To me it's not even about being pro vs. anti death penalty, it's about the fact that we as a country decided in our Constitution that it is unacceptable to administer punishment like this inmate received.
According to whom? It has not been ruled cruel and unusual by a court, so right now, it's a matter of personal opinion.
Properly tested and administered lethal injection has not been ruled cruel and unusual, no. It could be argued that's not what happened here.
ETA: I can see that I am repeating someone else. No more going to get a snack for me, lol!
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
If I'm honest, I think some of them are genuinely remorseful. I think they got caught up in the whole Manson vibe and did thing they probably wouldn't have done had they not met him. For them, I do think prison *may* have made them see the situation for what it really was and not what Manson told them it was.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Hold up re: the Charles Manson parole hearings. So, 12 hearings in about 30 years, but the parole board set his next hearing 15 years after his most recent one. So am I understanding correctly that states don't have laws that say, "If you're convicted under X charge, you will have parole hearings every Y years," and that the board at each parole hearing instead decides "Okay, no parole for you but we've decided that your next parole hearing will be in Y years"?
Am I making sense? Because if it's the latter, how the hell did Charles Manson manage to score 12 parole hearings in ~30 years?
I have no idea. There was another one of his followers that has been in prison for 40+ years and has had 25+ parole hearings. 2 requests for parole were rejected by the CA governors at the time.
"It was the first time since 1937 that two men were to have been executed on the same day in Oklahoma, although it has happened in other states since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S. in 1976. The last double execution was in Texas in 2000."
It doesn't explain why both men were scheduled to be executed on the same day but it is not common.
"It was the first time since 1937 that two men were to have been executed on the same day in Oklahoma, although it has happened in other states since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S. in 1976. The last double execution was in Texas in 2000."
It doesn't explain why both men were scheduled to be executed on the same day but it is not common.
I heard on the radio this morning that Guy 1 was challenging this particular DP protocol, and lost that challenge. That challenge process delayed his execution, and made it so it would happen on the same day as Guy 2. The governor decided to go ahead with both on the same day.
I should have just waited until HBC had responded.
There is no moral right when it comes to individuals who have committed crimes so great they are faced with the death penalty. Either they are faced with death by a government who could give two shits about them, or they are imprisoned for life in a daily psychological torture chamber that is high security prison. There have been several studies that show imprisonment exacerbates any underlying psychological conditions, and rather than treat them, prisoners are left in their own mental morass. Again, there is no moral high ground on this, other than to salve whatever individual guilt you may have by telling yourself one way is better.
Our prison system is irreparably broken. So broken. We don't focus on rehabilitation. We focus on containment and torture, and at this rate, it's never going to change.
Also, has anyone been watching the documentaries regarding solitary confinement that have been airing?
To be fair, I also have a pretty large philosophical problem with human beings sentencing other human beings to die. I know there are some amazing and fair judges out there, but the process of having the power of life and death over fellow human beings has to erode some of your humanity, IMO.
I also feel for the humanity of the criminal the way I would feel for the humanity of anyone or anything. Fuck, I get upset when I see road kill, okay? The men who committed those heinous crimes somewhere, at some point, probably had someone who loved them and are/were (hopefully) pretty devastated at how their lives ended up. I have sympathy for THAT situation.
So yeah, it's horrible and sad and messed up all around. I get it.
Hold up re: the Charles Manson parole hearings. So, 12 hearings in about 30 years, but the parole board set his next hearing 15 years after his most recent one. So am I understanding correctly that states don't have laws that say, "If you're convicted under X charge, you will have parole hearings every Y years," and that the board at each parole hearing instead decides "Okay, no parole for you but we've decided that your next parole hearing will be in Y years"?
Am I making sense? Because if it's the latter, how the hell did Charles Manson manage to score 12 parole hearings in ~30 years?
From what I hear, he's a very persuasive guy.
Plus, this is probably more of a comment on California's legal system than anything.
Just to kick the can down the road some more - Charles Manson was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty in 1971. CA did away with the death penalty in 1972 and his sentence was then transferred to life in prison. To date, he's had 12 (!!) parole hearings. 12 hearings that his victim's families had to attend to keep the guy in jail. By all accounts he is still crazier than a rat in a shithouse. There is no reason to keep him alive. There are no redeemable qualities to him. At his last parole hearing he said, "I am a very dangerous man." (Read more - abcnews.go.com/US/charles-manson-denied-parole-dangerous-man/story?id=16111128 )
Why are we keeping him alive again?
Did you really just say that there is no reason to keep a human being alive?
Yes.
ETA: Can you give me a reason for keeping him alive? Other than he is human? Or humanoid in shape?
ETA: Can you give me a reason for keeping him alive? Other than he is human? Or humanoid in shape?
Call me crazy, but I think that's enough.
Even though he's not expressed a speck of remorse, and if let out would do the same thing again? Leading to the deaths of more people? You're perfectly ok with that.
I used to be extremely anti DP. And I still am to some extent. But after a spate of disturbing stories, mostly involving the death and/or torture of young females, especially the Julian Castro story, I just don't think the government or society has a moral obligation to keep certain people alive.
There are lots of problems with the death penalty. And it should be revamped. The racial components and error rates are incredibly disturbing. Who gets it and who doesn't is also disturbing. I don't think we execute the right people. Like if you shoot a person during a botched 711 robbery, I don't think the state should execute you. Especially if you have shown remorse or turned your life around in prison.
You rape a baby? You should die.
...raping a child isn't even a capital offense....so sayeth SCOTUS.
Even though he's not expressed a speck of remorse, and if let out would do the same thing again? Leading to the deaths of more people? You're perfectly ok with that.
Interesting.
this makes zero sense. no one said anything about releasing charles manson, or anyone else who otherwise would qualify for the death penalty.
Even though he's not expressed a speck of remorse, and if let out would do the same thing again? Leading to the deaths of more people? You're perfectly ok with that.
Interesting.
Um, I don't support letting Charles Manson out of jail.
I also don't support the death penalty.
And I can't believe I'm having to defend the morality of not empowering the state to kill its citizens.
And yet, while serving a justifiable death penalty he has been up for parole 12 times. He had the opportunity to be released back into society 12 times.
The problem is, as I stated above, that your moral position is on shaky ground. There is no moral high road in this discussion. Psychologically torturing someone for 30-60 years by putting them in a prison system that is irreparably broken isn't the best solution here, either. Plus, dangling the hope of being released every few years is a complete mind fuck in and of itself.
So really, the choices here are physical torture, or mental torture. The argument isn't as black and white as you want to make it.
Um, I don't support letting Charles Manson out of jail.
I also don't support the death penalty.
And I can't believe I'm having to defend the morality of not empowering the state to kill its citizens.
And yet, while serving a justifiable death penalty he has been up for parole 12 times. He had the opportunity to be released back into society 12 times.
The problem is, as I stated above, that your moral position is on shaky ground. There is no moral high road in this discussion. Psychologically torturing someone for 30-60 years by putting them in a prison system that is irreparably broken isn't the best solution here, either. Plus, dangling the hope of being released every few years is a complete mind fuck in and of itself.
So really, the choices here are physical torture, or mental torture. The argument isn't as black and white as you want to make it.
And yet, while serving a justifiable death penalty he has been up for parole 12 times. He had the opportunity to be released back into society 12 times.
The problem is, as I stated above, that your moral position is on shaky ground. There is no moral high road in this discussion. Psychologically torturing someone for 30-60 years by putting them in a prison system that is irreparably broken isn't the best solution here, either. Plus, dangling the hope of being released every few years is a complete mind fuck in and of itself.
So really, the choices here are physical torture, or mental torture. The argument isn't as black and white as you want to make it.
so now this is a mercy killing.
lol.
No, but thanks for trying to dumb down the argument.
Did you really just say that there is no reason to keep a human being alive?
Yes.
ETA: Can you give me a reason for keeping him alive? Other than he is human? Or humanoid in shape?
Currently, he's not committing crimes and hurting people. He's not doing anything in prison. I don't buy the argument that he attracts followers, because he would have followers whether he was alive or dead.
IMO, the act of killing him would harm the humanity of those involved in the process of killing him.
Therefore, the answer with the least amount of harm in this scenario is to let him KOKO in solitary.
And yet, while serving a justifiable death penalty he has been up for parole 12 times. He had the opportunity to be released back into society 12 times.
The problem is, as I stated above, that your moral position is on shaky ground. There is no moral high road in this discussion. Psychologically torturing someone for 30-60 years by putting them in a prison system that is irreparably broken isn't the best solution here, either. Plus, dangling the hope of being released every few years is a complete mind fuck in and of itself.
So really, the choices here are physical torture, or mental torture. The argument isn't as black and white as you want to make it.
I just don't agree with this argument. I think you're justifying your murky feelings about the whole issue.
Thinking that the prison system needs reform does not mean that the default alternative is to legally put citizens to death. What a bullshit abdication of responsibility.
If you have a penal system, and you decide as a society to remove serious offenders from the free population, that decision makes those people your responsibility. Being unable to adequately handle that responsibility (like the US currently) does not mean that the better answer for the inmates is to just put them down.
I don't have murky feelings about the issue. The prison system is corrupt inside and out. However, that doesn't mean that certain people who are caught and are 100% guilty should not be shown out of this world by a death sentence.
I think the death penalty is given out too freely. I believe there are people on death row that should not be there. I think the system skews heavily into incarcerating minorities. None of this negates that some people should not be reintroduced into society at any level, nor given that chance. It's ridiculous that Manson was given 12 chances for parole.
Making them my responsibility also means that I have a responsibility to guarantee society that they will not commit harm to that society ever again.
ETA: Can you give me a reason for keeping him alive? Other than he is human? Or humanoid in shape?
Currently, he's not committing crimes and hurting people. He's not doing anything in prison. I don't buy the argument that he attracts followers, because he would have followers whether he was alive or dead.
IMO, the act of killing him would harm the humanity of those involved in the process of killing him.
Therefore, the answer with the least amount of harm in this scenario is to let him KOKO in solitary.
Obviously you didn't look at the link I posted regarding inmates and what solitary does to them.
I don't know; I think pixy0stix makes a pretty decent point about the prison system. If you view the death penalty as cruel and unusual, couldn't you also say that about a lifetime imprisonment on some level? Particularly one in which there is no hope of restoration to society and no attempt at rehabilitation?
Especially in the CA prison system. Which is notoriously bad. Are we still under federal receivership? I think the delivery of health care in the Ca prisons was considered a violation of the 8th amendment.
And yet, while serving a justifiable death penalty he has been up for parole 12 times. He had the opportunity to be released back into society 12 times.
The problem is, as I stated above, that your moral position is on shaky ground. There is no moral high road in this discussion. Psychologically torturing someone for 30-60 years by putting them in a prison system that is irreparably broken isn't the best solution here, either. Plus, dangling the hope of being released every few years is a complete mind fuck in and of itself.
So really, the choices here are physical torture, or mental torture. The argument isn't as black and white as you want to make it.
I just don't agree with this argument. I think you're justifying your murky feelings about the whole issue.
Thinking that the prison system needs reform does not mean that the default alternative is to legally put citizens to death. What a bullshit abdication of responsibility.
If you have a penal system, and you decide as a society to remove serious offenders from the free population, that decision makes those people your responsibility. Being unable to adequately handle that responsibility (like the US currently) does not mean that the better answer for the inmates is to just put them down.
I think this is the crux of the argument and why you are currently in the middle of whatever this is with Pixy. Some people are for or opposed to the death penalty on practical grounds (too many innocent people being killed, the process is racist and unfair, the methods used are cruel), while you (toledo) and I seem opposed to it on the grounds of a universal morality.
It seems like Pixy is saying she is PRO death penalty for practical reasons (the psychological torture they currently suffer after decades in prison anyway and the fact the we have a really shitty prison system that won't change that), but I'm unclear if she believes the death penalty is a moral good as well?
People who are against the DP for practical reasons might be for it in ideal circumstances. So pixy0stix would you be against the DP if we had a prison system capable of mentally caring for everyone and keeping them safely locked away forever, 100% guaranteed?
you're claiming people are pro releasing charles manson and I'M dumbing down the argument.
please.
I'd like your explanation of why he was given the chance at parole, then.
leaving aside the fact that i (and i assume most people on this board) have no experience with the california penal system i can only hazzard a guess and say it's a procedural requirement.
I used to be extremely anti DP. And I still am to some extent. But after a spate of disturbing stories, mostly involving the death and/or torture of young females, especially the Julian Castro story, I just don't think the government or society has a moral obligation to keep certain people alive.
There are lots of problems with the death penalty. And it should be revamped. The racial components and error rates are incredibly disturbing. Who gets it and who doesn't is also disturbing. I don't think we execute the right people. Like if you shoot a person during a botched 711 robbery, I don't think the state should execute you. Especially if you have shown remorse or turned your life around in prison.
You rape a baby? You should die.
...raping a child isn't even a capital offense....so sayeth SCOTUS.
Yeah, I can't really argue with this. I don't even think your average murder with a motive should be death penalty eligible. If I ruled the world, I'd save it for people who rape/murder/torture for the thrill of it. Or who take a special perverse delight in those crimes.
Also, it was the fact that the IV line that failed that caused this, not the drugs. So I don't know what the "but they're untested!" argument has to do with any of this.
No, but thanks for trying to dumb down the argument.
you're claiming people are pro releasing charles manson and I'M dumbing down the argument.
please.
She is not doing that.
But you know, I"m backing out of this conversation now because some people are being fucking assholes. Supporting the death penalty and/or feeling that life in prison can be a mindfuck that crosses the line from punishment to torture isn't advocating for euthanizing prisoners. And I'm not going to continue a conversation with people who are going to pull that card.
I just don't agree with this argument. I think you're justifying your murky feelings about the whole issue.
Thinking that the prison system needs reform does not mean that the default alternative is to legally put citizens to death. What a bullshit abdication of responsibility.
If you have a penal system, and you decide as a society to remove serious offenders from the free population, that decision makes those people your responsibility. Being unable to adequately handle that responsibility (like the US currently) does not mean that the better answer for the inmates is to just put them down.
I think this is the crux of the argument and why you are currently in the middle of whatever this is with Pixy. Some people are for or opposed to the death penalty on practical grounds (too many innocent people being killed, the process is racist and unfair, the methods used are cruel), while you (toledo) and I seem opposed to it on the grounds of a universal morality.
It seems like Pixy is saying she is PRO death penalty for practical reasons (the psychological torture they currently suffer after decades in prison anyway and the fact the we have a really shitty prison system that won't change that), but I'm unclear if she believes the death penalty is a moral good as well?
People who are against the DP for practical reasons might be for it in ideal circumstances. So pixy0stix would you be against the DP if we had a prison system capable of mentally caring for everyone and keeping them safely locked away forever, 100% guaranteed?
Absolutely. If the prison system wasn't so fucked up as a whole, I'd be fine with doing away with the death penalty.
I don't believe that the death penalty is a moral good. An eye for an eye just leads to a bunch of blind people. I look at it as a necessity at this time in our society as we do not have the structure to deal with these people correctly (both from a psychological or even institutional standpoint).
you're claiming people are pro releasing charles manson and I'M dumbing down the argument.
please.
She is not doing that.
But you know, I"m backing out of this conversation now because some people are being fucking assholes. Supporting the death penalty and/or feeling that life in prison can be a mindfuck that crosses the line from punishment to torture isn't advocating for euthanizing prisoners. And I'm not going to continue a conversation with people who are going to pull that card.
this is what she said at the bottom of the last page to toledo:
Even though he's not expressed a speck of remorse, and if let out would do the same thing again? Leading to the deaths of more people? You're perfectly ok with that.
I think, at the end of the day, my problem with the death penalty (including this case) is the current penal system as a whole. I don't find the fact that this guy suffered for 40 minutes worse than a guy who suffers in solitary confinement (for example) and I think people on the other side of this debate do find it worse for various reasons.