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.
In this case, Davis did not murder anyone, they had no evidence of that. Felony murder applies because they say he was present.
Every case is different and mandatory sentences treat them all the same, that is wrong. Judges should be allowed discretion. Parole boards should be respected and politics should not play a role, nor should how pretty the defendant is, as in Arias or the child molester teacher that was too pretty to go to jail.
Recall the preachers wife, Mary somebody, that blew a hole in her husbands back while he was sleeping, then claimed self defense. They bought it, and she is out and with her children. There is a lot wrong with our judicial system. Longer sentences is not a solution, fairness, and leniency, when warranted, is what justice is all about.
Atkins and Davis have/had been model prisoners, they should get some credit for that. Many lifetimers misbehave simply because they are angry and have nothing to lose. You cannot pretend to hold such reverence for life, while cavalierly being willing to throw some lives away that are indeed salvageable. That too is wrong.
Davis got his credit due: he's still alive.
"Jailhouse religion" is even bigger BS than free/mainstream religion is...you don't think they haven't figured it out? Yet it's taken in to consideration?
No one cares if you have a college degree or higher, in the world outside bars...why care if "they" do it (with all their FREE time) on the inside? Some people even get multiple PhD's without murdering someone - and no one cares.
Not having a trial transcript in front of me I would begin to recite the evidence presented at trial, but Davis has admitted in a number of parole hearings that he took part in the murder of Gary Hinman, and Donald Shea. Here is Mr. Davis's problem in every case he claims that he was present but didn't actually do the killing which is immaterial in charges of felony murder where guilt only requires that the defendant was party of a felony that led to the death of another. For his part Davis was sentenced to die in the California gas chamber. His life along with other Manson family members were spared ONLY because the California Supreme Court declared in The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628 (Cal. 1972)1972 that the death penalty was unconstitutional (the death penalty has since been reinstated). As a result Davis was re-sentenced to life in prison as were 107 other convicted murders.
Gov. Brown's demand that Davis admit to actually taking an active role in the two murders may be unsatisfiable. Davis may well be telling the truth that he was only a facilitator of the murders or he may have actually played a greater role in the murders either way, it is irrelevant.
Had Davis the death penalty not been overturned this would be a moot argument, luckily for him he was spared and has been allowed to live a fruitful life in prison, something denied to Mr. Hinson and Shea. In recognition of that fact three California governors have denied Mr. Davis's release and I find nothing, absolutely nothing, by which to object to those decisions considering Mr. Davis's original sentence.
As Judge Choate noted at the time of his original sentence:
"These were vicious murders indicating a depraved state of mind on the part of the defendant…I don't want to give the impression that he was at all a dupe or the foil of Charles Manson. Davis is older than most of the youngsters who were led by Manson. He is more intelligent and educated and capable of independent reasoning. For reasons known only to him he did not exercise this capability."
There may well be a humanitarian argument for releasing Mr. Davis due to his advanced age (just as their was a similar argument made on behalf of Susan Akins, but to argue in favor of Mr. Davis's innocence or that he is the victim of a capricious governor(s) is simply beyond rational justification. Pardons and acts of clemency have always been non-reviewable decisions dependent on the pleasure of a state's executive, and it is clear that Davis release is not viewed pleasurable to this governor or his two predecessors.
Not having a trial transcript in front of me I would begin to recite the evidence presented at trial, but Davis has admitted in a number of parole hearings that he took part in the murder of Gary Hinman, and Donald Shea. Here is Mr. Davis's problem in every case he claims that he was present but didn't actually do the killing which is immaterial in charges of felony murder where guilt only requires that the defendant was party of a felony that led to the death of another. For his part Davis was sentenced to die in the California gas chamber. His life along with other Manson family members were spared ONLY because the California Supreme Court declared in The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628 (Cal. 1972)1972 that the death penalty was unconstitutional (the death penalty has since been reinstated). As a result Davis was re-sentenced to life in prison as were 107 other convicted murders.
Gov. Brown's demand that Davis admit to actually taking an active role in the two murders may be unsatisfiable. Davis may well be telling the truth that he was only a facilitator of the murders or he may have actually played a greater role in the murders either way, it is irrelevant.
Had Davis the death penalty not been overturned this would be a moot argument, luckily for him he was spared and has been allowed to live a fruitful life in prison, something denied to Mr. Hinson and Shea. In recognition of that fact three California governors have denied Mr. Davis's release and I find nothing, absolutely nothing, by which to object to those decisions considering Mr. Davis's original sentence.
As Judge Choate noted at the time of his original sentence:
"These were vicious murders indicating a depraved state of mind on the part of the defendant…I don't want to give the impression that he was at all a dupe or the foil of Charles Manson. Davis is older than most of the youngsters who were led by Manson. He is more intelligent and educated and capable of independent reasoning. For reasons known only to him he did not exercise this capability."
There may well be a humanitarian argument for releasing Mr. Davis due to his advanced age (just as their was a similar argument made on behalf of Susan Akins, but to argue in favor of Mr. Davis's innocence or that he is the victim of a capricious governor(s) is simply beyond rational justification. Pardons and acts of clemency have always been non-reviewable decisions dependent on the pleasure of a state's executive, and it is clear that Davis release is not viewed pleasurable to this governor or his two predecessors.
Governor Moonbeam won't release Davis because he's afraid of the political consequences. It's far less silly than not granting clemency to Susan Atkins as she lay dying (even Bugliosi said they should release her), but I think Bruce Davis would be the least likely repeat offender in California if he was released.
Again, I have problems with people who wear their religions on their sleeve and than contradict those principles with their actions/inactions. In this case, we're talking about mercy. Something tells me the priests at the seminary Brown almost attended would have had more clarity on this issue. So long as we're talking Catholics, I wish he and Martin Sheen would switch jobs. Sheen seems to get this stuff a lot better than Moonbeam. Moonbeam can take Sheen's place in the West Wing reunion show.
Governor Moonbeam won't release Davis because he's afraid of the political consequences.
A reasonable concern for any governor considering that the act of clemency or pardon is to unilaterally overturn the decision of a jury of citizens who sat in judgement. A concern which shared by governors Davis, Schwarzenegger before him.
Quote:
I think Bruce Davis would be the least likely repeat offender in California if he was released.
Who is or who isn't a likely repeat offender isn't the sole or most important consideration. As I pointed out Davis was originally sentenced to death and had his sentence commuted not on the basis of his crimes but an overall overturning of California's death sentence.
Again, I have problems with people who wear their religions on their sleeve and than contradict those principles with their actions/inactions. In this case, we're talking about mercy. Something tells me the priests at the seminary Brown almost attended would have had more clarity on this issue.
You obviously have never dealt with many Jesuits. The Church and the Society of Jesus are adamant in their condemnation of the death penalty life in prison, not so much. In truth, what Gov Brown is demanding of Mr. Davis is exactly inline with Catholic tradition, a full and complete admission of sin in order to earn absolution, in this case parole.
Absolution forgives the guilt associated with the penitent's sins, and removes the eternal punishment (Hell) associated with mortal sins, but only if the penitent has a firm purpose of amendment and is truly contrite. The penitent is still responsible for the temporal punishment (Purgatory) associated with the confessed sins, unless an indulgence is applied or, if through prayer, penitence and good works, the temporal punishment is cancelled in this life.
There are some 34,164 inmates serving life sentences in California. I would suggest that there are 34,163 better cases for parole than Mr. Davis.
Not having a trial transcript in front of me I would begin to recite the evidence presented at trial, but Davis has admitted in a number of parole hearings that he took part in the murder of Gary Hinman, and Donald Shea. Here is Mr. Davis's problem in every case he claims that he was present but didn't actually do the killing which is immaterial in charges of felony murder where guilt only requires that the defendant was party of a felony that led to the death of another. For his part Davis was sentenced to die in the California gas chamber. His life along with other Manson family members were spared ONLY because the California Supreme Court declared in The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628 (Cal. 1972)1972 that the death penalty was unconstitutional (the death penalty has since been reinstated). As a result Davis was re-sentenced to life in prison as were 107 other convicted murders.
Gov. Brown's demand that Davis admit to actually taking an active role in the two murders may be unsatisfiable. Davis may well be telling the truth that he was only a facilitator of the murders or he may have actually played a greater role in the murders either way, it is irrelevant.
Had Davis the death penalty not been overturned this would be a moot argument, luckily for him he was spared and has been allowed to live a fruitful life in prison, something denied to Mr. Hinson and Shea. In recognition of that fact three California governors have denied Mr. Davis's release and I find nothing, absolutely nothing, by which to object to those decisions considering Mr. Davis's original sentence.
As Judge Choate noted at the time of his original sentence:
"These were vicious murders indicating a depraved state of mind on the part of the defendant…I don't want to give the impression that he was at all a dupe or the foil of Charles Manson. Davis is older than most of the youngsters who were led by Manson. He is more intelligent and educated and capable of independent reasoning. For reasons known only to him he did not exercise this capability."
There may well be a humanitarian argument for releasing Mr. Davis due to his advanced age (just as their was a similar argument made on behalf of Susan Akins, but to argue in favor of Mr. Davis's innocence or that he is the victim of a capricious governor(s) is simply beyond rational justification. Pardons and acts of clemency have always been non-reviewable decisions dependent on the pleasure of a state's executive, and it is clear that Davis release is not viewed pleasurable to this governor or his two predecessors.
That's a very good post ovcatto. I am making a humanitarian argument on deaf ears. I also believe his involvement was minimal, but that is not the same as being innocent. He was not the instigator, nor the facilitator, his crime for which Brown continues to punish him, as I see it, was not stopping Manson. Shorty was thought by Manson to be a snitch, so was murdered. Davis had no power to stop Manson from doing what was done. The parole board granted him parole, and I think Brown should have respected their decision. I do not believe this man is a threat to society today, if he ever was one.
That's a very good post ovcatto. I am making a humanitarian argument on deaf ears.
That is one thing and in principle an argument that is most persuasive to me, what I object to is manner and tone regarding Brown's reasoning which is not unusual it isn't even exceptional and in my opinion totally justifiable.
Quote:
I also believe his involvement was minimal, but that is not the same as being innocent. He was not the instigator, nor the facilitator, his crime for which Brown continues to punish him, as I see it, was not stopping Manson. Shorty was thought by Manson to be a snitch, so was murdered. Davis had no power to stop Manson from doing what was done.
An opinion not shared by Gov. Brown and more significantly, the presiding Judge who sentenced Davis to death and therein lies the crux of the problem. And therein lies the problem with the arguments so far put forward. Unlike Schwartzengger who denied Davis's parole based upon the crime, Brown has laid clear conditions for his release, a full accounting and repentance of his full role in the murders.
You obviously have never dealt with many Jesuits. The Church and the Society of Jesus are adamant in their condemnation of the death penalty life in prison, not so much. In truth, what Gov Brown is demanding of Mr. Davis is exactly inline with Catholic tradition, a full and complete admission of sin in order to earn absolution, in this case parole.
Absolution forgives the guilt associated with the penitent's sins, and removes the eternal punishment (Hell) associated with mortal sins, but only if the penitent has a firm purpose of amendment and is truly contrite. The penitent is still responsible for the temporal punishment (Purgatory) associated with the confessed sins, unless an indulgence is applied or, if through prayer, penitence and good works, the temporal punishment is cancelled in this life.
There are some 34,164 inmates serving life sentences in California. I would suggest that there are 34,163 better cases for parole than Mr. Davis.
Your point regarding the Jesuits is well-taken.
The assumption that Davis is not forthcoming when discussing his roles in the Hinman and Shea murders is just that. We sometimes place convicts in the position of having to admit to things that are not true in order to demonstrate contrition. That may or may not be the case, here.
There are undoubtedly thousands of other inmates with better cases for commutation or clemency. My preference would be to structure the law in such a way that most of them are never sentenced to prison time in the first place, allowing more time to be devoted to releasing formerly dangerous criminals who now pose no threat to society.
Can you point out where I claimed every inmate over a certain age should be released?
BTW, I thought Bruce Davis was the inmate in question at the beginning of this thread. How many of you can even tell me what crime landed him behind bars?
We should note that crimes that end up getting you convicted are many times not the only crimes you committed. He was a part of at least three people getting killed. Was he the one that killed them? I certainly can't say but I can say that I would have made myself scarce after the first one.
Davis was a big part of the entire Manson scene. He wasn't just another hanger on. He stole cars for Manson. Ran the stolen I.D. scams for Manson.
Would any of these things alone be reason for life in prison? No probably not. All added together makes at least a valid argument.
We should note that crimes that end up getting you convicted are many times not the only crimes you committed. He was a part of at least three people getting killed. Was he the one that killed them? I certainly can't say but I can say that I would have made myself scarce after the first one.
Davis was a big part of the entire Manson scene. He wasn't just another hanger on. He stole cars for Manson. Ran the stolen I.D. scams for Manson.
Would any of these things alone be reason for life in prison? No probably not. All added together makes at least a valid argument.
Yes, I'm well aware of Davis's role in the Manson group. I can also understand why he was given a life sentence at the time. However, I don't think verdicts should be sacred pronouncements that should not be revisited. If someone has spent decades in prison, has made extraordinary strides at rehabilitation and poses no threat to the community, we should strongly consider releasing them.
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.
