real prospect of it, that is enough for you. Sadism. Pure enough. You don't have much self-awareness though

Well, let's just review what I actually wrote:

Why should this murderous human be allowed to re-enter society (and no doubt make money from the old memoirs)? A lot of money - unless there's some kind of "victim compensation law" that restricts profiting from heinous crime. Let her stay in prison and continue to do good there for the rest of her natural.

...and I hope she has a lot of fun in jail with all the ill-gotten proceeds. Better there than in Bel Air

Big RR wrote: So Meade--let me see if I get this right; a person who is presumably rehabilitated and has expressed sincere regret for the crimes and is no longer a threat to the public (the ordinary conditions for the recommendation of parole) should be kept in prison because of the chance that she might write a book and enjoy the money it generates? That's your position?

In reply, I wrote:

No, that's not my position. I imagine it's the position of people who don't want her let loose. That and the fact that she deserves to die in prison, not out of it.

So I'm looking for where I stated that I did not want her to experience something other than pain? Big RR seems to ask if that was the case (in a way) and I replied "No". I have no idea if she is "pain" in prison. Apparently she's a model of behavior and I'm guessing she's a valuable contributor to prison life.

Let her stay there - she deserves to be as removed from a free life as is Rosemary la Bianca. How odd it is that you should repeatedly refer to me as a sadist when the only one in this discussion who obtained pleasure from inflicting deliberate pain, suffering and death (on a pregnant woman) appears to be the object of some fantasy of yours.

[Jarlaxle]

The only miscarriage of justice is that she (and the rest of the band of psychos) wasn't put down like the rabid dog she is 40 years ago.

[Lord Jim]

Let her stay there - she deserves to be as removed from a free life as is Rosemary la Bianca.

This.

[dales]

Another Manson victim?

Jane Doe No.59

A possible Charles Manson murder victim from 1969 has been identified by investigators. “Jane Doe #59” was a young woman who was found brutally murdered in dense brush in Los Angeles off Mulholland Drive on November 16, 1969.

People published an exclusive report on the case that’s been a mystery for 46 years.

No identification was found on the slain woman, who was found by a birdwatcher a mere three months after movie star Sharon Tate and several of her friends were murdered by Charles Manson followers on August 9, 1969, at her Los Angeles home.


Jane Doe #59 was stabbed in the neck 150 times in what police believe was a “rage killing.”

“It was personal,” says Los Angeles Police Department cold case detective Luis Rivera. “It was a maniac… or love gone wrong.”

Since Jane Doe #59 was killed in a similar fashion as the other famous victims, it ignited speculation that she was linked to Charles Manson and his followers.

Authorities spoke with a caretaker at Spahn Ranch, the infamous Manson Family hangout, who informed police that the young victim resembled a hippie named Sherry from Simi Valley who spent a lot of time at the ranch.

Police were never able to identify the woman and filed her as “Jane Doe #59.”

It’s been determined that the nameless victim is Reet Jurvetson, a Montreal native who was 19 when she died.

Police interviewed the convicted killer in prison, but Manson gave them no leads or anything to work with. Retired LAPD detective Cliff Shepard said Manson told police that there are other victims. He thinks Jurvetson could have been someone who once went to Spahn Ranch.

A major break in the cold case emerged last June when a friend of Reet was searching crime websites and saw her post-mortem photograph. She called Reet’s sister, Anne, who contacted police. DNA taken from Jane Doe #59’s bloody bra matched her sister’s.

Upon further investigation, police learned that Reet flew to L.A. in the summer of 1969 to visit a man named John. The two met in a Toronto coffee shop. Los Angeles Police Department cold case detective Luis Rivera said Reet “was smitten” by John. She even sent her family a postcard to let them know she was happy and had a nice apartment in L.A.

That postcard may have been the one thing that kept Reet Jurvetson’s identify a mystery all these years because her family never reported her missing. Anne said as strange as it sounds, her parents didn’t report her missing because they “thought that she was just living her life somewhere and that eventually news from her would turn up.”

As Rivera says, L.A. was home to “a lot of peace, love, and flower children.” Reet was a “free spirit,” and she fit the proverbial description of someone thriving in the counterculture at the time.

Anne said she eventually came to the conclusion that Reet passed away since she was never heard from again. She said the fact that her sister was killed in cold blood is a hard reality to come to grips with.

It’s unknown if Reet Jurvetson is a Charles Manson murder victim, but police want to know more about “John.” Is this the man who murdered Reet?

“He is the best lead we have,” says Rivera. “No one deserves what happened to her. Someone might be out there who is responsible and it is our job to find out who it is and bring them to justice if we can.”

In other Charles Manson news, one of his notorious followers, Leslie Van Houten, was approved for parole.

According to Talking Points Memo, Van Houten helped kill a wealthy grocer and his wife when she was just a teen and a follower of the Manson Family cult. The murder happened one day after Tate’s gruesome murder. Van Houten’s parole was approved for good behavior

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3037650/possib ... QUPBtJT.99

[RayThom]

In other Charles Manson news, one of his notorious followers, Leslie Van Houten, was approved for parole.

I'm betting she'll not pull another stunt like that again.

[kmccune]

What gets me is the "alleged suspect"If someone stands there and pumps a magazine of FMJ bullets into a crowd of people ,I would say they are more then suspect .I can get the idea or concept of due process ,but having these heinous bastards on deathrow for all these years the reasoning escapes me ,better to put them into General population ,where justice is meted out quickly at times,not withstanding mental illness ,Men are considered "Homo Sapiens " and must be held accountable for their actions .

[Lord Jim]

In other Charles Manson news, one of his notorious followers, Leslie Van Houten, was approved for parole.

Actually "recommended", not "approved"...

Brown hasn't made a decision yet, (he has about another two weeks to do so) and there is some hope that he might do the right thing, based on the fact that he previously refused a parole board recommendation for another murderous Manson follower, Bruce Davis...

[Sue U]

This case is no different than any other. The fundamental question here is, what is the object of the criminal justice system? If your only purpose is to be punitive, what if any limits are there to punishment and why?

Even solely retributive approaches require some kind of proportionality and, ultimately, a justification for the punishment -- e.g., deterrence, whether specific or general.

If a criminal justice system includes any notion of rehabilitation and return to productive society, then it must also include a practical mechanism and realistic opportunity to achieve those goals.

[Long Run]

For most crime sentences. But the argument against the death penalty is life without parole. The most heinous should never be released.

[MajGenl.Meade]

For most crime sentences. But the argument against the death penalty is life without parole. The most heinous should never be released.

100% - the penalty for depriving another person of life (let's not quibble about manslaughter and so on - we all know what is meant) should be the deprivation of life. If not the death penalty, then the removal of the murderer from general society until they keel over dead

[Sue U]

But the argument against the death penalty is life without parole.

That is not the argument against the death penalty. That is simply an alternative punishment that, like the death penalty itself, nevertheless must be justified according to the principles and objectives of the criminal justice system.

The most heinous should never be released.

That may or may not be true. What are the goals of the system, and how does that sentence meet those goals?