Parole her for Crissake!

[LeatherFace]

Leslie Van Houten was up for parole for the 14th time and was denied. The woman is 52 and the crime she committed was when she was 19. Everytime she is denied, its based solely on the atrocity of the crime and it is never taken into account that if released, she isn't going to kill anyone. She's done her time.

I just don't understand America's sense of justice sometimes.

[RideMonkey]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I just don't understand America's sense of justice sometimes.

Me neither. She should have got the chair.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by RideMonkey


Me neither. She should have got the chair.

Well, she didn't...when she was sentenced to death, a few months later California ruled the death penalty unconstitutional and her sentence commuted to life. And in California, life sentences mean life with the possibility of parole.

Why is it so easy for us to think the state should kill someone?

[ummbikes]

Pfffttttshhhh.

That was the sound of a fresh can of worms being opened.


Leatherface--It's easy to imagine the state as killers because Murder is sanctioned by the state in two forms; abortion, and capitol punishment.

I think both are wrong, but alas they are legal...

[gecko]

Hmm my thoughts? Maybe that's what you get for slaughtering two people in cold blood. Don't have a whole lot of sympathy for her.

Being 19 at the time is not an excuse.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by gecko
Hmm my thoughts? Maybe that's what you get for slaughtering two people in cold blood. Don't have a whole lot of sympathy for her.

Being 19 at the time is not an excuse.

Yes, but I don't think she would have done it if she hadn't met up with Charlie.

[RideMonkey]

Originally posted by gecko
Hmm my thoughts? Maybe that's what you get for slaughtering two people in cold blood. Don't have a whole lot of sympathy for her.

Being 19 at the time is not an excuse.

Yeah Adam just turned 20. If he killed me I'd expect his balls set on fire. Young or not.

[RideMonkey]

Originally posted by RideMonkey


Yeah Adam just turned 20. If he killed me I'd expect his balls set on fire. Young or not.

Oops sorry, Adam=Gecko. He's been eyeing the throne so I gotta watch my back.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by RideMonkey


Yeah Adam just turned 20. If he killed me I'd expect his balls set on fire. Young or not.

I don't think that is an agreed upon form of capital punishment :rolleyes:

[jabberwocky]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Pfffttttshhhh.

That was the sound of a fresh can of worms being opened.


Leatherface--It's easy to imagine the state as killers because Murder is sanctioned by the state in two forms; abortion, and capitol punishment.

I think both are wrong, but alas they are legal...

Pffffffttshhhhh! And here is another one. I believe that unwanted children run a greater risk of becoming criminal or deliquant.

And Volley...

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by jabberwocky


Pffffffttshhhhh! And here is another one. I believe that unwanted children run a greater risk of becoming criminal or deliquant.

And Volley...

You are absolutely right--and this starts in utero . And unwanted child is sensitive to the mother's stress and undesire to have it. Due to this, unwanted children have lower birth weights, difficulty with bonding, and are more likely to have learning disabilities, psychological problems, and criminal behavior.

Leslie van Houten was from a middle class, stable family. She is definately a case for brainwashing.

[jabberwocky]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


You are absolutely right--and this starts in utero . And unwanted child is sensitive to the mother's stress and undesire to have it. Due to this, unwanted children have lower birth weights, difficulty with bonding, and are more likely to have learning disabilities, psychological problems, and criminal behavior.

Leslie van Houten was from a middle class, stable family. She is definately a case for brainwashing.

I don't know anything about Houten (did she run with Helter Skelter boy Charlie Manson?). However, being of middle class does not mean that you are wanted; and being of lower class doesn't mean you don't want kids. Though I agree, growing up middle-class has its own set of risks.

[ummbikes]

I see your points, Leather, and Jabber. An unwanted child is by description, not going to get the same rearing as a planned child. Contraceptives are readliy available, and effective, people should use them.

My question Leatherface is, why is abortion acceptable, and capitol punishment not?

Volly, back!

(Have either of you read Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are dead?) Mental tennis....

[jabberwocky]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I see your points, Leather, and Jabber. An unwanted child is by description, not going to get the same rearing as a planned child. Contraceptives are readliy available, and effective, people should use them.

My question Leatherface is, why is abortion acceptable, and capitol punishment not?

Volly, back!

(Have either of you read Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are dead?) Mental tennis....

Tom Stoppard, love him; and the movie was great.

My question is why is conception such a big thing? If you stop the pregnancy before it starts its fine (the pill "kills" the egg as it were. The day after pill aborts the fetus, and heck, often the body does too.

The problem with capitol punishment is that their is often error in the system. If it were a clear case, and the convict agreed to it, well I don't see a problem. However, if it is less than air tight their is a risk that you are terminating the life of someone who does not deserve death, at least for the crime he/she is being tried for.

R&G is a a good example. Hamlet was being sentenced to death for political reasons. Life is pressious, it should not be terminated without just cause. A potential destructive childhood is a good reason. We already have a huge population, why make it grown with people who have a high chance of being mal-developed because of rejection or other damaging social agents.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I see your points, Leather, and Jabber. An unwanted child is by description, not going to get the same rearing as a planned child. Contraceptives are readliy available, and effective, people should use them.

My question Leatherface is, why is abortion acceptable, and capitol punishment not?

Volly, back!

(Have either of you read Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are dead?) Mental tennis....

Where the heck did abortion get brought into this? ;) I was talking about paroling Van Houten :p And yes, you are right ummbikes, this could be a case for "theatre of the absurd" --we could all just be waiting for that Godot guy...

[mr_dove]

I only believe in protecting the innocent. Abortion is wrong because babies are innocent. I'm sure that there are arguments to the contrary, but I know that there are plenty of people in this country who are unable to have children. Adoption would seem to join the "haves" and the "have nots" in a perfect partnership.

Regarding the death penalty: I fully support it however, I'm also nieve enough to believe that people put on death row are actually guilty. Each day it gets more and more evident that this is not the case. If you are guilty of the crime, you should die. I guess that I believe in the death penalty only when it's being decided in a perfect world. I guess that can't really happen though can it?

I think that the same argument would apply to other punishments too though. How many people are in jail for crimes that they did not commit? It's not death, but it's still taking away a persons like (short term or long). They could lose jobs, family, friends, possesions, etc. Is that any better?

I'm just saying that our criminal justice system will never be perfect. We just do the best with what we have.

[LeatherFace]

I'm not "for" abortion, but I am against politicians/government telling what I can and cannot do with my body--what I can put into it or take out of it. And I feel like men who tell me that abortion is wrong are really speaking about something they have no knowledge of...particularly pregnancy. I mean, what if I was raped and I wanted an abortion? Or if Uncle John was molesting me and I got pregnant?

[Motionboy2]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I'm not "for" abortion, but I am against politicians/government telling what I can and cannot do with my body--what I can put into it or take out of it. And I feel like men who tell me that abortion is wrong are really speaking about something they have no knowledge of...particularly pregnancy. I mean, what if I was raped and I wanted an abortion? Or if Uncle John was molesting me and I got pregnant?

I agree completely.
However this is what i don't get. Why is it that if you get LIFE in prison you can get out in like 10-20 years. That isn't life really. What says how long until you get the opporitunity for parole? what determines 10 years versus 30 years? I don't understand the justice system very well. If you are behaving well in prison does that help you get out faster. What constitutes "good" behavior in prison. Do you have to be "good"? Or do you just have to be a little better than the other inmates?

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I'm not "for" abortion, but I am against politicians/government telling what I can and cannot do with my body--what I can put into it or take out of it. And I feel like men who tell me that abortion is wrong are really speaking about something they have no knowledge of...particularly pregnancy. I mean, what if I was raped and I wanted an abortion? Or if Uncle John was molesting me and I got pregnant?

Well, there are a load of different views on this, and of course, most (if not all) of them depend upon your political alliance, your religion (and I won't bother to go into my beliefs on this subject), etc.

I will say one thing, though. While not everyone is a Christian, there are a lot of people who believe in God 'in general.' While the thought of someone raping a girl and getting her pregnant is not a thought anyone wants to think of, I personally think it is not fair to deprive a baby of the chance to live simply because the circumstances were nowhere near the best, especially if there are no complications involved (i.e., 'What if having the child would pose a danger to the child, or to both?') I think that a lot of people would agree that God, or 'a God' has a sort of grand plan, and who is to say that this may not be part of His plan? Who is to say that that child, if not aborted, might not grow up to be one of the foremost medical doctors, or scientists, on the planet?

I will also say that whether one is a man or a woman, should not matter. Please please forgive me for saying this, but what would be the difference between a woman telling you an abortion is wrong, and a man telling you an abortion is wrong? I'm not trying to say that you're saying a woman can simply say "You're not a woman, you wouldn't understand" and use that as a copout, of sorts.

I guess what I'm saying is that the critera for judging whether or not abortion is wrong should be of a moral nature, not of a situational nature. If anything I have said has offended, please forgive me. Such is definitely not the intent.

[bomberz1qr20]

Hey Leatherface, if your called Leatherface, why isn't your avatar a picture of Leatherface? Isn't that Mike from the Halloween movies?

And BTW, no one from the Manson case will EVER be released. That would seriously damage public confidence in the system (what little there is).
People don't want to think that the state is letting monsters out of prison.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by bomberz1qr20
Hey Leatherface, if your called Leatherface, why isn't your avatar a picture of Leatherface? Isn't that Mike from the Halloween movies?

And BTW, no one from the Manson case will EVER be released. That would seriously damage public confidence in the system (what little there is).
People don't want to think that the state is letting monsters out of prison.

I couldn't find one of TCM's Leatherface--and yes, this is a pic of Michael Myers ;) ---I'm a horror film fan, if you can tell :p And I don't think Leslie Van Houten is a monster. Charles Manson on the other hand...

[Motionboy2]

Ok here goes another can of worms:

So who is to say that the only reason humans discover/invent something is because of God's master plan?

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Well, she didn't...when she was sentenced to death, a few months later California ruled the death penalty unconstitutional and her sentence commuted to life. And in California, life sentences mean life with the possibility of parole.

Why is it so easy for us to think the state should kill someone?

why is it so easy for a person who's 19 to kill someone and knowing 40 years later she'll get off for taking someone's life.....?

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


Well, there are a load of different views on this, and of course, most (if not all) of them depend upon your political alliance, your religion (and I won't bother to go into my beliefs on this subject), etc.

I will say one thing, though. While not everyone is a Christian, there are a lot of people who believe in God 'in general.' While the thought of someone raping a girl and getting her pregnant is not a thought anyone wants to think of, I personally think it is not fair to deprive a baby of the chance to live simply because the circumstances were nowhere near the best, especially if there are no complications involved (i.e., 'What if having the child would pose a danger to the child, or to both?') I think that a lot of people would agree that God, or 'a God' has a sort of grand plan, and who is to say that this may not be part of His plan? Who is to say that that child, if not aborted, might not grow up to be one of the foremost medical doctors, or scientists, on the planet?

I will also say that whether one is a man or a woman, should not matter. Please please forgive me for saying this, but what would be the difference between a woman telling you an abortion is wrong, and a man telling you an abortion is wrong? I'm not trying to say that you're saying a woman can simply say "You're not a woman, you wouldn't understand" and use that as a copout, of sorts.

I guess what I'm saying is that the critera for judging whether or not abortion is wrong should be of a moral nature, not of a situational nature. If anything I have said has offended, please forgive me. Such is definitely not the intent.

so you're saying that a person who's destined to be a friggin' nobody was part of God's great plan? What I disagree with is how people interpret God's great plan. I don't think God has a great plan for us. I think he's given us the opportunity to find the great things he has provided for us to find. I think that is the great plan. If he had a plan for every single being on Earth, I don't like God very much. We were given thought, personality, emotions, compassion, and understanding. What good is all that if God's great plan for me was to get killed by a drunk driver when I'm 22 (Dear Lord, please don't let me get killed by a drunk driver, I just turned 22). And what if God's great plan was for that drunk driver to kill a 22 year old?

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by ibismojo


why is it so easy for a person who's 19 to kill someone and knowing 40 years later she'll get off for taking someone's life.....?

She didn't know anything at 19...she was originally sentenced to death, so your point about her knowing she will get off 40 years later doesn't apply. Like pretty much all criminals, she killed with the intention of not getting caught---her reason was due to Manson's mythology, Helter Skelter, and the coming "race war" Charlie was going to help start. I think it's different for every case, particularly hers. Don't you think people are capable of making mistakes and then atoning for them?

Why are Americans so unwilling to forgive?

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


She didn't know anything at 19...she was originally sentenced to death, so your point about her knowing she will get off 40 years later doesn't apply. Like pretty much all criminals, she killed with the intention of not getting caught---her reason was due to Manson's mythology, Helter Skelter, and the coming "race war" Charlie was going to help start. I think it's different for every case, particularly hers. Don't you think people are capable of making mistakes and then atoning for them?

Why are Americans so unwilling to forgive?

and what if were to forgive all those who killed....what do you think will happen then?

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by LeatherFace

Why are Americans so unwilling to forgive?

Because killing two totally innocent people is an unforgiveable crime.

If she is paroled, she gets to walk free. What happens to the two people she killed? Nothing, because they are dead. Keep her locked up and throw away the key.

My two cents.

Off to bed now. :)

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by ibismojo


so you're saying that a person who's destined to be a friggin' nobody was part of God's great plan? What I disagree with is how people interpret God's great plan. I don't think God has a great plan for us. I think he's given us the opportunity to find the great things he has provided for us to find. I think that is the great plan. If he had a plan for every single being on Earth, I don't like God very much. We were given thought, personality, emotions, compassion, and understanding. What good is all that if God's great plan for me was to get killed by a drunk driver when I'm 22 (Dear Lord, please don't let me get killed by a drunk driver, I just turned 22). And what if God's great plan was for that drunk driver to kill a 22 year old?

I think you're reacting to what I said a bit strongly. First, I said at least 2 times, forgive me if I offend anyone. And that is the case; if I do offend anyone, forgive me. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone because of my views. I'm not. I'm simply stating them.

Second, yes, God did give us free will. Yes, we do have the power to make our own choices. However, being that God is omniscient, he knows everything....and therefore knows what we're going to do in life, where we're going to work, who we're going to marry, etc. We, on the other hand, do NOT. It is not our place to play God and try to see in the future, and say "Well, that one's gonna be a nobody, so kill it."

This is the part people always have problems with - not knowing EVERYTHING about God and what He has in store for us. I have been dealt some pretty rough cards in my own life, and I personally, in the eyes of a lot of my atheist friends, have cause to doubt God, curse Him for stuff I've gone through, etc.

However, I also recognize 2 things. One, all of those things I went through were tests, designed to bring me closer to Him, and they made me a better man in the end. Two, God DOES NOT want for anyone to hurt or be killed, or to kill, etc. God does not MAKE someone kill a 22-year-old. People always blame God for the bad things that happen in the world...they never stop to think that maybe it is man's own sinful nature that causes people to do bad things.

One last point. All of this I'm saying, obviously, comes from a worldview shaped by my beliefs. I'm not saying people have to subscribe to them, and I'm not saying that I'm better than anyone because I believe them. However, I am saying that if one does not believe as I do, accepting the Bible as the word of God, and all that, then it won't form the foundation of their worldview, their morals, etc.

[fourgivn1]

I could continue to post concerning this conversation but to be honest, it's obviously gotten away from a religious topic relating to a current political topic - the denial of parole of Leslie Van Houten. So for my part, at least, I think I'm gonna try to get back to that, and stick to that topic. :)

[ibismojo]

it's a double standard to say God gave the gifted the grand plan yet some how not be accountable for those who went against his word. if God did have a plan for everyone, regardless of what their views might be of God, exists, doesn't exist, like, dislike, we shouldn't just say "oh i got here because of God." Yes, perhaps he did lead you right to where you are. Or perhaps it was you who took the opportunity to use what God gave you to get to where you are. That certainly could also mean you might have ended up elsewhere. Of course there will be cases where your fate is just out of your hands and there really wasn't much you could do. For that, I'd believe God had a plan.

I just want people to take responsibility for the choices and actions they've made for the better or worse. That's all I was really getting at.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by ibismojo


and what if were to forgive all those who killed....what do you think will happen then?


Isn't "to forgive" the Christian thing to do? Didn't Jesus say to the raging mob "Of those of you without sin, you may cast the first stone"?

Religion aside, I have studied the death penalty a great deal, and hopefully I can inject some logic into this emotionally fuelled argument.

First of all, there are roughly 16,000 murders committed in the U.S. each year--if we were to really punish everyone fairly (eye for an eye, those who kill be put to death) why are there only a little over 3,700 people on death row?

Why is it that 99% of the people on death row are poor and/or minorities?

Why do we execute people when it would cost less to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives (life without parole)?

Killing another person creates a whole new set of victims--the friends and family of the person executed. I'm not condoning what a murderer does, but aren't we just coming down to their level if we kill them?

I'm confused with the stances that are being taken here, because bottom line, killing is killing, whether its capital punishment or abortion. How can you be for one and against the other? Particularly if you proclaim to follow the teachings of Jesus who taught his followers to forgive...:confused:

[LeatherFace]

And concerning the "God's plan" thing...I have found that people use that phrase to help them make sense of the incomprehensible. My own personal example: When I was 16, my mother died of cancer (how apropo since today is the anniversary of her death) and she had a very rare form of cancer, only 500 people in the nation got it a year---and this was back in '89. There was no logical reason for her to get cancer; she was healthy, didn't smoke, didn't drink, we didn't live next to some big toxic cess pool. But she was Catholic (Irish Catholic at that) and she told me that this was "part of God's plan." I know this had to make her feel better about it all because there was no other good explanation. Of course, it made me resentful, and that, among many other things, has helped me proclaim to be a "recovering Catholic."

I don't think there is a plan that God has it all mapped out saying this person will die this way and this person will be born this way...I think it is our human nature to try to make sense out of things that don't. What better thing to put it off on but God?

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by LeatherFace



Isn't "to forgive" the Christian thing to do? Didn't Jesus say to the raging mob "Of those of you without sin, you may cast the first stone"?

Religion aside, I have studied the death penalty a great deal, and hopefully I can inject some logic into this emotionally fuelled argument.

First of all, there are roughly 16,000 murders committed in the U.S. each year--if we were to really punish everyone fairly (eye for an eye, those who kill be put to death) why are there only a little over 3,700 people on death row?

Why is it that 99% of the people on death row are poor and/or minorities?

Why do we execute people when it would cost less to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives (life without parole)?

Killing another person creates a whole new set of victims--the friends and family of the person executed. I'm not condoning what a murderer does, but aren't we just coming down to their level if we kill them?

I'm confused with the stances that are being taken here, because bottom line, killing is killing, whether its capital punishment or abortion. How can you be for one and against the other? Particularly if you proclaim to follow the teachings of Jesus who taught his followers to forgive...:confused:

some people have the unbelievable power of forgiving. for example, a man in LA ways back lost both his son and his wife in a 2 year span both to drunk drivers. he forgave the drivers. and by asking everyone to forgive, you do realize that you are asking for quiet A LOT of forgivness. if you took account to all the atrocities that we've committed...you're request can be pretty unreasonable to some.

[fourgivn1]

In this discussion, it is obvious that the reason my views differ from others (not just the people debating w/me, but with anyone) is because of who (or, more properly said, whose law) I base my views and morals on. I'm not saying others do not believe more or less strongly than I do...but I can do nothing else but accept the Bible as the word of God, and accept that it is 100% true. It kind of struck me when I saw Leatherface post the words "Religion aside..."

For me, that very statement is not really possible. I can't really set what I believe - my 'religion' - aside. It governs all I do, all I say, how I make moral decisions in my life, etc.

As far as capital punishment goes, the Bible does NOT say 'capital punishment is wrong.' I'm sure we've all heard the scripture "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc." Capital punishment is one of those topics in the Bible that requires some study, because unless you do so, you will find that there are scripture passages that seem to support both sides - the whole 'forgiveness' thing seems to support sparing a murderer's life, while Old Testament scripture seems to support capital punishment. It is so easy to misunderstand things in the Bible - which leads me to my next subject.

This may raise some hackles, but then again, some of the things I may have said in the past about subjects I didn't know much about have, I'm sure, done the same. I find a lot of people quoting scripture without really taking the time to go study the context in which the scriptures are used, the words that are used - and the underlying Greek/Hebrew words they're derived from, the situations the scripture applied to, etc. When this is done it is EXTREMELY easy to misunderstand scripture.

A perfect example is the familiar Old Testament commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." If you go research the underlying Greek/Hebrew words that passage derives from, you will find that the word for 'kill' draws its roots from a word that actually is more properly translated "Thou shalt not MURDER." The statements "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not murder" are two entirely different statements. They are because the definition of 'murder' is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice," and when a criminal is put to death, he is not put to death by other criminals who have premeditated malice. He is put to death by the employees who work for the federal government, and by the laws put in place by the government. (And this could start up a WHOLE other controversial subject. *LOL*)

All of the above topics are obviously very controversial subjects....great fuel for coffeehouse talks. :) They're not subjects that I've even yet resolved w/in myself 100% because they're tough subjects. As a matter of fact, I just bought a book, 'Ethics For A Brave New World' which was written by 2 brothers, who are not only ethics professors, but who are also Christian. It's an extremely interesting book...basically a book that bridges the gap between ethics, morals, and how Christianity relates to them. I just know that I have to base what I believe upon the Book. I can't do any other.

I DO hope y'all understand I condemn no one for having different views. I do hope you don't condemn me for mine, either. As one of my favorite authors said, even if someone's beliefs do not coincide exactly with mine, I respect them greatly for having the courage for standing up for what they believe in, and knowing why their beliefs differ from mine. That's why I post responses, and don't really get upset at the responses. (Well, I try not to, but it does happen at times when people 'make fun' of me, as dmvprof did in the past few days. I'm not perfect. :) Again, if anything I said offends, please forgive me.)

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by ibismojo


some people have the unbelievable power of forgiving. for example, a man in LA ways back lost both his son and his wife in a 2 year span both to drunk drivers. he forgave the drivers. and by asking everyone to forgive, you do realize that you are asking for quiet A LOT of forgivness. if you took account to all the atrocities that we've committed...you're request can be pretty unreasonable to some.

But that is what I mean...if that man is able to do it, why can't the rest of us? I mean, I know of victims' families who have forgiven the criminal on death row for killing their loved ones, friends and family who don't want to see someone else put to death, but are pretty much pressured by the rest of us to seek "justice." And then there are the other families who would like to "pull the switch" and believe that they will have some comfort in killing the person who took away their loved ones...but you know what? It doesn't bring them back...and it creates another set of friends and family who have lost a loved one, even if that person was on death row.

And as for the Old Testament phrase "eye for an eye," well, then maybe we should take everything in the OT literally, like you should be put to death if you commit adultry, you cannot enter a house of worship if you have something wrong with your eyes, or sacrificing certain kinds of ox or sheep to make amends for our wrongs. It upsets me when people use the bible as reference to support a view, and yet they seem to pick and choose what verses they take literally and what they do not. How about "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?" Well, that helped kill a bunch of people in the 17th century, but now there are witches running around everywhere practicing paganism and wicca.

And didn't Jesus present his followers with the "New Commandment" when they were all sitting around discussing the Old ones? What did he say? "Love your neighbor as yourself." That means you take care of you, and treat others as you would want to be treated, no make up for all of the wrongs others have done by taking it upon yourself to take it upon yourself to punish them. If you believe in God, I would think that whether a murderer lives or dies doesn't matter---it's where they go when they die. And wouldn't an eternity in Hell overrule the moments in the electric chair?

I suggest you read "Dead Man Walking;" don't watch the movie, read the book. Sr. Helen Prejean is one of my personal heros...and that is coming from me, that "recovering Catholic."

[ibismojo]

well...there are certainly plenty of things people could die for had the old testment been taken literally.

i don't know...there are too many situations and too many reasons to give to forgive or not to forgive. i think it's stupid and just plain idiotic to forgive blindly but perhaps unreasonalbe to never to forgive.

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by ibismojo
I just want people to take responsibility for the choices and actions they've made for the better or worse. That's all I was really getting at.

Bravo!

[spokedwheel]

I don't know how someone could have enough trust/confidence in our "fine" police/judicial system that they could support killing someone who is possibly innocent.

I believe in an eye for and eye, but I find it impossible to put that decision in the hands of our "public officials".

[fourgivn1]

One, I didn't say I feel any better about putting the decision to have someone put to death in the hands of the government. I'm in the Navy, therefore I work for the government...and believe you me, that gives me a close up view of a lot of what's wrong with it. I just said there's a difference between the 2 statements "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not murder."

Two, some of the statements above illustrate my point exactly. Leatherface said "Maybe we should take the Old Testament literally" and then lists a few things that could be done. But, for instance, if one does not study the Bible, they won't know that there is no NEED for sacrifices, because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. If I remember correctly, I don't ever remember it saying ANYWHERE that it is wrong to continue to follow the precepts and laws and commands set forth in the Old Testament. I know there are laws that were obviously abolished, such as sacrificing, but there are other laws, the nitpicky ones, that people don't seem to know exactly where they fit in to today's Christian world. I'm not ashamed to say that I don't know exactly where they all fit in. As I have often heard it said, Jesus did not come to replace the Law...He came to fulfill it. And in all honesty, where He addresses issues that were already addressed in the Old Testament, you will usually find that the bar is 'raised' and NOT lowered. For instance, it commands you to tithe 10% of your income in the Old Testament. It doesn't ask more. But while the New Testament does not specifically require us to tithe, it does ask us to give generously according to the needs of the church and of our fellow man, and it promises blessings if this is done. It essentially opens the door up wider.

Leatherface mentioned that it bothered her when people use the Bible as a reference, but then tend to pick and choose the scriptures they want to obey, and not obey. It bothers me too! :)

A lot of times I think people tend to think that ALL Christians are as superficial and non-thinking as the ones I commonly hear about, like the ones mentioned in the movie theater. I will say this....it bothers me when Christians are stereotyped; it bothers me when the mistakes that Christians make everyday are used as arguments against it, and it upsets me when THESE people are held above all as 'examples' of Christianity. And believe you me, I know there are loads of 'em. There are SO many times when I bow my head and massage away a headache and say to myself "Good going, guy....you're really helping us out." Just this past week, a lot of supposed 'Christians' called the atheist who is suing the school systems of SF, and threatened him, calling him names, threatening bodily harm, etc. The atheist was quoted as responding "These must be the ones with God on their side." People like that make me real mad, and ashamed to be a Christian at times. But Christ is my example, and His words and teachings are the rules I follow.

There are loads of good examples of Christianity - Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, Max Lucado, and the list goes on - but you never seem to hear about them when people are arguing. I DO NOT hold these people as my standard. I hold the BIBLE as my standard.

That being said, people make mistakes. I do it all the time. I can tell you for a fact that I'm sure I have 'picked and choosed' which precepts I followed and which I did not. I can also tell you I don't knowingly do it....it is human nature. At this very moment I'm in search of a book that helps to lay out exactly 'what' got abolished/replaced when Christ came. I know for a fact that His actions and words erased the need for 100% literal obedience of every single precept (for example, the need to sacrifice), but this doesn't mean there aren't questions, and it doesn't mean we do NOT follow ANY of the commandments. But at least I'm not stopping where I'm at now. The fact that I do not know the answer to every question tells me I need to know more, to study His word, and I'll be doing that for the rest of my life. If I personally am a bad example for the Man I follow, then I must say 2 things...one, I apologize for that, because I do make mistakes, but two, don't point to me for a perfect example, because no human will EVER be a perfect example. Point to the One I choose to set my example on.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
If I personally am a bad example for the Man I follow, then I must say 2 things...one, I apologize for that, because I do make mistakes, but two, don't point to me for a perfect example, because no human will EVER be a perfect example. Point to the One I choose to set my example on.

Okay, if that is the case...do you think Jesus would support capital punishment?

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Okay, if that is the case...do you think Jesus would support capital punishment?

Great conversation!

I'm going to chime in here real quick.

I think Jesus wouldn't support capitol punishment for the simple reason that he asks us to love each other, and to leave judgement and condemnation to him. Hell is forever.

I too am unsure of which nitpicky old testement laws are valid. I lean towards the "new law" school of thought. Which is the "Golden Rule".

If I'm wrong how will I explain the tattoos and pork consumption....

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by ummbikes


Great conversation!

I'm going to chime in here real quick.

I think Jesus wouldn't support capitol punishment for the simple reason that he asks us to love each other, and to leave judgement and condemnation to him. Hell is forever.

I too am unsure of which nitpicky old testement laws are valid. I lean towards the "new law" school of thought. Which is the "Golden Rule".

If I'm wrong how will I explain the tattoos and pork consumption....

Seriously, because if we went with every Old Testament doctrine, this is one of the stipulations:

Leviticus 24:18-20
18 Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution--life for life.
19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.
This is the "eye for eye" reference.

But, it also says...
Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

And as for the pick and choosers...imagine if we followed every single thing in the OT...
Leviticus 19:27-28
27 "`Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28 "`Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

[fourgivn1]

Do I think that Jesus would support capital punishment? In all honesty, I will really have to go do a study of that. As I have said before, it is very easy to misunderstand and take out of context certain scriptures. When I say this, I don't just mean those who don't read the Bible, or worse, those who use scripture to suit their own means. (And I am NOT saying you're doing this. A perfect example is twisting scriptures to make it seem as if the scriptures don't condemn homosexuality, when they clearly do.)
I mean that I will have to make sure that I myself don't take the scriptures out of context. I will say that the one scripture I can find that most clearly addresses

I will say that I know for a fact that if we decided "You know what? I'm going to follow the Scriptures 100%, and all the Old Testament commandments", God would not be displeased. There are obviously some where we don't need to anymore, as I have said - as in sacrificing - but Jesus says this in Matthew 5:17:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them willl be called great ijn the kingdom of heaven."

From reading this, it is easy to tell that Jesus not only has no problem with us following the commandments - the "Law" - but that not following them will affect our standing in heaven. This includes 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.'

Yes, this is good conversation! Haven't thought this hard in a while. *L* (I try not to. :D) Seriously, I really try not to jump to snap judgments where the Bible is concerned, until I have done a good study of it; and consequently, I don't really agree with people too much who do what I, as well as Leatherface and others, have said they hate - pick and choose scripture to suit their needs/situation, while discarding and/or not following the rest. I now have about 3 different topics for a good study of the Bible. Um, thanks. I think. :confused: :D

[Damn True]

a) There should be no parole for capital crimes.
b) There should be no life sentances for capital crimes.


Would these people still be in jail if Tate/Labianca hadn't been among the famous and pretty?

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Seriously, because if we went with every Old Testament doctrine, this is one of the stipulations:

Leviticus 24:18-20
18 Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution--life for life.
19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.
This is the "eye for eye" reference.

But, it also says...
Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

And as for the pick and choosers...imagine if we followed every single thing in the OT...
Leviticus 19:27-28
27 "`Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28 "`Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


The old testament is valid, however Jesus said, "I bring forth to you a new covenant." Most, if not all of the old testament Jewish law was therefore null/void. One of the reasons he was crucifed.

[BMXman]

Originally posted by Motionboy2


I agree completely.
However this is what i don't get. Why is it that if you get LIFE in prison you can get out in like 10-20 years. That isn't life really. What says how long until you get the opporitunity for parole? what determines 10 years versus 30 years? I don't understand the justice system very well. If you are behaving well in prison does that help you get out faster. What constitutes "good" behavior in prison. Do you have to be "good"? Or do you just have to be a little better than the other inmates?

I think a life sentence should be at least half of the average life span or a human being....as for the ggod behavior part..all you have to do is show up on time to work, chow, showers and transfers, stay out of fights, volunteer, and be submissive to the guards and your pretty much in the clear.....D

[Damn True]

Good behavior = He hasn't killed anyone "recently".

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by Motionboy2


I agree completely.
However this is what i don't get. Why is it that if you get LIFE in prison you can get out in like 10-20 years. That isn't life really. What says how long until you get the opporitunity for parole? what determines 10 years versus 30 years? I don't understand the justice system very well. If you are behaving well in prison does that help you get out faster. What constitutes "good" behavior in prison. Do you have to be "good"? Or do you just have to be a little better than the other inmates?

A life sentence is an "indeterminate" sentance, NOT for a term of years.

Good behavior is based on many things in CA...and other states...."good time" with no 115s or 128s (violations), work time, type of work, trades earned/programs completed, etc.

Goes into a big matrix done by a computer to determine the "actual" sentencing. I learned how to do this when I worked for Juvenile inmates in helping determine how much "time" they had left.

I worked this last year for the board of prison terms and represented four "lifers" in there for murder. Interesting stuff too. If anyone has any questions about the "life" deal that goes on in CA, I can answer them based on my experience, or try to anyway (or FIND OUT an answer).

And if you watched Leslie's last two hearings via closed circut TV and knew the criteria that the Penal Code sets forth for Parolees, you wouldn't have granted her a date either, according to the internment offense and the contents of her "c" file (central prison file).

BTW: Our liberal gov. davis will never parole anyone, even if the board of prison terms' commishioners grant a date, davis won't let them out for politcal reasons....

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by Damn True
Good behavior = He hasn't killed anyone "recently".

I had one client who did four "stickings" while in prison...pretty heavy stuff.

[gravity]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


I had one client who did four "stickings" while in prison...pretty heavy stuff.

are you a barrister?
if so....
don't you ever tell people like that "You deserve the worst of what you get"? or something conscientious like that?

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by gravity


are you a barrister?
if so....
don't you ever tell people like that "You deserve the worst of what you get"? or something conscientious like that?

No, I don't tell people that.

Everyone deserves a fair shake.

[Motionboy2]

So can a life sentence be for life? If not why is it that they don't call it a 1/2 life sentance or a number of years? Is it for the initial shock value in the courtroom? "You are sentenced to LIFE!" "gasp"

Sticking=stabing?

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by Motionboy2
So can a life sentence be for life? If not why is it that they don't call it a 1/2 life sentance or a number of years? Is it for the initial shock value in the courtroom? "You are sentenced to LIFE!" "gasp"

Sticking=stabing?

Life sentance is an INDETERMINATE sentance. That means that there are no "year" boundaries.

Sticking is prison stabbing, yes. Brutal.

[mikec918]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


I couldn't find one of TCM's Leatherface--and yes, this is a pic of Michael Myers ;) ---I'm a horror film fan, if you can tell :p And I don't think Leslie Van Houten is a monster. Charles Manson on the other hand...



Hundreds of German soldiers and guards at the death camps were put to death for what they did. Do you think they should of been treated differently because maybe they were brain washed by Hitler or the Nazi. Lesle Van Houten made a choice and now she has to live with it.


As far as abortion goes, I believe that people who want to outlaw it are just neive. As the only people you will be effecting are the poor or those that do not live close to the Canadian or Mexican borders. The enforcement of such alaw would reguire the loss of so much of the freedoms we take for granted. What are we going to do have DEA arrest people for traffic in Day after pills. Make women submit to pregnacy test before they leave the country,,,just incase they might be going to have and abortion. Why not work on providing these women with a different choice. I know Let's pass a law that we can not enforce just to make ourselve feel good.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by mikec918




Hundreds of German soldiers and guards at the death camps were put to death for what they did. Do you think they should of been treated differently because maybe they were brain washed by Hitler or the Nazi. Lesle Van Houten made a choice and now she has to live with it.




I agree with you about the Nazis, however, studies have been done (before ethics were really brought into the picture) of how people will behave when they are absolved from all responsibility of their actions. The most famous one was done by Milgram, in which he had a subject administer shocks to someone in the other room when they answered a question wrong. Take a look Milgram Experiment (http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm) So it goes to show, that anyone is capable of anything. Besides, what the Nazis did greatly outweighed what Van Houten did.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Zonic Man




And if you watched Leslie's last two hearings via closed circut TV and knew the criteria that the Penal Code sets forth for Parolees, you wouldn't have granted her a date either, according to the internment offense and the contents of her "c" file (central prison file).

...

Please elaborate...I'm intrigued.

[Zonic Man]

there is a series of factors that goes into granting a date.

Leslie's internment offense was so brutal, so calculated, so heinous, if you actually read the police report you would be shocked. AND there was the influence of charlie, but it WAS carried out independantly, with independant thought and intent thrown in. So that's one thing.

The other thing is she has not been a model prisoner. Although she doesn't have any disciplinaries, she has not participated in very much self help....in terms of groups, personal or otherwise. She hasn't done much recently to "help her cause".

Her classification points have also not been reduced sufficiently to transfer her levels to a 2 from a 3....which helps (this is a very complicated formuli...goes to your original points when you get in for your offense and then on to what you do in prison).

She doesn't have too many positive chronos in her favor from guards, counselors, or work supervisors that could help her out. More of those would be good.

Also, during the hearings, she has not been (in my opinion) very forthright and outgoing with the hearing officers in terms of regret for the original offense. That may be because she knows the hearings are pointless with Davis being the govenor and that she's been through it so many times. To show this she has even waived counsel for the last decade or so.

She also has show quite a bit of mental illness/dangerousness in her psych evals, which is not good. Right now she's still a "moderate" threat, and until the shrink says she is not a threat at all, a date is unlikely to be given.

She has been getting one year denials (I think, maybe 2 year denials, don't quote me on this), and that's a good thing...maybe if she does some of the stuff that the board wants her to, she may get a date with the new govenor that's sure to be coming in soon.

In my opinion, because of the greivousness of her offense, she won't get a date and will die in prison.

[ohio]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


The most famous one was done by Milgram, in which he had a subject administer shocks to someone in the other room when they answered a question wrong. Take a look Milgram Experiment (http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm)

The milgram experiment IS definitely the most famous, but it is not complete nor does it entirely explain the behavior of the german soldiers. The difference between the subjects of the milgram test is that they were remorseful/horrified that they were "hurting" the "patients," but continued to do so under duress. The Nazi soldiers that were sentenced to death displayed none of that same remorse during the perpetration of their crimes... Basically, the argument that the Germans were "simply following orders" no longer holds any water.

There's obviously more to it, but I don't really feel like typing it all out. If I can find a link, I'll post some more recent studies...

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by ohio


The milgram experiment IS definitely the most famous, but it is not complete nor does it entirely explain the behavior of the german soldiers. The difference between the subjects of the milgram test is that they were remorseful/horrified that they were "hurting" the "patients," but continued to do so under duress. The Nazi soldiers that were sentenced to death displayed none of that same remorse during the perpetration of their crimes... Basically, the argument that the Germans were "simply following orders" no longer holds any water.

There's obviously more to it, but I don't really feel like typing it all out. If I can find a link, I'll post some more recent studies...

Yes, but the Nazis who were tried and sentenced to death at Nuremburg were not the only ones participating in the mass homicide. You are seeming to say that each and every German soldier that took part in WWII wanted to do what they did, based on the lack of remorse of the people at the top.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


I agree with you about the Nazis, however, studies have been done (before ethics were really brought into the picture) of how people will behave when they are absolved from all responsibility of their actions. The most famous one was done by Milgram, in which he had a subject administer shocks to someone in the other room when they answered a question wrong. Take a look Milgram Experiment (http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm) So it goes to show, that anyone is capable of anything. Besides, what the Nazis did greatly outweighed what Van Houten did.

I disagree with that. Murder is murder regardless of the numbers or motivations.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True


I disagree with that. Murder is murder regardless of the numbers or motivations.

I only used this to illustrate how easily humans can be influenced.

Honestly, do you think Leslie Van Houten would have killed people if she had never met Charles Manson?

[Damn True]

What about my earlier question?

Would this even be an issue if Tate/LaBianca (sp?) hadn't been among the famous/pretty people of the day?

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


I only used this to illustrate how easily humans can be influenced.

Honestly, do you think Leslie Van Houten would have killed people if she had never met Charles Manson?

Who's to say. But, once she did meet Chuck she could have chosen not kill. The responsibility is still hers.

Would a mob hit man kill w/o a contract? Probably not, but you hold him equally liable to whomever put out the hit.

[ohio]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Yes, but the Nazis who were tried and sentenced to death at Nuremburg were not the only ones participating in the mass homicide. You are seeming to say that each and every German soldier that took part in WWII wanted to do what they did, based on the lack of remorse of the people at the top.

Right, I'm not talking about the higher ups; I AM talking about the common German soldier that CHOSE to follow orders and commit these crimes. It's not each and every German soldier that participated in WWII; some were on the front lines, some were transferred to posts that didn't require dehumanizing brutality. But for the most part the ones that murdered innocents did NOT do it simply because they were following orders.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by ohio


But for the most part the ones that murdered innocents did NOT do it simply because they were following orders.

But...what would have happened to them if they didn't follow orders?

[mikec918]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Yes, but the Nazis who were tried and sentenced to death at Nuremburg were not the only ones participating in the mass homicide. You are seeming to say that each and every German soldier that took part in WWII wanted to do what they did, based on the lack of remorse of the people at the top.


Leather face,

there were basicely three kinds of German Soldiers durning World War II. One ones who saw combat on the Western front that for the most part behaved as soldiers under the laws of war. The SS would conducted the roundups deportations and exterminations of 12 million people. Who were assisted by a number of soldiers and police from other countries in Eastern Europe. And the German Soldiers who took part in a no hold bared war with Russia on the eastern front were Germany want room to grow. Problem was the people who already lived there had to go. Chances are if a german soldier was captured on the Eastern Front he wasn't going home. In fact it was well into the 50's until all German POWs were released.

[ohio]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


But...what would have happened to them if they didn't follow orders?

there was actually official policy in place because they higher ups assumed that some soldiers wouldn't be able to stomach what higher-ups were about to ask them to do. The policy was a transfer without demotion. It might have not been the most "honorable" (I cringe using that word to describe this) transfer, and there may have been peer pressure, but there was NO loss of rank or pay. NONE. A suprising few number of soldiers chose this option.

[KrusteeButt]

Well, isn't this a wonderful can you've opened?!
How I didn't see it until now I don't know.
I'm sure there are plenty of things in here that have offended plenty of people, there are arguments that are never going to be resolved.
Soap boxes getting erected everywhere.

Abortion? That wasn't the topic of the thread.
Van Houten....sorry LF, but in my opinion you've said a lot of things that just don't make sense.
- "would she have killed had she not met Charles?" I'm sorry dear, but I think you're smarter than that. It doesn't matter...the fact is she chose to. Don't blame her actions on him.
- "she was 19, she didn't know any better..." BULLSH*T!!! That's an absolute crock. You know darn well what is right and what is wrong. That innocent little girl crap is a worthless argument. Gimme a break. "She was only 19 and was manipulated, blah blah blah...." She knew what she was doing...and she knew it was wrong!
- "Van Houten isn't a monster...but Charles on the other hand...." I see. So the amount of people you kill determines just how bad of a person you are? They're both cold-blooded killers. Both horrible people.
- "why is America so unwilling to forgive?" Perspective. I know you've heard it before, but take your own mother for example (or if you don't like your mother take someone else, someone that you care more for than anything in the world). That person is the most innocent loving being on earth (in your world) and everyday is a bright sunny day just because that person is in your life. Now someone comes along and brutally murders her. For no reason at all, just kills her. Your mom's blood has stained the floors. Her bowels were relieved as her last breath exited her lips. Her eyes that watched over you with love are now stone cold. Perhaps she called out your name while she was in utter horrible pain, pain that can't be described, pain that nobody should have to ever go through. This horrible, disgusting person put your dear loved one through that. And you have nightmares about it...over and over and over.
Yeah. Let's see how soon you forgive this monster.

[dg806]

Originally posted by Damn True


Who's to say. But, once she did meet Chuck she could have chosen not kill. The responsibility is still hers.


True! She knew better and still did it! That is why she is guilty and should not get out of jail! She should have been put to death! That is one reason why crime is so rampant in america! There is no deterrant to stopping it!
FYI....usually, depending on the state, life in prison means 33 years! Usaually, it is automatically cut in half for good behavior. So this means that someone gets life for killing someone usually gets about 10-15 years max! What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :angry:

Oh....and I believe we need to go back to hanging at high noon and invite the public!!! Once people see that, I can almost guarantee that crime would be almost non existant!

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by dg806


True! She knew better and still did it! That is why she is guilty and should not get out of jail! She should have been put to death! That is one reason why crime is so rampant in america! There is no deterrant to stopping it!
FYI....usually, depending on the state, life in prison means 33 years! Usaually, it is automatically cut in half for good behavior. So this means that someone gets life for killing someone usually gets about 10-15 years max! What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :angry:

Oh....and I believe we need to go back to hanging at high noon and invite the public!!! Once people see that, I can almost guarantee that crime would be almost non existant!

*OFF TOPIC**

DG ended all but one sentence with an exclamation point. :D

[dg806]

LOL! Didn't even notice. When I get hot about something, I guess I just want to make sure my point comes through.................?:D And only you would notice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by KrusteeButt

Van Houten....sorry LF, but in my opinion you've said a lot of things that just don't make sense.
- "would she have killed had she not met Charles?" I'm sorry dear, but I think you're smarter than that. It doesn't matter...the fact is she chose to. Don't blame her actions on him.
- "she was 19, she didn't know any better..." BULLSH*T!!! That's an absolute crock. You know darn well what is right and what is wrong. That innocent little girl crap is a worthless argument. Gimme a break. "She was only 19 and was manipulated, blah blah blah...." She knew what she was doing...and she knew it was wrong!
I think people are failing to recognize the complexity of the enmeshment that Charlie had over these individuals. It was the whole basis for the Prosecuter's case: Helter Skelter, race war, blacks would rise up and overthrow whitey, Charlie and his family would hang out in Death Valley and then emerge 144,000 strong to reshape and rule the world. The murders were to accelerate what Charlie had "forseen." It was much bigger to them than murdering a few people---they had a mission. Van Houten didn't even partake in the Tate murders...she went along the next night for the LaBianca episode. I seriously think if she hadn't been exposed to Charlie and his preachings, she wouldn't have done what she did. Could she have made a choice? Maybe. But maybe she felt she didn't have a choice...we'll never know.

Originally posted by KrusteeButt

- "Van Houten isn't a monster...but Charles on the other hand...." I see. So the amount of people you kill determines just how bad of a person you are? They're both cold-blooded killers. Both horrible people.
Charlie didn't kill anyone. He had no part in the murders. And as for Van Houten, who knows if she killed anyone? Tex Watson sure took care of it all when they were in the LaBianca house. There is speculation that she was pressured to partake while she was there.

Originally posted by KrusteeButt

- "why is America so unwilling to forgive?" Perspective. I know you've heard it before, but take your own mother for example (or if you don't like your mother take someone else, someone that you care more for than anything in the world). That person is the most innocent loving being on earth (in your world) and everyday is a bright sunny day just because that person is in your life. Now someone comes along and brutally murders her. For no reason at all, just kills her. Your mom's blood has stained the floors. Her bowels were relieved as her last breath exited her lips. Her eyes that watched over you with love are now stone cold. Perhaps she called out your name while she was in utter horrible pain, pain that can't be described, pain that nobody should have to ever go through. This horrible, disgusting person put your dear loved one through that. And you have nightmares about it...over and over and over.
Yeah. Let's see how soon you forgive this monster.

Bad example...my mom is already dead. And just because I forgive doesn't mean I condone. There is a difference, and each case is different.

[dg806]

People have to start realizing(right now!) that they are accountable for their actions. Good or bad. And if they are bad their are consequences! No if ands or buts!

[Damn True]

I think people are failing to recognize the complexity of the enmeshment that Charlie had over these individuals. It was the whole basis for the Prosecuter's case: Helter Skelter, race war, blacks would rise up and overthrow whitey, Charlie and his family would hang out in Death Valley and then emerge 144,000 strong to reshape and rule the world. The murders were to accelerate what Charlie had "forseen." It was much bigger to them than murdering a few people---they had a mission. Van Houten didn't even partake in the Tate murders...she went along the next night for the LaBianca episode. I seriously think if she hadn't been exposed to Charlie and his preachings, she wouldn't have done what she did. Could she have made a choice? Maybe. But maybe she felt she didn't have a choice...we'll never know.


Enmeshment? Hooey!

The central point is that SHE KILLED. The fact that someone told her to do it is immaterial. The circumstances of Charlie's deception, irrelevant. The point that she only killed one? Isn't that enough?
She had the ability to choose not to kill. She chose instead to kill.

Why the vociferous defense of this cold blooded murderer?

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True



Why the vociferous defense of this cold blooded murderer?

I don't know...maybe its because I'm so anti death penalty and anti prison. Maybe it saddens me that humans are so ready to seek vengeance. Maybe its because we are so eager to throw people away and view them as trash. Maybe its because I think people can change. Maybe its because I don't think she is a "danger to society." Maybe its because...because. I have different views, that aren't fuelled by religion or morality or revenge I guess.

[LeatherFace]

BTW DT, what does the last thing in your signature say? That phrase must mean a lot to you as something Jesus said, yet, its kind of contradicting your sentiment right now, isn't it?

[KrusteeButt]

Wow...I'm really surprised at you.
Poor example? Sorry, I forgot about your mother. Regardless, in my opinion it's not a bad example. And you know what I mean. Take someone else very close to you...a close roommate perhaps. Same idea.

So you have to actually be the one pulling the trigger or wielding the knife to be a killer? Someone holds down your loved one, ties you loved one up, watches and encourages another person to brutally murder your loved one. Takes your loved one's blood and smears it on the wall.
Is he any less a killer? Don't think so.

Your views aren't fueled by morality? By the basic concept of what's right and wrong?!

I'm so infuriated with some of the things you've said, my fingers are shaking on the freakin' keyboard right now.

Ah, f*ck it. I s'pose all of society shoulda been convicted for those murders...it's obviously society's fault for everything that's gone wrong in this world.
:angry:

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by KrusteeButt


I'm so infuriated with some of the things you've said, my fingers are shaking on the freakin' keyboard right now.



Wow...had no idea that I touched such a raw nerve...sorry :( It's just my opinion KB, and obviously you don't agree with it, and I'm sorry I have angered you so much. I just look at things differently. Like I was soooooo happy they gave Andrea Yates life in prison and not the death penalty. I'm sure you would disagree with that one as well. Studying criminal justice and sociology as long as I have makes me look at things differently, that's all.

Friends? :(

[Damn True]

Well, I'll tell you what. If you can give predators a big hug and ask them to please stop killing and it works, I will happily unlock the gates to San Quentin.

Until then if someone commits a capital crime they either get a capital punishment or stay in prison until such a time as they leave in a pine box.

There is no room in society for them.

What fuels your view that these people have worth? Of what worth is Charlie Manson? John Wayne Gacey? Sirhan Sirhan? Ted Bundy? Susan Smith? Jeff Dahmer? Timothy McVeigh? Richard Ramirez? Those are the famous one's. The particularly sensational crimes.

But what about the people that just kill the sons or daughters of Joe Nobody folks like: Jesse Timmendequas? Larry Singleton? (look this guy up, parole is neat) Herbert James Coddington? Dorothea Puente? Cary Stayner? Or Robert Spedding? Look that guy up too. I knew him. He is of no use to society.

Now as a Christian I know that there can be forgiveness from God for their sins. If God forgives them, fine. They can live out the rest of their sentances, however long or short, in peace that they will reside in the house of the Lord. But until then, they will reside in the house of the State.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
BTW DT, what does the last thing in your signature say? That phrase must mean a lot to you as something Jesus said, yet, its kind of contradicting your sentiment right now, isn't it?


TEAM FAT?

Yes, interesting little paradox there isn't it? I myself am not 100% comfortable with it.

Jesus will not condemn, God can forgive. But given the opportunity to do so I will lock killers up and melt the key. The worst of them, should recieve the death penalty.

I seriously don't buy Yeates's defense any more than I buy Dan Whites Twinkie defense.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True



TEAM FAT?

Yes, interesting little paradox there isn't it? I myself am not 100% comfortable with it.

Jesus will not condemn, God can forgive. But given the opportunity to do so I will lock killers up and melt the key. The worst of them, should recieve the death penalty.

I seriously don't buy Yeates's defense any more than I buy Dan Whites Twinkie defense.

OK, so you are telling me that everyone who kills should be locked up? Regardless of the motivation? Then you better build tons of more prisons for all of the people who have killed in war efforts as well as corporations that indirectly contribute to thousands of deaths a year...oh, but do those not count?

[JesusFreak]

regarding the question "would jesus condone the death penalty?", i am convinced the bible (his word) shows that he does...

paul the apostle (romans 13): "....no authority except which God has established... God's servant to do good, but be afraid if you do wrong, for he (gov't) does not carry the sword for nothing. (gov't) is God's agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Jesus (revelation): "...i am the one who searches the hearts and minds, and i will repay each according to his/her deeds".

some biblical doctrine to help understand...

the law (old testament) will show you that you have broken the law and, therefore, are due punishment. actually, if you really do a thorough examination, you'll find you're (each one of us) worthy of the death penalty. the law shows us that we are law breakers and is supposed to make us flee to christ, via faith and repentance, for forgiveness and grace. christ died to take our (the believer's) place in punishment, thereby establishing a favorable relationship with God and delivering such a one from God's due wrath on his/her sin.

with that in mind, this country (believe it or not) was founded on Christian principles. biblical doctrine was very much a part of the formation of our judicial system. the bible talks about justice and mercy, and our system is designed to make use of both. justice, because it's necessary for society. mercy, because we would all be condemned without it and it makes room for renewal with repentance.

so, according to biblical doctrine, it would not be a crime for her to have received the death penalty (if she indeed intentionally murdered). it is considered mercy to let her live. it would be consdered an abomination to God to acquit the guilty. it would be considered mercy to set her free, but it would be partly the government's resposibiltiy if she did bad again.

we, as people, tend to evaluate ourselves (good or evil) based on both our own bias and society's bias. this is a major difference from biblical doctrine, which clearly states that God has established the standard. Seeing that we have all fallen short of his target, we cannot find fault with what He might do with/to us. actually, we should give thanks for every moment of undeserved life.

the above might sound rediculous to the unbeliever but, i would ask, everyone should realize that personal denial of something does not negate it's validity. in other words, just because a person does not believe or accept God, this does not change the existance and power of God. the point is that every society ought to be VERY careful how they react/respond to God. To ignore, deny, and depart from Him would be ok IF (huge IF) He does, in absolute fact, not exist. if He does, it's horrible suicide with eternal regret.

and LF, i want to be sensative here, but i must tell you that catholicism is playing with fire. i've been personally invloved in a situation that had me yelling at God for the death of a precious young girl, only to get a response that made me realize how serious God is about things, and how far from perfect even the best of us is. read jeremiah 44 and consider catholicism's practices regarding mary and the 'saints'. anyway, while i believe one can be saved through catholicism by faith in the true christ, the adultery of the doctrine endangers staying there and inevitably the believer will be faced with a choice between catholic doctrine and biblical doctrine.

[Damn True]

Oh c'mon now. Don't patronize me.

You know there is a difference between a capital CRIME and self defense, combat, a police shootout or the Ford/Firestone debacle.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
Oh c'mon now. Don't patronize me.

You know there is a difference between a capital CRIME and self defense, combat, a police shootout or the Ford/Firestone debacle.

But killing is killing, isn't it? And I'm saying you should know the difference between Leslie Van Houten and Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy---not in the same category.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by JesusFreak


and LF, i want to be sensative here, but i must tell you that catholicism is playing with fire. i've been personally invloved in a situation that had me yelling at God for the death of a precious young girl, only to get a response that made me realize how serious God is about things, and how far from perfect even the best of us is. read jeremiah 44 and consider catholicism's practices regarding mary and the 'saints'. anyway, while i believe one can be saved through catholicism by faith in the true christ, the adultery of the doctrine endangers staying there and inevitably the believer will be faced with a choice between catholic doctrine and biblical doctrine.

I don't understand this part of your argument...:confused:

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by JesusFreak
regarding the question "would jesus condone the death penalty?", i am convinced the bible (his word) shows that he does...

paul the apostle (romans 13): "....no authority except which God has established... God's servant to do good, but be afraid if you do wrong, for he (gov't) does not carry the sword for nothing. (gov't) is God's agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Jesus (revelation): "...i am the one who searches the hearts and minds, and i will repay each according to his/her deeds".

some biblical doctrine to help understand...

the law (old testament) will show you that you have broken the law and, therefore, are due punishment. actually, if you really do a thorough examination, you'll find you're (each one of us) worthy of the death penalty. the law shows us that we are law breakers and is supposed to make us flee to christ, via faith and repentance, for forgiveness and grace. christ died to take our (the believer's) place in punishment, thereby establishing a favorable relationship with God and delivering such a one from God's due wrath on his/her sin.

with that in mind, this country (believe it or not) was founded on Christian principles. biblical doctrine was very much a part of the formation of our judicial system. the bible talks about justice and mercy, and our system is designed to make use of both. justice, because it's necessary for society. mercy, because we would all be condemned without it and it makes room for renewal with repentance.

so, according to biblical doctrine, it would not be a crime for her to have received the death penalty (if she indeed intentionally murdered). it is considered mercy to let her live. it would be consdered an abomination to God to acquit the guilty. it would be considered mercy to set her free, but it would be partly the government's resposibiltiy if she did bad again.

we, as people, tend to evaluate ourselves (good or evil) based on both our own bias and society's bias. this is a major difference from biblical doctrine, which clearly states that God has established the standard. Seeing that we have all fallen short of his target, we cannot find fault with what He might do with/to us. actually, we should give thanks for every moment of undeserved life.

the above might sound rediculous to the unbeliever but, i would ask, everyone should realize that personal denial of something does not negate it's validity. in other words, just because a person does not believe or accept God, this does not change the existance and power of God. the point is that every society ought to be VERY careful how they react/respond to God. To ignore, deny, and depart from Him would be ok IF (huge IF) He does, in absolute fact, not exist. if He does, it's horrible suicide with eternal regret.

and LF, i want to be sensative here, but i must tell you that catholicism is playing with fire. i've been personally invloved in a situation that had me yelling at God for the death of a precious young girl, only to get a response that made me realize how serious God is about things, and how far from perfect even the best of us is. read jeremiah 44 and consider catholicism's practices regarding mary and the 'saints'. anyway, while i believe one can be saved through catholicism by faith in the true christ, the adultery of the doctrine endangers staying there and inevitably the believer will be faced with a choice between catholic doctrine and biblical doctrine.

You're a sick, sick man.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


But killing is killing, isn't it? And I'm saying you should know the difference between Leslie Van Houten and Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy---not in the same category.


How do you figure?

They both killed people who weren't hurting anyone. Was LaBinaca a threat to Van Houten? No. Murder is murder.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


You're a sick, sick man.

That dosen't help.

If you disagree with one of his points rebutt it. But don't throw an insult. We know you are a bright guy, we know you can make valid arguments on both sides of nearly any issue, but that tactic diminishes your cred.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True



How do you figure?

They both killed people who weren't hurting anyone. Was LaBinaca a threat to Van Houten? No. Murder is murder.

Soldiers who kill innocent civilians during a war are not viewed this way--why is that?

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by JesusFreak
regarding the question "would jesus condone the death penalty?", i am convinced the bible (his word) shows that he does...

paul the apostle (romans 13): "....no authority except which God has established... God's servant to do good, but be afraid if you do wrong, for he (gov't) does not carry the sword for nothing. (gov't) is God's agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."



So you are saying that our government has been established by God, therefore the actions it takes is righteous because God is backing it? So God-->government-->death penalty ok? Is that what you are saying?

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Soldiers who kill innocent civilians during a war are not viewed this way--why is that?

If soldiers kill outside the lines of war, then they are tried for murder.

[Damn True]

Oh come on.

Tell me you are not saying collateral damage in combat is the same thing as that Van Houten thing?

The difference is that the pilot (and my God I wouldn't want to live with this all my life and Im sure he dosen't either) who dropped on the Canadian unit did not intend to nor did he know he was killing Canadians.

I assure you the guys that dropped on the wedding did not intend to nor did they know they were going to drop on a wedding.

The soldier that is responsible for a friendly fire injury of a fellow soldier did not intend to nor does he know he is going to kill another US or Allied soldier.

Van Houten got up that morning knowing she was going to kill someone. Got in the car. Drove over there and took part in, to whatever degree, the killing of an innocent. She knew she was going to do it, and intended to do it. Bundy commited his crimes knowing exactly what he was doing.

You know there is a differnce.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
Oh come on.

Tell me you are not saying collateral damage in combat is the same thing as that Van Houten thing?

The difference is that the pilot (and my God I wouldn't want to live with this all my life and Im sure he dosen't either) who dropped on the Canadian unit did not intend to nor did he know he was killing Canadians.

I assure you the guys that dropped on the wedding did not intend to nor did they know they were going to drop on a wedding.

The soldier that is responsible for a friendly fire injury of a fellow soldier did not intend to nor does he know he is going to kill another US or Allied soldier.



Excuses, excuses. Isn't killing, killing DT? So what about the My Lai Massacre? 300 innocent civilians were gunned down by the 11th Brigade, and yet only 1 person, Lt. William Calley, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Hmmmmm, suppose he killed all 300 people? And I'm sure this isn't an isolated thing---but according to you, killing is justified if it is a war effort, regardless because some death "wasn't intended." Sounds like a cop-out to me.

And for the record, Leslie didn't wake up in the morning knowing what was going to happen. That night, Charlie told her to get a change of clothes and do whatever Tex Watson told her to do.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by ohio

Basically, the argument that the Germans were "simply following orders" no longer holds any water.

There's obviously more to it, but I don't really feel like typing it all out. If I can find a link, I'll post some more recent studies...

ironically...every German soilder had the choice of walking away from whatever order he felt he could not handle and the commanding officer could not do anything about it. those directly involved in the mass murder of the Jews were most likely recruited, hand picked or volunteers.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by LeatherFace

Excuses, excuses. Isn't killing, killing DT? So what about the My Lai Massacre? 300 innocent civilians were gunned down by the 11th Brigade, and yet only 1 person, Lt. William Calley, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Hmmmmm, suppose he killed all 300 people? And I'm sure this isn't an isolated thing---but according to you, killing is justified if it is a war effort, regardless because some death "wasn't intended." Sounds like a cop-out to me.


I don't think deaths are "intended" in a war. They're expected. People will die, it's just the nature of war. I'm sure those in charge do what they can to prevent civilian casualties.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Excuses, excuses. Isn't killing, killing DT? So what about the My Lai Massacre? 300 innocent civilians were gunned down by the 11th Brigade, and yet only 1 person, Lt. William Calley, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Hmmmmm, suppose he killed all 300 people? And I'm sure this isn't an isolated thing---but according to you, killing is justified if it is a war effort, regardless because some death "wasn't intended." Sounds like a cop-out to me.

And for the record, Leslie didn't wake up in the morning knowing what was going to happen. That night, Charlie told her to get a change of clothes and do whatever Tex Watson told her to do.

Whatever.

Quite simply, no. Killing is not killing. Mai-Lai was an aberation and the officer in command was held liable for it.

Killing in war is different. It just is. I nor anyone who has ever seen a situation in which a weapon must be brought to bear can explain it in a way you can understand. It just is.


I don't know or understand what your deal is with this Van Houten woman, but I'd venture to guess that there is something deeper here than you are sharing.


We can sit here and come up with shocking exceptions to each others arguments until we are blue in the face but it wont change the following.

Bottom line. She had the choice not to do what Tex Watson told her. She chose not to. She took part in the killing. She was tried, convicted, and sentanced. She now has to serve that sentance. She got lucky in that the Death sentance was commuted. Be thankfull for that I guess.

I sincerely hope she stays right where she is.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True


Whatever.

Quite simply, no. Killing is not killing. Mai-Lai was an aberation and the officer in command was held liable for it.

But no one else? Why was he made to be the person to brunt all of the blame? Or were the soldiers in his command "just following orders." An innocent dead person is still an innocent dead person, regardless who killed them...but according to you, the Tate-LaBiancas were innocents who shouldn't have been killed, but the 300 civilians at My Lai were mere casualties of the war.
Originally posted by Damn True

Killing in war is different. It just is. I nor anyone who has ever seen a situation in which a weapon must be brought to bear can explain it in a way you can understand. It just is.

Wow...that really cleared it up for me. That's like me asking my mom when I was seven why I couldn't do something and she would say "Because." "Because why?" I would return. "Because I said so."

Originally posted by Damn True

I don't know or understand what your deal is with this Van Houten woman, but I'd venture to guess that there is something deeper here than you are sharing.



Oh, trying to uncover some deep seated psychological meaning? No, merely trying to point out that we as humans are afraid of the wrong things, and condone the wrong things. It's the same reason why I was glad Andrea Yates wasn't sentenced to death--it makes me ill when we are reduced to being on the same level as the killers by wanting to kill them or show them no mercy. We have a double standard, that's all. "Ok, well killing in this situation is okay, but in this situation it isn't." Pretty wishy-washy and self serving if you asked me...:rolleyes:

[RideMonkey]

set her balls on fire

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by RideMonkey
set her balls on fire

Oh...I get it..."Leslie" was really a boy's name?:p

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by Damn True


That dosen't help.

If you disagree with one of his points rebutt it. But don't throw an insult. We know you are a bright guy, we know you can make valid arguments on both sides of nearly any issue, but that tactic diminishes your cred.

Not an insult at all, I truely believe he is a mentally ill person.

[Damn True]

But no one else? Why was he made to be the person to brunt all of the blame? Or were the soldiers in his command "just following orders." An innocent dead person is still an innocent dead person, regardless who killed them...but according to you, the Tate-LaBiancas were innocents who shouldn't have been killed, but the 300 civilians at My Lai were mere casualties of the war.

Because that is part of the responsibility of command. A commander is ultimately responsible for the conduct of those whith whom he is charged to command. He would have been liable if even one soldier had acted improperly w/o being told to do so. You know full well I am not saying that one innocent life is worth more than another. Don't put words in my mouth. You asked someone else to not do that a couple days ago.

Wow...that really cleared it up for me. That's like me asking my mom when I was seven why I couldn't do something and she would say "Because." "Because why?" I would return. "Because I said so."

Frusterating isn't it? It always bugged me when my Dad did that too. Especially when, like I am now, he was right. ;) :D :love: You can't understand it. I can't explain it in a way that you will.

Oh, trying to uncover some deep seated psychological meaning? No, merely trying to point out that we as humans are afraid of the wrong things, and condone the wrong things. It's the same reason why I was glad Andrea Yates wasn't sentenced to death--it makes me ill when we are reduced to being on the same level as the killers by wanting to kill them or show them no mercy. We have a double standard, that's all. "Ok, well killing in this situation is okay, but in this situation it isn't." Pretty wishy-washy and self serving if you asked me...

Call it whatever you want. Fear? Yeah. Iam afraid. Afraid of recitivism. If that means we keep all the murderers in jail to prevent 10% of them from killing again than so be it. They are killers I don't feel a great loss to keep a killer in jail as a means of preventing other deaths. Unfair. Probably. So is a lot of stuff. But I think it's a lot more unfair for a mom to loose their child than for a killer to stay in jail.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True


Because that is part of the responsibility of command. A commander is ultimately responsible for the conduct of those whith whom he is charged to command. He would have been liable if even one soldier had acted improperly w/o being told to do so. You know full well I am not saying that one innocent life is worth more than another. Don't put words in my mouth. You asked someone else to not do that a couple days ago.

So the soldiers in the troop were exonerated because the commander was the one to take the blame? Doesn't sound very fair to me...sounds like he was the "fall guy."

Originally posted by Damn True

Frusterating isn't it? It always bugged me when my Dad did that too. Especially when, like I am now, he was right. You can't understand it. I can't explain it in a way that you will.

Why won't I be able to understand it? Is there some secret knowledge that you have that I don't?


Originally posted by Damn True

Call it whatever you want. Fear? Yeah. Iam afraid. Afraid of recitivism. If that means we keep all the murderers in jail to prevent 10% of them from killing again than so be it. They are killers I don't feel a great loss to keep a killer in jail as a means of preventing other deaths.

Statistics have consistently shown that out of all the criminals who have been released on parole, murderers have the lowest recidivism...

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics)

[RideMonkey]

balls

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by LeatherFace

Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Look...

First off, these are WITHIN 3 years. Sexual assaultants have some of the highest recivitism rates. They RARELY, if ever "socialize" properly.

Secondly, look at the people who are getting out for first/second degee murder, and there is where you get your low rates. These are felony murderers, not people convicted of manslaughter. And there are VERY few who get paroled who commit the same offense. HOWEVER, there is a VERY high recitivism rate amongst those paroles in their committing other crimes and returning back to the justice system. I used to deal with these people every day, and see their files EVERY DAY. Real files, and real people, not classroom statistics.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Zonic Man

Real files, and real people, not classroom statistics.

But these statistics are compiled by our government...I got them off of the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. Are you telling me that they are wrong just because of your personal experience? I had a professor once who said "Anecdotal evidence is not factual evidence." I'm just spouting what the numbers say, but because of your personal experience, you are able to refute the numbers? Hmmmm, have you told the heads of major government agencies about your abilities? I'm sure they would love to know how your experiences blow all of their research out of the water.

[LeatherFace]

Oh, and BTW, I'm not just an egghead who hasn't had any real life experience with the criminal justice system. Apart from studying violent offenders for close to 13 years, I work at a juvenile detention center as a corrections officer.

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


But these statistics are compiled by our government...I got them off of the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. Are you telling me that they are wrong just because of your personal experience? I had a professor once who said "Anecdotal evidence is not factual evidence." I'm just spouting what the numbers say, but because of your personal experience, you are able to refute the numbers? Hmmmm, have you told the heads of major government agencies about your abilities? I'm sure they would love to know how your experiences blow all of their research out of the water.

Did you read a thing I wrote before you puked on your keyboard?

The recitivism rates are based upon the people committing the same offenses, not their future criminality.

Originally posted by LeatherFace
Oh, and BTW, I'm not just an egghead who hasn't had any real life experience with the criminal justice system. Apart from studying violent offenders for close to 13 years, I work at a juvenile detention center as a corrections officer.

Ah....I see. That explains it. a C.O. Got ya.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


Did you read a thing I wrote before you puked on your keyboard?

The recitivism rates are based upon the people committing the same offenses, not their future criminality.



Well wasn't that Damn True's point? He was concerned that if we release murderers they will kill again?

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Well wasn't that Damn True's point? He was concerned that if we release murderers they will kill again?

Where was I talking about his point?

I was just attempting to clear up your misconceptions.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


Where was I talking about his point?

I was just attempting to clear up your misconceptions.

But I was responding to his point about recidivism and then you chimed in...

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


But I was responding to his point about recidivism and then you chimed in...

LOL.

What part of "open message board" don't you understand?

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


Not an insult at all, I truely believe he is a mentally ill person.

Really? What does he suffer from? What is your diagnosis...uh...doctor? Because you've been to medical school, right? At least I would think as you are able to diagnose whether someone is mentally ill or not...right?

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


LOL.

What part of "open message board" don't you understand?

The part where I was responding to a specific post and you come in to tell me that I'm "puking" all over my keyboard because what I am talking about, and what you are trying to illustrate, are two different things.

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Really? What does he suffer from? What is your diagnosis...uh...doctor? Because you've been to medical school, right? At least I would think as you are able to diagnose whether someone is mentally ill or not...right?

Originally posted by LeatherFace


The part where I was responding to a specific post and you come in to tell me that I'm "puking" all over my keyboard because what I am talking about, and what you are trying to illustrate, are two different things.

You are reaching, but not quite there yet.

Keep the comedy coming, though.

[mikec918]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Excuses, excuses. Isn't killing, killing DT? So what about the My Lai Massacre? 300 innocent civilians were gunned down by the 11th Brigade, and yet only 1 person, Lt. William Calley, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Hmmmmm, suppose he killed all 300 people? And I'm sure this isn't an isolated thing---but according to you, killing is justified if it is a war effort, regardless because some death "wasn't intended." Sounds like a cop-out to me.

And for the record, Leslie didn't wake up in the morning knowing what was going to happen. That night, Charlie told her to get a change of clothes and do whatever Tex Watson told her to do.

Leather Face,


The 11th Brigade didnot kill anyone at My Lai it was one company under the comand of Lt. Calley who may or may not have been following an unlawful order from his superior. Yes the soldier and especially the NCO under Calley, who should of refused to follow what was an unlawful, should of been held accountable and punished along with the Calley's chain of command. But you can hardly hold the other 4000 men in the Brigade responsble for something they had no part of. Also little know fact about the My Lai Massacre is that a helo crew put themselves between Calley men and a number of civilians.

[mikec918]

Originally posted by Damn True


Whatever.

Quite simply, no. Killing is not killing. Mai-Lai was an aberation and the officer in command was held liable for it.

Killing in war is different. It just is. I nor anyone who has ever seen a situation in which a weapon must be brought to bear can explain it in a way you can understand. It just is.


I don't know or understand what your deal is with this Van Houten woman, but I'd venture to guess that there is something deeper here than you are sharing.


We can sit here and come up with shocking exceptions to each others arguments until we are blue in the face but it wont change the following.

Bottom line. She had the choice not to do what Tex Watson told her. She chose not to. She took part in the killing. She was tried, convicted, and sentanced. She now has to serve that sentance. She got lucky in that the Death sentance was commuted. Be thankfull for that I guess.

I sincerely hope she stays right where she is.


Dam True question?

Have you ever served in the Arm Forces of the United States? or of any Nato/Western Country? If so you would know that it is every soldier's responsiblity to refuse an unlawful order including order for the use of excessive force. Part of what happen at Mai-Lai can be blames on a weak NCO Corps.
All that was required to stop what happened at Mai-Lai was for the 1st Sgt or one of the PLt leader or Sgts to question Calley's orders. They didn't so they are as much to blame as he is and the fact that they were not tried or convicted does not make them innocent.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by mikec918



Dam True question?

Have you ever served in the Arm Forces of the United States? or of any Nato/Western Country? If so you would know that it is every soldier's responsiblity to refuse an unlawful order including order for the use of excessive force. Part of what happen at Mai-Lai can be blames on a weak NCO Corps.
All that was required to stop what happened at Mai-Lai was for the 1st Sgt or one of the PLt leader or Sgts to question Calley's orders. They didn't so they are as much to blame as he is and the fact that they were not tried or convicted does not make them innocent.

Yes I have. Eleven years.

Gee, no kidding. Thanks for straightening me out on the chain of command and lawfull orders.

[dg806]

I think we all will agree that war is a terrible thing. People will get killed and innocent civilians will die. Just like in Afghanastan right now. Our pilots are taking part in missions that bomb al-quaida hide outs! The sad part is they hide among civilians thinking we won't hit them. Sadaam's people did the same thing! They are cowards that kill! We have every right to do what we are doing to protect other innocent lives! And sadly innocent people in their country get killed....doesn't make it right, but it is necessary! LF, let me ask this.....All the murderes, rapists, and such....do you think we should just let them go hoping they will do better? Well you know that is just not going to happen! I am a police officer so I see this everyday! There has to be some type of