California Murderers to be Paroled

[RoonShark]

Gray Davis was not in any sense "liberal" in his view of criminal justice. He was especially harsh about paroling murderers - once convicted, these guys never got out. Maybe now some of these people will have a fully-deserved chance at freedom.

I don't think people should be locked up forever for anything. Davis was personally mean-spirited, and California voters could see it. Because he didn't cut anybody any slack, voters didn't cut him any slack. Whatever measure you use, it will be used against you.

The day the voters recalled Gray Davis was a happy day for some of California's most despised outcasts - prisoners serving life sentences. They now have a hope of freedom they never had while Davis was Governor.

[radwriter0555]

1. HUH? What are you talking about?

What is your point???? Are you referencing something in specific?

Other than apparently (?) suggesting that criminals faced with life sentences should get out of jail now?

[RoonShark]

20. People I'd Free

If I were governor of California I'd let Sirhan Sirhan out. He's been there since 1968, what's the point of keeping him there? I'd free Charles Manson, too. He's not a threat to society either.

I'd let Squeaky Fromme out of jail, and that Sarah Jane Whatzit, the one who took a shot at Ford. These people are old and harmless.

[mitchtv]

21. good god I thought I was wacko left

you have me beat by a mile who says manson is no threat? you? Sirhan deservres to rot in jail so does squeaky - if you want to murder be prepared to spend life in jail. I could live without death penalty, but only in exchange for life sentences

[RoonShark]

24. What Purpose Is Being Served?

What purpose is being served by keeping these harmless people in prison? Squeaky Fromme was a crazy kid 35 years ago, and today she's 60 years old and no threat to anybody. Ditto Sarah Jane Moore.

Will Charles Manson continue to hold a Svengali-like influence on his followers, now that he's an old man? And maybe we could make a deal with Sirhan Sirhan, and finally learn who he was working for?

The point here is that Gray Davis was equally extreme in the opposite direction. He didn't let anybody out. That's not a Democrat! That's right wing.

[ronnykmarshall]

26. Care to make a bet?

Squeaky Fromme still considers herself a follower of Manson. As does several other "family" members that are not in jail.

Go out on the internet and you'll find plenty of site from Manson supporters.

Your theory doesn't hold water. With by the way, what the hell is YOUR water?

[RoonShark]

28. Manson's Followers

Manson's "followers" are just hobbyists - they're no more threatening than any other fan club members. Because Manson wasn't even at the crime scene of the murders for which he was convicted, keeping him in prison today doesn't increase public safety. If his fans were going to commit murders, the fact that Manson is in prison won't stop them.

The Manson murders are isolated to that particular time and place nearly 40 years ago. There's no reason to keep him in prison now; he's harmless.

[ronnykmarshall]

29. BULLSHIT!

Sandra Goode was and is one of his followers. She was in prison for various crimes and is still loyal to Manson.

Manson is a murderer and should rot his sorry ass in prison for the rest of his life.

[RoonShark]

31. He Wasn't Even There

Manson wasn't at the scene. He was convicted on the basis of what his followers did. Today, there's no public safety interest in keeping him in prison forty years after the fact. The case against him was weak at the time; it's even weaker now. Charles Manson isn't a threat anymore; he's harmless.

The only thing keeping Charles Manson in prison is that Gray Davis is nutty about refusing to parole convicted murderers. It's not about public safety; it's about Gray Davis.

[ronnykmarshall]

35. He ORDERED the killings!

He tied up Rosemary and Leno LaBianca and ordered three of his followers to murder them.

He knew the layout of the Tate because he had been there in the past. He gave Tex Watkins details about the house and sent them to kill everyone in the house.

He ORDERED the killings.

Hitler didn't actually kill the millions of jews himself, so I guess you think he wasn't murder.

[RoonShark]

40. Manson Wasn't There

The Manson case was based on the assumption that female "family" members wouldn't do this on their own. It was easier to understand that way, especially since Manson himself was a looney-tune, or looked like one.

He was not physically present at either crime scene. The prosecution's theory of the case was based on facts provided by witnesses who'd been offered a deal. We don't know whether Manson ordered the killings or not, but it was Bugliosi's best chance for a conviction.

This happened 35 years ago. The actual murderers - the ones who were there and did the killings - have amended their lives and applied for parole. Now that Gray Davis is out of office, these women finally have a chance of being released. Justice will be served when that happens.

http://www.culteducation.com/manson.html



Manson Looks Like a Nut

[ronnykmarshall]

41. Still avoiding the question

Hilter has not present when the jews were killed, so what's the difference.

Manson ordered the killings, that's a FACT!

[RoonShark]

45. That's a Claim, Not a Fact

The claim that Manson ordered the killings is NOT a fact, it's a statement made by a witness who was offered a deal. Bugliosi wanted to sell the jury the more believable story that Manson was an evil genius who ordered the killing. He certainly would have had a tough time convincing a jury that women could have done this on their own.

Manson himself has become a celebrity, getting more fan mail than any other single prisoner. The injustice here is to the female "family" members who keep getting denied parole on the bogus grounds that they are unrepentant and pose an ongoing threat to society.

Justice should not be subject to political considerations such as Gray Davis's chances for higher office. Now that he's gone, some good will come of it. Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel - convicted murderers - may finally get their long-overdue parole.

[ronnykmarshall]

59. You left out Watkins.

You know, the guy that stabbed Sharon Tate to death. Oh no, that was Atkins, oh wait she said she lied and never stabbed anyone, no that's not right first she said she did it and now since she's thumpin' the ol' bible she said Tex Watkins did it. Let's not forget that while Sharon Tate begged for her the life of her unborn child, the lovely Ms. Atkins said, "Look bitch, I don't care about you and I don't care about your baby. You're gonna die and you better be ready." What a SWEEETY Susy is, huh? Just makes ya warm all over. Yeah, let's let this little pussy cat out!!!

Krenwinkel? The monster that chased Abigal Folger around the estate with knife stabbing her as she ran for her life. When Krenwinkel caught her she stabbed her multiple times until Folger finally gave up and let Krenwinkel finish heroff. Krenwinkle stabbed Folger mulitple times like some sort of crazed animal. Even after she was DEAD!

Van Houten? What a little doll! She described how "fun" it was to stab Mrs. LaBianca in the back after she was dead. And of the course the charming little game of carving the word "WAR"on Mr. LaBianca's stomach and then sticking a fork in his stomach.

Yeah these lovely people deserve to be let out on the streets. Why don't you let them live with YOU?????

[JasonBerry]

80. LIFE is what makes the Death Penalty a BAD alternative

You made the point that really matters. We can say NO to the death penalty with TOUGH life in prison laws. Many criminals fear life far more than the death penalty. Knowing that, if caught, they face life -- that's a real deterrent. I cannot imagine sending a message to those who ponder murder that anything less than life will be their fate.

[RoonShark]

86. California's Indeterminate Sentences

Life sentences have to be considered on their own merits, not compared to the death penalty, which is barbaric. The lengths of California's "indeterminate" sentences (sometimes erroneously called "life" sentences) are set by the Board of Prison Terms. An indeterminate sentence is described on the Board's web page as:

... a term for which there is no fixed term of imprisonment, such as 15-years-to-life. Offenders sentenced to such life, or indeterminate, terms must serve a minimum term before becoming eligible for a parole consideration hearing before the Board. Indeterminately sentenced prisoners are not released from prison unless the Board has determined that they will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public and are suitable for release, or the Governor has granted a pardon or compassionate release .... http://www.bpt.ca.gov/parole.html

There is no life sentence as such. California prisoners are released on parole based on whether or not they meet the conditions that the Board sets. In abolishing parole, Gray Davis went outside the scope of his authority, but the courts allowed him to get away with it. The fact that Davis is gone may be considered a good thing for California progressives. Prisoners who have met the requirements of the law ought to be released on parole. It's the right thing to do, but Davis wouldn't do it. He was more than right wing; he was nutty.

[ronnykmarshall]

25. Manson not a threat?

Tell that to Sharon Tate's family.
Tell that to Leno and Rosemary LaBianca's family.
Tell that to Steven Parent's family.
Tell that to Abigal Folger's family.
Tell that to Jay Sebring's family.
Tell that to Vochek Fracowskis family. (spelling?)


What a bunch of shit.

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. Sirhan Sirhan was a brainwashed puppet

setup to take the fall. The shot that killed Bobby Kennedy came from behind, at point blank range. Sirhan was in front of Bobby. All the same though, I wouldn't let the guy out, since God only knows what else he's programmed to do.

As far as the Mansons go, the fact that Squeaky was out long enough to take a shot at Jerry Ford is probably a good enough indication of how safe it is to have those people on the streets

[Xithras]

53. Manson is a psychopath

Manson, to this day, continues to threaten both those around him and society at large. During a recent interview with some reporter he got pissed off at a guard and said that he wanted to kill her. Why? "Because people don't believe your serious until you start shooting", or something like that.

[RoonShark]

85. Charles Manson is an OLD MAN

Manson isn't a big threat, he's an old man. He's pushing 70, and the youngest of his followers is up in her 50's. None of these people are a threat to anyone. They've spent 35 years in prison, and there's no reason to keep them there. It's over.

Let's move on.

[lebkuchen]

2. Do you have a link?

Davis doesn't have much to do with the country's penchant for locking up "criminals" and throwing away the key. "Tough on crime" has been a US tradition since the Reagan Administration.

Now that 47 of 50 states are in a financial crisis, state prison systems are having to parole prisoners early because there is no more money/space to keep them incarcerated.

Thank Bush for that.

[NicoleM]

3. Seriously?

If somebody killed your loved one, you wouldn't want them sent up for life? What about somebody like the guy who killed Polly Klaas, or the the guy who raped and murdered that little girl in SoCal last year?

[darknemus]

4. Wonderful..

Lets tell that to the families of people that have been brutally murdered. Look, I think the death penalty is applied a bit too liberally, but sorry - you take a life, you deserve to sit in a cage and reflect on your actions for the rest of your natural life.

Stop throwing people in jail for stupid crap like pot possession - get tougher on the rapists, the DUI'ers, & the people who harm for no other reason than they can, and bring the hammer of the law down on those that kill for personal gain.

-darknemus

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. you are right on point

exactly right darknemus.

[RoonShark]

12. Parole for Murderers

I know two murderers, and possibly some others. Both committed their crimes when they were young, were convicted and spent many years in prison. Over the years, they became fully repentant and fully rehabilitated. Nothing would be served by keeping them in prison.

The lives that were taken cannot be restored. These men are friends of mine and I consider them decent human beings. Besides, who are you to say that people can't change who they are and what they are?

[darknemus]

14. Whether they change or not, isn't the issue

The only way the family of the victim can experience anything approaching closure is to force the committer of the crime to remain in prison. If they have 'changed their ways' so to speak, then let them make a difference in prison. Get a degree, fight for prisoner's rights, preach non-violence and the consequences OF violence to those that WILL be leaving the confines of those walls after a certain time.

I'm sorry - but if you take a life.. that's it. There really is no justification for you walking free again, because the victim will never be able to - period. The person who did the crime made a conscious choice.

Now, if the victim's family feels the perpetrator should be freed - then I would have no problem with it. Because that means they've forgiven - and that's the key to the whole thing, in my opinion.

-darknemus

[RoonShark]

22. Closure For the Family

There will never be closure for the family of a murder victim, or for the family of the victim of any other fatality. Has Laura Welch, now the First Lady, been forgiven by the family of the boy she killed?

Criminal penalities aren't about closure for the victims or their families. They are about society's needs and what is just for all concerned, including the perpetrator.

There are people who opposed the release of Kathy Boudin on the grounds that the police officer and the bank guard who were killed are still dead. I don't agree with them; I don't think it's just.

[CoolerKing]

6. Davis didn't parole ANYBODY...

that was one of my biggest problems with him. No one got a parole. The courts actually overruled him once or twice, I believe. I will try to find a link.

He got his biggest criticism when he refused to parole (former) battered women who had killed their husbands. They were up for parole and languished because of Davis' no parole policy.

I always felt that Davis who (of course) had Presidential ambitions was terrified about getting Willie Hortoned. He knew that if he paroled anybody who then went on to commit a crime that he was giving Rebublicans a free attack ad, and his personal ambitions were more important than taking a sensible, logical, compassionate approach to the parole process.

Davis was wrong to blindly refuse parole to people, but he was doing it because the Republicans are pure evil. That Willie Horton ad may go down as one of the most influential political ads of all time...in a bad way, of course. It created the "tough on crime" Democrats we now have to deal with. Remember when being opposed to the death penalty used to be part of the Democratic party's identity?

On edit: some links. These aren't from "mainstream" news sources but I remember reading about these stories in the LA Times over the years.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=1151
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16626
http://www.aclunc.org/aclunews/news010708/no_parole.htm

[MidwestTransplant]

7. You are right...

He was so concerned with becoming president and being accused of being soft on crime that he was almost draconian. Now he doesn't have to worry about either.

[RoonShark]

8. Don't Blame Republicans

Davis was extraordinarily cold hearted towards societal offenders. There's really no excuse for it, because that attitude is offensive to liberal values at the core of the Democratic tradition.

You can't blame Republicans for Davis's cold heart. Say what you will about Arnold, there is at least a chance he won't be as cruel as Gray Davis.

[darknemus]

9. Are you advocating murders be released

from jails / prison on some form of Parole? Because that's what I picked up from your initial post. That people that CHOSE to take another life should be allowed to walk free in society.

-darknemus

[CoolerKing]

13. what about battered women?

There was at least one case of a battered woman who killed her husband that was refused parole by Davis. Are you saying she doesn't deserve a chance at parole?

The problem isn't putting murderers on the street, the problem was refusing to even consider the fact that some had been rehabilitated and society would be better served by not having them locked away for life.

I'm not saying that EVERYONE deserved a chance at parole. In one of the articles I link to above, it mentioned that out of 2000 murder cases, the Board of Parole only recommended 16 to get parole. Davis denied all of them categorically.

[darknemus]

16. No, a battered woman is a different issue

The case should be examined. If she was put into a situation where her spouse's death was her only feasible way out, then I would hope she can walk. I'd actually prefer they never be convicted to begin with.

-darknemus

[CoolerKing]

17. well, Davis wouldn't parole them, either...

I will agree that the original poster's language was slightly skewed and inflammatory, but all "murderers" shouldn't be painted with the same brush.

sigh...if only we had a justice system with an ounce of compassion, logic, and/or decency.

one can dream.

[darknemus]

23. To that, I fully agree

Justice needs to be tempered with mercy and the facts of each individual case should be taken into account much more than they are. If Davis didn't parole battered women who felt no other way out - then, sorry, he's a moron.

I still think, though, that a cold blooded murder who killed to get someone's car or money or whathavenot still deserves to rot in a cell until death.

-darknemus

[op6203]

34. Slightly skewed?

He later said Manson should be released because he's old and wouldn't hurt anyone.
OP

[CoolerKing]

38. haha, you're right...

I was trying to be diplomatic when I said slightly skewed and, anyway, it was before he posted the Manson crap. Now I will change to either 1) totally insane or 2) troll trying to incite a flame war. I can't decide which!

[RoonShark]

42. Liberal Compassion

Think about the women who were involved in the Tate-LaBianca killings. They've been in prison for 35 years, they've changed completely, and they are no longer a threat. Is there any purpose to keeping them in prison now?

These women, now in their 50's, have been in prison for something they did when they were teenagers. The laws clearly say that even murderers can be released after an amount of time. Thirty-five years is long enough.

Don't you have any compassion at all? Gray Davis didn't have any, and people knew that about him. That might be why the voters recalled him.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/06/manson.van.houten.parole/

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003304.html

http://www.cielodrive.com/family/krenwinkel/

[DEMActivist]

46. Manson girls REFUSE parole

Excuse me, but you need to get your facts straight. These "reformed" teenagers you speak of refused parole 20+ years ago because a condition of their parole was that they couldn't have anything to do with Charles Manson.

Non-association with convicted felons is a STANDARD condition of parole and the Manson girls refused parole because of this condition.

So, tell me again how these women have been reformed??????? Please?

[RoonShark]

49. Your Documentation?

It's irresponsible of you not to have done even a minimal web search to back up your claim that Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel have not sought parole - they certainly have! Krenwinkel didn't apply for parole at her most recent opportunity, probably because she knew Gray Davis would not approve it. The other two have applied for parole every time they've been eligible, in fact Van Houten filed suit in Federal Court claiming to be a "political prisoner" because of Gray Davis's career ambitions.

Here is the chronology of parole hearings, from a website that is actually opposed to granting them parole:

Susan Denise Atkins Whitehouse -W 08304

9-16-81 #3
12-16-82 #4
12-31-85 #5
12-16-88 #6
12-20-89 #7
01-20-93 #8
06-25-96 #9 Denied 4 years. Transcript for sale from this site.
12-28-00 #10 Denied 4 more years. She was defended for the first time by her husband/Harvard educated attorney. She was forced to face Janet Parent, the sister of murder victim Steven Parent, for the first time. She did not like it very much.

Patricia Krenwinkel - W 08314
08-11-82 #4
09-04-85 #5
11-07-88 #6
11-22-89 #7
11-05-90 #8
12-29-93 #9
03-19-97 #10 Denied 5 years
Spring of 2002 She gave herself a two year "unfit for parole consideration" notice to the BPT. She actually followed the actions of Tex Watson twice, and she would not want to do anything to upset the plans of Leslie Van Houten in her Superior Court action and Appeal now would she? Pat has admitted to consulting, planning, working together with Leslie with regards to parole hearing actions. Just like in the Manson days of old, nothing happens by accident.

Leslie Van Houten. - W 13378
04-22-82 #3
05-15-85 #4
07-11-86 #5
07-30-87 #6
12-21-89 #7
12-30-91 #8
12-29-93 #9
04-30-96 #10
05-28-98 #11 Denied 1 year
07-07-99 #13
06-06-00 #13 Two year denial
06-28-02 #14 Denied for Two years.

http://users.adelphia.net/~mansonmurders/parole_hearings.htm

[ronnykmarshall]

64. Again he dodges the question.

Still can't back up how they've been "reformed".

[RoonShark]

71. Davis Lost the Election

Davis lost the election because he was such a hardass about everything. Ordinary people just got fed up with him and said, Who needs this shit?

Davis didn't lose the election because he denied parole to the Manson girls; he was that way about everything - full of suspicion, full of mistrust, guarded and self-protecting. He didn't have anything positive to offer. He would have continued his act for another three years, and it got old.

Wanna stop losing big elections, guys? Move to the left, so people have something to vote for. If they want a Republican, they'll vote for one.

[ronnykmarshall]

72. Dodge, dodge, dodge.

[RoonShark]

73. Who's Dodging?

Gray Davis was well protected from attacks from the right, but the attack never came. Arnold never answered any questions! He just stood there reciting the Republican mantra, and Davis never got a shot in.

Davis's elaborate defenses turned out to be irrelevant. Towards the end, he embarrassed himself politically by offering a one-on-one debate with Arnold, but Arnold turned him down. In his five-year tenure as governor, Davis cozied up to the conservatives and alienated the liberals.

Democrats should take a lesson from the California debacle: Don't cheat your friends. They're not as stuck with you as you think.

[CoolerKing]

15. I will blame Republicans...

for as long as there is breath in my body. They made an issue out of Willie Horton. It worked. Davis (and all "tough on crime" Democrats) are wrong to support the death penalty, the war on drugs, mandatory sentencing laws, etc. etc.

Now you could argue that we are sacrificing what is right for political expediency, but what has being cruel and taking an imbecillic approach to crime issues gotten us? What did we get in return?

I'll leave that open to debate.

[RoonShark]

18. Right Wing Democrats Don't Win

If people want to vote right wing, they'll go ahead and vote right wing. As Democrats, we don't need to cater to them by turning into right wingers ourselves. Davis turned the clock back on liberal reform when he rejected parole, and found himself without any friends.

Democrats have to have core values. If people don't have a reason to vote for us, they won't vote for us. It's the mistake Mark Green made in running for New York City mayor. Would you believe that the dopey sumbitch ran a racist ad? It made veiled references to the non-white hordes. Needless to say, the non-white hordes voted against him.

[mitchum]

48. You have a very limited understanding of liberal values...

try reading some John Stuart Mill

[RoonShark]

51. Liberal Values

Whether I've read John Stuart Mill or not is not the point. Gray Davis, the Democratic governor of California, was just hammered in a recall election. We are told that the reason is that the right wingers pulled the wool over the voters' eyes.

I don't think that's the reason. Gray Davis is a right wing Democrat, a guy without a natural constituency in the Democratic Party. He may have started out as a legitimate Democrat, but by 2003 this guy might as well be a Republican.

There's no reason to vote for a guy like that. He has no friends left, he screwed them all. When it came down to whether or not to keep him in office, a full eighteen percent of Democrats voted Republican. That's more than political marketing; that reflects on the substance of the candidate.

[mitchum]

79. No, the fact that you have some rather odd ideas about justice...

and punishment and liberal values is the point (since YOU introduced the topic in your fuzzy-headed arguement)

[RoonShark]

84. What's Odd About Parole?

Parole is one of the achievements of liberal penology. Gray Davis opposed parole, not to replace it with anything better, but apparently just for his political career. We can now see that this strategy has weaknesses that Davis didn't anticipate.

Perhaps you might clarify what you think is odd about parole. California doesn't have life sentences, it has indefinite sentences. After a certain amount of time, a prisoner meeting the qualifications ought to be paroled. This is not a novel idea; it's well established.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oasis]

27. RoonS. says he has two pals who are in the can for murder. Need I

say more? :shrug:

[RoonShark]

37. Two Parolees

I didn't say I know two guys in the can for murder, I said I know two guys who'd committed murder in their youth and were later released on parole.

It's astonishing to me that on a Democratic forum there are people who support Gray Davis's ideas about parole. On this issue, Davis was to the right of a lot of Republicans! He wasn't even rational, he was nutty.

I believe that deviant behavior can actually be corrected. Davis was taking America back to the Dark Ages of locking people up and throwing away the key. There's nothing liberal about that.

[oasis]

39. Murder has harsh consequences and rightly so. It's hard enough

to get a conviction against murderers. The criminal mind knows how to work the system. Taxpayers need not be exposed to even more victimization by thugs who are enabled by lenient administrators.

BTW, "Democratic forums" are not necessarily pro-anarchy.

[RoonShark]

50. Right Wing Democrats

Right wing Democrats aren't true Democrats. When a guy like Gray Davis gets into trouble, he has nobody to turn to. He doesn't have any friends because he has screwed them all.

Democrats who use right wing rhetoric to justify draconian criminal justice policies are only superficially appealing. They aren't Republican enough to take votes away from Republican opponents, and they aren't Democratic enough to appeal to Democrats. That's the lesson of the Davis collapse. After five years of increasingly right wing government, California Democrats couldn't come up with a convincing reason to keep Gray Davis in office.

So the "criminal mind" of the members of the Manson family didn't prevail over Gray Davis - they stay in jail even though they are now in their 50's and are completely different people from the confused teenagers they were in 1969. The voters weren't impressed. Perhaps now, justice will be served and these women will finally get their long-overdue parole.

[AP]

11. As an aside, I guarantee you crime rates are going to go up under Arnold

They need people to be afraid of crime to accept the sort of fascism they want to perpetrate.

Perhaps Arnold will parole ALL the murderers. He's definitely going to create a huge underclass that will resort to crime to survive, which is something the Democrats did a nice job of avoiding.

[RoonShark]

19. A Huge Underclass

Oh, come now. Surely you're not denying the existence of a huge underclass in California society as it exists today, are you? My, my. Perhaps Arnold will do even less to help them than Davis did, but Davis didn't do much.

Davis lost because he didn't have any friends left. He'd screwed them all.

[AP]

44. CA has most progressive state tax code in the country (which isn't say-

ing much).

Arnold is Governor today because he's going to make sure more wealth flows up the wealth ladder.

That money is coming out of somewhere. There's an underclass now, but a lot of formerly middle-class people are soon to join them down there.

[Kamika]

30. say

You're not here to stroke the little general are you?


:D

[RoonShark]

32. Right Wing Democrats Don't Win

Democrats who turn to the right eventually exhaust the good will of the people who elected them. Gray Davis turned into a conservative Republican, probably to advance his personal career. We're told that this is what Democrats have to do in order to stay viable. But now we see that this strategy has a downside, too.

Given a choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republican, and a Republican who won't say how he's going to act, a lot of voters will take their chances. Californians are risk-takers; it's part of their Gold Rush heritage. Nothing good was going to happen with Gray Davis, and they knew it.

[Kamika]

36. lol

you so didnt get it

[_NorCal_D_]

57. 'Gray Davis turned into a conservative Republican'

What utter nonsense.

If he were such an uber-conservative, why would Republicans even want a recall?
:eyes:

[RoonShark]

77. Because It's Not Entirely Ideological

Over the course of his five years in office, Davis forgot all about the liberals. Why would the Republicans still want to defeat him? Just wait.

You have to give people a reason to vote for you. Davis didn't.

[Skittles]

43. sorry Roon

there are PLENTY of reasons to lock up someone forever. Serial rapists/murderers come to mind.

[RoonShark]

47. Drawing the Line

The point here isn't where I draw the line or where you draw the line, it's where Governor Gray Davis drew the line. He had a policy of reversing Parole Board decision to release prisoners: he was heartless. When a guy like that calls himself a Democrat, we're in trouble as a party.

We have to stand up for core values, among them forgiveness, compassion and reconciliation. Betcha Arnold Schwartzeneggar will release the Manson family members who have served 35 years for crimes they committed as teenagers. When Republicans have more compassion than Democrats, Democrats don't have anything to sell. The voters gave Gray Davis the boot, and they knew all about him. They selected a political unknown as his replacement. Democrats ought to take heed.

[ronnykmarshall]

60. Yeah, that will happen.

[fizzana]

52. Davis was a cold and heartless shit when it came to mercy

This isn't about Manson or his followers but about people who had already been granted parole by the California Board who are not exactly bleeding heart liberals.

A few cases stand out.

One was a woman who was horribly abused by her husband. She stabbed him to death when he tried to beat the crap out of her. Granted parole but then denied by Davis.

Someone convicted of 2nd degree murder (not premeditaed) who was dying of AIDS and cancer as well as suffering dementia. The parole board decided that he could spend his last few months living with his parents. Overturned by Davis.

An 18 year gay kid killed one of his friends in a fit of rage after the friend told his father he was gay. The father beat the crap out of the kid and threw him out of the house. While in jail he earned 2 college degrees, tutored other inmates. He was eventually granted parole but Davis refused to grant it.

These are just three of the cases I'm aware of. I agree there are many murderers who should never see the light of day, but in my mind a test of character is whether that person has the capability to show mercy. Bush* certainly has none and Davis showed no inclination in his time as governor.

[RoonShark]

54. Davis Was Not a Democrat

There's nothing warm or compassionate about Gray Davis. He looks cold and calculating, and in fact he is. Why would you not release a terminally ill AIDS patient to die at home with his family? It's shocking, and ordinary people can see it as callous.

It would be different if California were in good shape and the governor's cold-heartedness could be ignored. But the state is tanking, and the voters decided to give Schwartzeneggar a shot.

[Xithras]

56. Case by case rebuttal:

All of the people you listed SHOULD have been left in prison, here's why:

One was a woman who was horribly abused by her husband. She stabbed him to death when he tried to beat the crap out of her. Granted parole but then denied by Davis.

Ah, so if someone tries to hit you, you can kill them? I've known several abused women, and I know the difficulty in leaving a relationship with a dominating male, but there is NO excuse for murder. I assume you're talking about the case of Marva Wallace, the woman who shot her husband THREE TIMES in the back of his head? She could have just as easily walked out the door, but she chose to kill him instead. Why? Her argument is that she felt "trapped" and saw this as the only way out. So who will she kill the next time she feels trapped?

Someone convicted of 2nd degree murder (not premeditaed) who was dying of AIDS and cancer as well as suffering dementia. The parole board decided that he could spend his last few months living with his parents. Overturned by Davis.

So now we have a guy with a proven history of being inable to control his emotions, and a history of killing, who has even LESS control due to dementia and a "nothing to lose" attitude because he was dying anyway. Sounds like a threat to society to me!

An 18 year gay kid killed one of his friends in a fit of rage after the friend told his father he was gay. The father beat the crap out of the kid and threw him out of the house. While in jail he earned 2 college degrees, tutored other inmates. He was eventually granted parole but Davis refused to grant it.

This unstable kid killed his friend because he couldn't control his temper over something that was said?!?!. The fact that he's educated now means SQUAT...the history books are full of educated men who killed without remorse, so his gaining of degrees means NOTHING. Can you prove that he WON'T kill again the next time someone does something he doesn't like?

[fizzana]

61. So you know better than the parole board

The parole board had decided that these people were fit to be paroled so you obviously disagree with their assessments.

In case # 2 the person is dying of AIDS. When you're dying of AIDS you aren't a threat to anyone. You can barely get out of bed.

In case # 3, the kid reacted not to what was said, but what resulted from that.

In any case the parole board had decided that these people had paid their debt to society. In two of the cases, they had been in prison for over 20 years.

Im America we proclaim to have a system that is just. Punishment is just and reasonable and mercy is part of that. In Davis' case he consistantly overruled those he had entrusted to make those decisions no matter what the issue.

[Xithras]

63. Life is life

"Life Imprisonment" means "until you leave feet first". I'm sorry the guy died of AIDS, and understand that his death must have been cold and lonely, but that's the sentence he was given.

As for case #3...well, I don't know what any reasonable person can say in response to that. Are you HONESTLY saying that the victim somehow DESERVED to die simply because he OUTED someone?!?! I'm the bisexual son of a Bible-thumping Freeper type who, for obvious reasons, doesn't discuss his sex life with his dad. Would I be pissed if someone outed me to my dad and my dad assaulted me for it? Absolutely. Would I kill the person who outed me? I doubt the thought would even cross my mind. This guy hunted down and killed someone in cold blood, he doesn't deserve to be free again.

[fizzana]

66. Please don't twist my words

Nowhere did I say that the person who outed him deserved to die.

Whatever your opinions, these people were eligible for parole and the parole board decided to parole them. In case # 3 I believe the person was turned down for parole a few times before it was finally granted.

My problem with Davis on this was that he automatically overruled the parole board that he had appointed in every instance. Why even bother with the possibilility of parole in that case.

These people were given sentences less than "life without the possibility of parole." According to your reasoning every case of murder, whether premeditated or not, whether there were extenuating circumstances or not should receive life without the possibility of parole.

[RoonShark]

67. California Parole Board

The California Parole Board is comprised of six cops appointed by Gray Davis. As unlikely as it is that any of these can be called "liberal", Davis still managed to overrule their decision to grant parole.

Davis-style justice was over the top. In overruling so many worthy cases, Davis showed himself to be completely heartless. Justice has to be tempered by mercy, and Davis showed none. It's not a surprise that the voters sensed that about him, that this guy was lacking in compassion.

The Parole Board is actually called the "Board of Prison Terms." Here's their home page: http://www.bpt.ca.gov/parole.html

[Xithras]

55. Murderers SHOULD be locked away forever.

So should serial rapists, predatory sexual offenders, and certain hate-crime offenders. As a father I can tell you this: if someone killed my daughter today, I'd let the courts handle it because I KNOW they'd be locked away for life and would be adequately punished. If I knew that my daughters killer would only be sent to prison for 20 years, I'd likely shove my gun behind his ear and finish him off myself.

Remember this: Vigilantiism is wrong because we have a law enforcement and court system in place to ensure that criminals are prosecuted and properly punished for the crimes they commit, and society has a RIGHT to decide what those punishments are. We, as a society, have granted our government the exclusive right to administer justice, arbitrate legal disputes, and punish those who would do us harm. If our government fails in this regard, citizens WILL retake that right and start administering justice themselves.

All but a tiny minority agree that murderers should be locked away for life, and if we let that minority dictate policy we will undermine the confidence of the majority in our governmental and legal systems. If the majority of people don't believe in our legal system, our society WILL fail.

[Dogmudgeon]

58. Yeah, that's the voice of reason.

If you have such confidence in self-control, try controlling your temper after you've had the shit beaten out of you, like the gay kid. You've gotten yourself all worked up just over the idea of someone not getting punished enough.

How would you deal with being worked over for an hour or two by someone your life depended on?

You said you'd shoot anyone who laid a hand on your daughter, right?

It's interesting how the angriest people are the ones who most approve of merciless punishment.

There's a good reason why there are several "grades" of killing recognized by the law -- mainly because not every killing is a malicious, premeditated act.

We have let an angry minority of people dictate our system of justice, and it's become a farce. A majority of people actually don't believe in it. It's not because we're not harsh enough on the criminals, it's because the angry minority thinks it's good policy to embody mindless emotionalizing in law and Gawd help anyone who thinks the carrot should be tried along with the stick.

Vigilantism isn't wrong because of any carefully-calculated retaliation; vigilantism is wrong because it's thinly veiled crime, gussied up to look like an act or nobility and courage.

Ask any murderer. Most of them will tell you -- their victim deserved to be "punished". They're all just vigilantes, punishing transgression wherever they find it.

--bkl

[Xithras]

62. Who's worked up?

People who kill when they're angry are the EXACT people who deserve to be locked away forever (for the record, if I killed someone for killing my daughter, I'd fully expect to be imprisoned for it). Fact is, there is zero legitimate reason to MURDER someone. Yes, the law DOES recognize that there are several shades of murder, and we're not talking about the accidental, temporary insanity, or self-defense cases here, we're talking about people who got pissed off, walked over, and ended the life of another human being because they didn't feel like finding a civilized way to solve their problems or were so mentally imbalanced that they simply didn't care. These people, by their very existance, are a danger to society and MUST be kept locked away.

As far as your "angry minority of people dictating our system of justice" quote goes, the polls are very clear. The MAJORITY of people in this country support capital punishment...they not only want to lock them away, they want to kill them. Most of those opposed to capital punishment (including myself), believe that a better punishment is to imprison them for the rest of their lives. Very, very few people actually believe that murderers are deserving of any kind of special pity or mercy. They have destroyed the lives of others, and in so doing have destoyed their own lives.

Except for a wrongly convicted minority, most people who are imprisoned for murder are there because of their own choices. If people don't want to spend their lives in prison, they shouldn't murder other people. It's as simple as that.

[RoonShark]

69. Right Wing Democrats Are Losers

Right wingers don't have enough appeal to win elections. Voters who want draconian criminal justice, or other right wing goals, can vote Republican. Even if it's true that liberals are a captive constituency within the Democratic party, it's not true that Democratic office holders can afford to alienate liberals.

Right wing Democrats think they are safe from attack from the right, but the Davis debacle shows this is empty. Davis exhausted the good will of his friends because he screwed them all. When he needed people to vote for him, they didn't turn out for him or in some cases they voted Republican.

The California recall should tell Democratic right wingers that nobody's buying their pencils anymore. Davis was so anxious for higher office that he kept inching further to the right until for all practical purposes he became a Republican himself. Comes now Arnold Schwartzeneggar - of all people - and handily defeats the five-year incumbent.

Wanna stop losing big elections, guys? Move to the left.

[bluestateguy]

65. Are you serious?

So if Osama bin Laden was captured you are saying that he should be paroled after 10 years? How about paroling Charles Manson?

Oh, and I'm sure Arnold Scwarzenegger will just open the jail doors wide open for the murderers that you weep for.

[RoonShark]

68. Liberal-Bashing Has to Stop

We've gotten to the point where we are losing our humanity. No sentence can be harsh enough! We don't even ask what is the right thing to do with societal offenders, we just automatically assume that mercy is weakness.

If there's this much liberal-bashing going on in a Democratic forum, then politically, we really are out of business. The voters know it, too. Republicans are taking over the blue states, one by one.

[fizzana]

70. That comment is just plain silly.

n/t

[RoonShark]

74. Right Wing Democrats Are Reeling

Right wing Democrats now know they cost us the California governorship. And Davis didn't turn right wing just in the last year. He's been ducking liberal causes his entire tenure as governor, because the right wing Dems encouraged it.

But now we see the truth! All their humbug arguments about how turning to the right is politically necessary have been exposed as worthless. Wanna stop losing elections, guys? Move to the left. Give people a reason to vote for you.

This is serious stuff. If Bush takes California we're in deep shit.

[ComerPerro]

75. I am suprised you haven't been tombstoned yet

And this will probably get deleted. Oh well.

[RoonShark]

76. Marketing the Product

It's not all packaging; some of it has to do with the product itself. A guy like Gray Davis defends himself from the right, not from the left. As it turns out, that's not enough.

Wanna stop losing elections, guys? Give people a reason to vote for you. Move to the left.

[Gemini Cat]

78. Huh? What?

Sounds like a plan to me. :eyes: Yes, let's parole people like the Mansons. Maybe the Mansons can live in your neighbourhood afterwards.

[RoonShark]

82. Charley's Pushing Seventy

He's old and harmless. There's no reason to keep him in prison. He's no threat to anyone.

[goforit]

81. Send them to 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave.!!!

Their own kind lives there!!!

[RoonShark]

83. Abandoning Discredited Policies

There really isn't any way to accommodate the right. Attempting it just provokes them. Clinton was impeached, and Davis was recalled. Gore's legitimate election was stolen.

Instead of accommodating the right, we need to strengthen support for the left. Give people something to vote for.