Not much chance of parole in a case this highly-publicized, but it’s worth pointing out that many countries in Europe have much shorter sentences for murder than we do, ten years is common, and of course no death penalty for half-a-century. And yet these countries consistently have murder rates one-third to one-fourth that in the U.S.
1 Like
She probably isn’t dangerous, and she probably wouldn’t cause any trouble if released.
It’s equally likely that no public official wants to put their name on a document that releases anyone associated with Charles Manson from prison. It’s not good PR.
2 Likes
They aren’t swimming in firearms. They don’t have media constantly pushing fear of the other at them (or haven’t until recently – fear the Muslim seems to be increasing).
Do you suppose those facts have anything to do with the lower murder rates? I do.
My father worked in Vocational Ed in the California DoC. The teachers had quite a bit of control who they allowed into their program. Dad said on many occasions that he’d take a murderer sight unseen over any burglar/mugger/drug dealer. Murderers mostly fucked up very badly on one occasion. The burglars, etc. are liars, cheats and manipulators. (Manson’s family are a glaring exception to this, as are serial killers.)
Additionally, no one advocating the death penalty seems to even cast a glance at the humongous costs that follow a death sentence, including many years of incarceration before the sentence is carried out. There are appeals and appeals on appeals, tons of court costs etc. I don’t know the numbers but someone could probably figure them out. I’m guessing that those costs alone would house a life tenant in the prison system. Even before the sentence is given, just the possibility of a death sentence adds to trial costs.
Then there are the stupid sentences of tens of years, even life, for minor offenses; if it’s justifiable for those, as it seems to have been for a long time, that economic argument for the DP doesn’t hold water, any more than it makes economic sense to jail people because they can’t afford to pay a traffic fine, al la Ferguson-- or in the case of my disabled neighbor, pay someone to mow his lawn often enough.
I don’t argue against the DP just for those reasons, however sound I think them to be. But I believe that killing people in cold blood should not be the prerogative of a decent society or government. Much of the civilized world has come to this belief as well, and see our DP as no better than ISIS beheadings. I believe that even having this as an option does something to the people who espouse it, and it’s not pretty or civilized.
The other reason is the starkly clear fact that many people on death row were never guilty of the crimes that would result in their own murders-- and that by any estimate many people have been wrongly executed.
I’m all for sentences of Life Without Parole in such terribly egregious cases, if they’re incontrovertibly proven; no costly parole hearings needed.
And no, don’t let her out. Never. I’m truly sorry that young girl fell in so deeply with such an awful crowd, but that does not absolve her of responsibility. Choices have consequences. If there were any deterrent effect of sentencing, I would suggest that her lifelong hopeless incarceration, and her struggle against it, would offer far more deterrent than an execution.
Here’s something else to think about, though. What is the message to those already incarcerated?
Van Houten, 66, has spent more than four decades in prison, completing college degrees and demonstrating exemplary behavior.
I think the 19-yr old druggie who let herself get sucked in with the Manson crowd is already long dead. She’s served her life sentence. There’s a new person in that prison, and I think she should be let out. I wouldn’t have the slightest fear living next door to her, and I have 3 children at home.
This is a difficult thing. People can change, but those of us who have never even contemplated such horrific behavior instinctively and understandably “other” someone who does something like this, and it’s difficult to ever remove that barrier once it’s erected.
Michael Moore’s film Where to Invade Next visits a Norwegian prison, where there are no locks or bars and prisoners engage in everyday activities and education. The guards don’t wear guns or uniforms and the living quarters are closer to a dormitory than a stalag. And these are the most heinous criminals. Jail is rarely required for lesser crimes. Apparently it’s quite a successful corrections system.
When the person in charge is asked where they found out that this would work, the answer, as for all the successful systems the film visits, is “From America.” Apparently, we do a lot of research here in America, but we just ignore it. Fortunately, the rest of the world reads it and benefits.