Should Charles Manson be released?

[jameslikespie]

It just seems to be a matter of word choice. Reparations can usually be swapped with revenge and it's the same thing wrapped in a more politically thought out wrapper. What exactly is justice to you?

I have to agree with you here.

 

[Philosophyking87]

It just seems to be a matter of word choice. Reparations can usually be swapped with revenge and it's the same thing wrapped in a more politically thought out wrapper. What exactly is justice to you?

Here's a nice explanation concerning this inquiry:

Although revenge resembles some conceptions of justice, vengeance is usually depicted as more injurious and punitive as opposed to being harmonious and restorative. Whereas justice implies actions undertaken and supported by a legitimate judicial system grounded upon a foundation of ethics and morals of the authority recognised by the victims and usually the wrongdoer, revenge implies actions undertaken by an individual or narrowly defined group outside the boundaries of acceptable judicial or ethical conduct whose goal is to force a wrongdoer to suffer the same or greater pain or loss than that which was originally inflicted to the victim(s).

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yeah, some of his songs are pretty good. I like "Home Is Where You're Happy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24RvJAdI0Vo"]Charles Manson - Home Is Where You're Happy - YouTube

(On a side note, what might Manson's MBTI type be? ENTP? He reminds me of a few ENTP's I know.)

He sounds like Donovan, really. I've heard another song that I don't remember but I agree he had a spark of talent.

 

[mm1991]

Yeah, some of his songs are pretty good. I like "Home Is Where You're Happy."

Charles Manson - Home Is Where You're Happy - YouTube

(On a side note, what might Manson's MBTI type be? ENTP? He reminds me of a few ENTP's I know.)

If only he had picked music as a career instead of cult leader, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

What is there to discuss? Did something happen in the news? He killed a bunch of people. No, he should not be released.

He killed no one.
Therefore his confinement is unjust.

 

[Reluctantly]

Didn't he influence and encourage other people to kill? If true, I can easily imagine this would bother people a lot more than if he had killed people himself because he has no scruples about manipulating people to commit crimes. At least a killer can be redeemed by playing on the reason why he/she did it; but Manson seems indifferent to feeling he is responsible for anything.

Is that about right?

Do it Ancient Greece style

Kill people for any crime.

That'll keep people from doing it.

I suppose we'd all be killed until there was one or no one left.

...I like it.

 

[Jennywocky]

I forgot the original question. Manson is batshit crazy and should probably remain locked up. I would like to see the girls released. They realized how fucking stupid they were very early in their prison terms and playing "Lucy and the Football" with their parole once a year seems a bit extreme. Susan Atkins is dead. They even let out the one that tried to kill Ford.

I don't remember if I responded earlier in this thread (nor are you probably around two years later), but in general I agree with this.

1. Manson is a nut. Probably mostly "harmless" but essentially his power was charisma -- he was good at getting a few zealots to do really awful things. His gang would not have become criminals if he hadn't shaped the group and spurred them on. And the stuff that happened to the victims was pretty horrible, if you've read anything about the murders of Sharon Tate (a late-term pregnant woman who was stabbed repeatedly until she died) and the other couple who was butchered in their home. I've examined a lot of crimes over the years, and these were just heinous, cold-blooded, heartless murders with some degree of emotional torture inflicted on the victims as well as how they were killed.

To be honest, though, Manson is probably safer in prison. I'm pretty sure someone would just kill him if he got out, and that would be that. he's also been in so long, and he's crazy enough, that I doubt he'd function well outside of it.


2. The girls? Yeah, Atkins became a Christian years back, then died of cancer. The other girls (women now, obviously) have done a lot of time, enough to be sorry for what they did while young and having repented. From reviewing the case, I do believe they are "rehabilitated" and wouldn't expect them to harm anyone.

HOWEVER... again, they're probably safer in prison than outside. And the reality is that sometimes a crime is SO bad (and their behavior during the trials didn't help them much in that regard) that realistically even if you 'serve your time' you're still screwed. The murders were heinous enough that the family of the victims understandably never wants to see them get out, and it's likely they never will.

So I can't even say they should get out, as they are guilty of the crimes they were charged with and it can never be set right; I just think in terms of whether they would function as productive members of society? Sure, I think they would be responsible citizens and not cause more issues. But they will probably have to bear the yoke of their crimes and find ways to help society from inside prison, because realistically even if they COULD get out, I really doubt society will ever feel comfortable letting them out.

And of course, there is the deterrent factor to be spoken of, to send a message.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

If someone you know goes on a killing spree, would you like to be accountable for their actions?
Guilt by association?
The whole brainwashing/cult narrative is a media spin designed to make sales.

Ask who had a motive.
Look up what Roland Polanski did at the time.
Look at the victims and their relation to Polanski at the time of the murders.
Follow the money.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxUw1jp1EZI

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpTo4HQeiZg

you can skip to 09:18

 

[EvilBlitz]

By your logic Salmoneus, Hitler wasnt that bad. He did't execute any of the Jews directly afaik.
Afaik also the main person for coming up with the Final Solution(forget which one) was known to have been physically ill at the sight of a mass execution.
Was he not culpable as well? Does it mean he wasnt that bad because he couldnt even stand the sight of what he demanded?

How do the layers between the accused and the victim change the punishment?

I demand someone kills someone. I dont do it, but they do it.
I pay someone to kill somoene. I dont do it, but they do it.
I bomb someone. I do not touch them myself, but my actions directly lead to their death.
I strangle someone with my bare hands. I killed them.

If you think the top one is the least worst, then why are the worst atrocities(genocide) normally committed by those who didn't directly commit the crime?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

By your logic Salmoneus, Hitler wasnt that bad. He did't execute any of the Jews directly afaik.1
Afaik also the main person for coming up with the Final Solution1(forget which one) was known to have been physically ill at the sight of a mass execution.
Was he not culpable as well? Does it mean he wasnt that bad because he couldnt even stand the sight of what he demanded?

How do the layers between the accused and the victim change the punishment?

I demand someone kills someone. I dont do it, but they do it.
I pay someone to kill somoene. I dont do it, but they do it.
I bomb someone. I do not touch them myself, but my actions directly lead to their death.
I strangle someone with my bare hands. I killed them.2

If you think the top one is the least worst, then why are the worst atrocities(genocide) normally committed by those who didn't directly commit the crime?3

1. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Hitler's rise to power and his eugenicist program were in the making since the 1920s.
The Thule Society, an occult organization, was the driving force behind the establishment of Nazi Germany.
The Blood and Soil / Holocaust / Final Solution chain of events were premeditated.
Policies have been implemented, meetings with the leaders of industry were arranged, military doctrines put in place etc. etc.
This:

is hardly comparable to this:

There is absolutely no evidence that Manson
1) was a leader
2) was planning the Tate/LaBianca murders
3) had knowledge about the above prior to the events taking place

So, that's the point where your Hitler analogy totally falls apart.

2. Again, there is no evidence to support this besides the BS "Helter Skelter" narrative.
Do you believe in the findings of the "Warren Commission" and the "Magic Bullet Theory" as well?
[bimgx=250]http://frankwarner.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451cd3769e201538ece10d9970b-500wi[/bimgx]
[bimgx=250]http://frankwarner.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451cd3769e201156fbfc775970c-500wi[/bimgx]

3. Can you refer me to the quote in which i stated that?
You are still trapped in the belief that he was a leader who commanded his underlings to kill for him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers_%28theater%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Against_the_Wall_Motherfuckers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yippies


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M_Iu5MT5rY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g0vHuD8fDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctt7PiAfqOA