Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No they weren't. I mean you are free to wish the law allowed for the death penalty if that's what you mean. But if you mean he could've gotten it and didn't, then that's not correct. He did not qualify for special circumstances. You can't get the death penalty just for murder, it has to be murder with special circumstances.
Yes, strongly considered. However, it should be strongly considered based on the prisoner's situation, whereas it seems like Gov Brown strongly considered parole based on the effects it would have on his political career.
I say this because the reason he gave for denying parole was laughable.
His contention was that Davis had not sufficiently acknowledged why he furthered Manson's plans and so he was a danger to society.
He can't sufficiently explain how he was brainwashed 40 years ago by a psychopath while he was taking hallucinogenic drugs on a regular basis. That makes him a danger to society today?
A senior citizen with a doctorate and a record as a model prisoner who has been twice approved for parole is a danger to society because he can't explain why he did what he did 40 years ago?
Yeah, I know every time I go out at night I always check behind the bushes to see if there's a suspicious 70 year old who can't sufficiently explain things.
And if it wasn't politically motivated why did he even review it at all? People are paroled and denied parole every day without the governor taking an interest. I think it is pretty clear Gov Brown was going "oh crap, the parole board approved a manson family member? what're the headlines going to say that I let one of the Manson family out. Get me his file and some reason to keep him in jail"
Sentences are given in terms of maximums, including life. If you're sentenced for 20 years it doesn't mean you won't be paroled earlier. If you're sentenced for life it's no different.
I didn't realize I was famed for anything here. But be that as it may, I find killing Mansion easier than feeding him. What's the purpose? Let's just kill him and let God judge him.
I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but there are people who really believe that. For those who do, consider the person saying "I did bad things when I was younger, but I'm a better person now". If you kill the person as soon as they do the bad things, they never have the chance to become that better person. If they never do become that better person, then fine just keep them locked up. But it doesn't serve justice to deny them the possibility of ever becoming that better person. It only serves revenge.
This isn't a particularly new concept. I can think of a few reasons:
1. Recognizing the element of reform and rehabilitation in the correctional system.
2. Giving our most violent offenders some motivation for reforming their ways.
Much of this comes down to matters of opinion. I'm less troubled in not treating the original verdict as something sacred that shall not be modified, but for extraordinary circumstances. I'm a pragmatist. Frankly, when some of you start making reference to some abstract notion of "justice" that involves keeping someone in his seventies who nearly everyone who has observed him has concluded to be no risk to society, you lose me. He's reformed, he's not a danger to society, he's spent the better part of his life behind bars. I think he should be released. I have no doubt Bruce Davis was a very destructive person when he was younger. Some people change. Apparently he is one of them. You see a point in keeping him locked up in spite of this. I do not. We seem to just have fundamentally different views of the purposes of the correctional system.
It's just a matter of semantics. A life sentence just means there's no maximum duration to the sentence. It just means "unless you make parole, you will not be released". That's what going to jail "for life" means. If you want to say you are sentenced to not be released until you qualify for parole, or if you want to say you are sentenced to life, you are saying the same thing. I think a lot of people just don't get that. It's the word "life" that they get hung up on.
I am against capital punishment. I have to admit that it's difficult though. I have to wonder whether or not I would cheer if someone say killed my daughter and got the death penalty.
My thoughts here are mine and because of so many variables and what not, I can't make generalizations concerning how others act.
People receive sentences for the crime they committed. They are not sentenced for the happiness of the relatives of the victim.
It's fine and perfectly understandable if someone kills your daughter for you want that person dead, it's just not fine for society to sentence the murderer based on that. If you were a despicable parent who cared nothing for your daughter would that then make it okay to give a convicted criminal a light sentence? Or what if the person who killed your daughter was your other daughter? Should the state now kill a parent's daughter in order to make the parent feel better about their other daughter being killed? And what about the parents of the murderer? Why is it okay to make them feel bad over the death of their child over actions that child did that they are not responsible for? What about murder victims who have no family? Do their killers get lighter sentences since the deaths of their victims caused less suffering?
No, we just can't operate like that. The whole death penalty argument that it gives families closure and comfort is merely an emotional appeal. It sounds nice on the surface but it doesn't survive any real examination of the implications.
Taking the heinousness of the crime into account during the penalty phase of a trial is fine. But that involves one person getting 10 years and other person getting 20 years. It's a matter of degree. And it involves judging that a person willing to commit a heinous act is more of a danger to society than another person. If you shot your husband or wife because you caught them in bed with another person, society is a lot safer from you than if you kidnapped and tortured someone to death for sadistic pleasure.
Whether a person lives or dies, justified on the basis of it making the victim's friends and family feel better, is a whole other thing.
It's just a matter of semantics. A life sentence just means there's no maximum duration to the sentence. It just means "unless you make parole, you will not be released". That's what going to jail "for life" means. If you want to say you are sentenced to not be released until you qualify for parole, or if you want to say you are sentenced to life, you are saying the same thing. I think a lot of people just don't get that. It's the word "life" that they get hung up on.
Different states have different laws. Indeed "life" sentences do have end times, such as 25 years to life, and now there is a sentence to life without the possibility of parole EVER, so life means life in that case.
People receive sentences for the crime they committed. They are not sentenced for the happiness of the relatives of the victim.
It's fine and perfectly understandable if someone kills your daughter for you want that person dead, it's just not fine for society to sentence the murderer based on that. If you were a despicable parent who cared nothing for your daughter would that then make it okay to give a convicted criminal a light sentence? Or what if the person who killed your daughter was your other daughter? Should the state now kill a parent's daughter in order to make the parent feel better about their other daughter being killed? And what about the parents of the murderer? Why is it okay to make them feel bad over the death of their child over actions that child did that they are not responsible for? What about murder victims who have no family? Do their killers get lighter sentences since the deaths of their victims caused less suffering?
No, we just can't operate like that. The whole death penalty argument that it gives families closure and comfort is merely an emotional appeal. It sounds nice on the surface but it doesn't survive any real examination of the implications.
Taking the heinousness of the crime into account during the penalty phase of a trial is fine. But that involves one person getting 10 years and other person getting 20 years. It's a matter of degree. And it involves judging that a person willing to commit a heinous act is more of a danger to society than another person. If you shot your husband or wife because you caught them in bed with another person, society is a lot safer from you than if you kidnapped and tortured someone to death for sadistic pleasure.
Whether a person lives or dies, justified on the basis of it making the victim's friends and family feel better, is a whole other thing.
I clearly noted that I was against the death penalty. I simply noted that I can understand the feelings of the families involved when they are happy when it is carried out.
People receive sentences for the crime they committed. They are not sentenced for the happiness of the relatives of the victim.
It's fine and perfectly understandable if someone kills your daughter for you want that person dead, it's just not fine for society to sentence the murderer based on that. If you were a despicable parent who cared nothing for your daughter would that then make it okay to give a convicted criminal a light sentence? Or what if the person who killed your daughter was your other daughter? Should the state now kill a parent's daughter in order to make the parent feel better about their other daughter being killed? And what about the parents of the murderer? Why is it okay to make them feel bad over the death of their child over actions that child did that they are not responsible for? What about murder victims who have no family? Do their killers get lighter sentences since the deaths of their victims caused less suffering?
No, we just can't operate like that. The whole death penalty argument that it gives families closure and comfort is merely an emotional appeal. It sounds nice on the surface but it doesn't survive any real examination of the implications.
Taking the heinousness of the crime into account during the penalty phase of a trial is fine. But that involves one person getting 10 years and other person getting 20 years. It's a matter of degree. And it involves judging that a person willing to commit a heinous act is more of a danger to society than another person. If you shot your husband or wife because you caught them in bed with another person, society is a lot safer from you than if you kidnapped and tortured someone to death for sadistic pleasure.
Whether a person lives or dies, justified on the basis of it making the victim's friends and family feel better, is a whole other thing.
If the family and friends' opinions/feelings mean nothing in sentencing, then why do they have victim impact laws which provide for the family and friends to make statements to judges prior to sentencing? Check out victim impact laws and see what that's all about. We have that here in Florida.
Indeed, in Florida, the family of the victim is consulted on whether or not to charge someone with a death penalty crime prior to charging and/or prior to sentencing. In fact, there are families who do NOT want the death penalty for various reasons, one being that the appeals process will involve them for years to come, others because they don't believe in the death penalty. At any rate, the State does in fact consider what the victim's family wants when charging these cases. We now have the sentence in this state of Life Without Parole Ever, and that seems to satisfy some families. When people are sentenced to life without parole (ever) they are not provided with state funded lawyers for appeals. However, in death row cases, the convicted are provided with state funded attorneys to do the post conviction collateral appeals. It's cheaper to go the life without parole ever route.
I agree, it really sickens me that they have been allowed to be alive all these years...really?
They could not be executed: Ca had no capitol punishment at the time of their sentencing. If there had been, I am sure they would all be gone by now or those who actually commited murder as well as Manson, himself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
