ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th September 2017, 09:24 AM   #41
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,796
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I can understand why the victims' families are against her release, but given the time spent, how she has served her sentence and so on, does she still represent a risk to society ?
Why? Many cultures do exercise principles of forgiveness like the Amish.

Dukakis gave the right answer in that debate.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 09:24 AM   #42
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,845
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
A real good way to avoid murdering someone would be to not stab them multiple times.
Sometimes it's just unavoidable.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 09:36 AM   #43
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,381
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
According to some reports, she was one of the leaders in the Manson clan.
Wow, that's a strong argument you've put together there. "They say" is now good enough for you to propose that someone never be let out of gaol.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 09:42 AM   #44
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,299
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You said your view of justice was to make society safer, didn't you? Making a criminal rich would stop them from committing crimes if they were only after money. Society would therefore be safer, and justice achieved. If not, why not?
You're right! I have thus a better idea. Let's kill everyone! No people, no crime! Full safety for all (which is to say, zero people.) Problem solved.

Now, do you want to propose a rational, serious solution, or are you going to continue to argue idiotic things?

Quote:
How is it a 'dodge'? Execution and imprisonment are different things.
Yes, they are. It's still a dodge in that you avoided the argument by nitpicking.

Quote:
I don't have any particular feelings about this case.
You have particular feelings about punishing criminals, which applies to this case.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 09:45 AM   #45
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Wow, that's a strong argument you've put together there. "They say" is now good enough for you to propose that someone never be let out of gaol.
According to wiki:

Quote:
When Barbara Hoyt spoke at Van Houten's parole hearing in 2013, she said that Van Houten was considered a "leader" in The Manson Family.[3][19]
Actually, I do not agree with 'Life without Parole'. All prisoners should be allowed to apply for it after a set number of years (in the UK this is iirc six years into a life sentence).

However, each parole hearing should be heard on its merits.

There are some crimes that are so cruel and atrocious, the perpetrator should never get out (for example, the Moors Murderers, who both died in prison).

The killers of Sharon Tate and her friends fall into that category IMV.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 10:28 AM   #46
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,980
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You're right! I have thus a better idea. Let's kill everyone! No people, no crime! Full safety for all (which is to say, zero people.) Problem solved.

Now, do you want to propose a rational, serious solution, or are you going to continue to argue idiotic things?
Weren't you just accusing me of creating strawmen?
Quote:

Yes, they are. It's still a dodge in that you avoided the argument by nitpicking.
You suggested I was seeking 'eye for an eye'. How can that be if I'm seeking something different? I'm seeking 'ear for an eye'. A lesser punishment for the crime, not an equal one.
Quote:


You have particular feelings about punishing criminals, which applies to this case.
And you have particular feelings about paroling criminals, apparently. However I neither suggest that having feelings invalidates an opinion, nor acts as sufficient motivation for rudeness to other posters.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 10:28 AM   #47
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,706
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Well 19-year-old her, apparently under the influence of Charles Manson and the rest of the family, committed a crime which in many Western European countries would have seen her released in under 20 years.
Shame on those "many Western European countries ".
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 10:58 AM   #48
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,299
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Weren't you just accusing me of creating strawmen?
Yes, and?

Are you contending that I'm strawmanning myself by proposing something even more ridiculous than what you proposed? You seriously don't know what a strawman is?

Quote:
You suggested I was seeking 'eye for an eye'. How can that be if I'm seeking something different? I'm seeking 'ear for an eye'. A lesser punishment for the crime, not an equal one.
Are you going to address what I posted or are you going to keep nitpicking to avoid it?

Quote:
And you have particular feelings about paroling criminals, apparently.
No, you don't get to equivocate here. You've not shown that I've been emotional in any way. You were just mad that I pointed out that you were.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 11:06 AM   #49
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 616
She was 19 and under the influence of a cult when it happened, she's 67 now. That's not the same person, also, 67 year old is not the same danger to society.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 11:30 AM   #50
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,980
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yes, and?

Are you contending that I'm strawmanning myself by proposing something even more ridiculous than what you proposed? You seriously don't know what a strawman is?



Are you going to address what I posted or are you going to keep nitpicking to avoid it?



No, you don't get to equivocate here. You've not shown that I've been emotional in any way. You were just mad that I pointed out that you were.
What you posted? I was addressing your mischaracterization of what I posted. You claimed that my suggestion that life in prison is an appropriate punishment as being advocacy for 'an eye for an eye'. I pointed out that characterization is incorrect because if I were after 'an eye for an eye' I'd be advocating for execution, not imprisonment. You then said that was 'a dodge'. How? How is it 'a dodge' to point out that I wasn't saying what you said I was saying?

What are you actually asking me here? I suspect we are both focusing on different remarks. Clarification would assist discussion.

As for your assertions as to my emotional state, there seems no possible way to 'prove' I'm not motivated by emotion rather than reason. You can either accept my word like a gentleman, or drop that subject. You may not, however, issue me commands as to what I 'get to do'. That is a level of rudeness surpassing what I will tolerate in a discussion.

We have different opinions on the appropriateness of parole for this case. If you are seeing something else in this exchange I can't help you unless you can explain it to me.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 11:37 AM   #51
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,299
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
What you posted? I was addressing your mischaracterization of what I posted. You claimed that my suggestion that life in prison is an appropriate punishment as being advocacy for 'an eye for an eye'. I pointed out that characterization is incorrect because if I were after 'an eye for an eye' I'd be advocating for execution, not imprisonment.
Again, you used the length of one to determine the length of another, which is pretty damned close to an "eye for an eye" ideology.

Quote:
What are you actually asking me here?
Well if you answered the questions I asked rather than nitpick you wouldn't be confused at this point.

Do you or do you not advocate life sentences for all person who have caused the death of at least one other? After all, your criterion was that the death of the victim was permanent.

Quote:
As for your assertions as to my emotional state, there seems no possible way to 'prove' I'm not motivated by emotion rather than reason.
Sure there is: propose a solution that is based on a specific, measurable desired outcome and explain how the solution attains said objective. Your answer, rather, was to say that the punishment satisfies your personal sense of justice which, as I said, is an emotional argument.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 11:55 AM   #52
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,381
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
......All prisoners should be allowed to apply for it after a set number of years (in the UK this is iirc six years into a life sentence).......
You what? Sorry, are you being serious?

The word "tariff", as applied to life sentences in the UK, means exactly what, in your understanding?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 8th September 2017 at 12:15 PM.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 12:11 PM   #53
mikado
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,556
I don't know how young we all are.
I, at almost 50, am light years away from who I was at 19, in fact a totally different person.
Raised in a cult I sort of can see how these things can happen.
I have often imagined how easily a Jonestown situation could happen. I have often asked others who were raised hard core Jw if is just me, or have they thought similar..many have, which is concerning.I know my family could have easily done it if commanded.
But I digress..

I don't know how long is punishment, or rehabilitation and how much is a desire for revenge,
One is healthy,the other isn't.
__________________
member formally known as Renmarkable.

Last edited by mikado; 8th September 2017 at 12:12 PM. Reason: Comprehension
mikado is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 01:13 PM   #54
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,527
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Actually, I do not agree with 'Life without Parole'. All prisoners should be allowed to apply for it after a set number of years (in the UK this is iirc six years into a life sentence).

However, each parole hearing should be heard on its merits.

There are some crimes that are so cruel and atrocious, the perpetrator should never get out (for example, the Moors Murderers, who both died in prison).
Say what? You say that all prisoners should be entitled to a parole hearing, but in some cases, the denial of parole should be a foregone conclusion - and thus the hearing a complete sham?
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 01:19 PM   #55
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,186
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
According to wiki:



Actually, I do not agree with 'Life without Parole'. All prisoners should be allowed to apply for it after a set number of years (in the UK this is iirc six years into a life sentence).

However, each parole hearing should be heard on its merits.

There are some crimes that are so cruel and atrocious, the perpetrator should never get out (for example, the Moors Murderers, who both died in prison).

The killers of Sharon Tate and her friends fall into that category IMV.
Utter nonsense. In the UK the minimum time a prisoner has to serve before applying for parole is set by the judge at the time of sentencing, and it is virtually never as short as six years into a life sentence.
Strawberry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 01:24 PM   #56
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,980
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Again, you used the length of one to determine the length of another, which is pretty damned close to an "eye for an eye" ideology.
It's not about the time but the state during that time. If she could revive the dead she'd be undoing the damage she caused. That would, in my opinion, entitle her to parole. On the basis that restitution is part of my notion if justice. Conversely, if she had the power to raise the dead and had done so immediately after the murder I'd have suggested letting her off with a fine.


Quote:
Well if you answered the questions I asked rather than nitpick you wouldn't be confused at this point.
Perhaps if you were less belligerent and wrote more clearly people wouldn't find your posts confusing.

Quote:
Do you or do you not advocate life sentences for all person who have caused the death of at least one other? After all, your criterion was that the death of the victim was permanent.
I do not advocate life imprisonment for all cases of murder. Some have mitigating circumstances that merit lighter sentences. Others merit harsher punishment. The permanence of death is a barrier to the perpetrator's ability to correct the wrong they have committed, and if and when that barrier is overcome then the penalty for murder should be adjusted accordingly.

Quote:
Sure there is: propose a solution that is based on a specific, measurable desired outcome and explain how the solution attains said objective. Your answer, rather, was to say that the punishment satisfies your personal sense of justice which, as I said, is an emotional argument.
The desired outcome is to satisfy the communally shared notions of justice, which itself is fundamental to maintaining an orderly society. There is no requirement that justice, any more than any other human institution, be free of emotion. We want to be happy, don't we? More people are made happy if wicked acts are appropriately punished than are made happy if wicked acts are not punished appropriately. From a strictly utilitarian perspective you could simply take a vote on life in prison versus prison with parole as an appropriate sentence, and see what each jurisdiction decides. That you, personally, incline toward one option does not make everyone disagreeing with you wrong.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 01:45 PM   #57
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Deleted.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 8th September 2017 at 01:47 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 01:49 PM   #58
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You what? Sorry, are you being serious?

The word "tariff", as applied to life sentences in the UK, means exactly what, in your understanding?
Only the Home Secretary can give a 'life tariff'. A court can only say 'life', and that invariably means nine years, and then out on parole.

ETA Soz, I was thinking of 'whole life sentence.' Times have changed. The judge decides minimum term. The Home Secretary has been stripped of the above power, but does have the power to rescind it.

Quote:
In November 2002, a successful legal challenge by convicted double murderer Anthony Anderson saw the Home Secretary stripped of the final say on how long a life sentence prisoner must serve before parole can be considered, including the right to decide that certain prisoners should never be released. In the following year the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was passed, which required that the trial judge recommended the minimum number of years to be served (or order that life should mean life) in the case of anyone being sentenced to life imprisonment.[14] As had been the case when the Home Secretary could decide on the minimum length of a life sentence, prisoners were entitled to have their tariff reviewed by the High Court. These prisoners can also appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if their appeals to the High Court are unsuccessful.[15]

In June 1997, the High Court had already stripped the Home Secretary of their powers to decide on minimum terms for life sentence prisoners who were convicted before the age of 18, following a legal challenge by solicitors acting for Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. The pair had been found guilty of murdering Merseyside toddler James Bulger in 1993, when they were 11 years old. The trial judge's initial recommendation was that they should not be considered for parole for at least eight years. The Lord Chief Justice later ruled that the pair should serve a minimum sentence of 10 years, but following a petition by The Sun newspaper, Home Secretary Michael Howard had ruled during 1994 that the pair should not be released until they had spent at least 15 years in custody.

Only the Home Secretary can grant a release to a prisoner sentenced to a whole life tariff or whole life order, on compassionate grounds including great age or ill health. Only four prisoners known or believed to have been issued with a whole life tariff have so far been released from their sentences. Three of them were IRA members who were freed under the Good Friday Agreement in 1999, having spent more than 20 years in prison for terrorist offences including murder. The other was gang member Reggie Kray, who was freed from his life sentence in August 2000 after serving 32 years (two years after the expiry of his original 30-year minimum term) due to terminal cancer; although the Home Office never confirmed he had been issued with a whole life tariff, his lengthy imprisonment and the fact that he was not paroled when his tariff expired helped fuel media speculation that he was among the prisoners whose life sentences were likely to mean life. He died within weeks of release.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_i...land_and_Wales
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 8th September 2017 at 01:57 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 02:00 PM   #59
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
She was 19 and under the influence of a cult when it happened, she's 67 now. That's not the same person, also, 67 year old is not the same danger to society.
She looks really rough for a 67-year old.

19 is an age where you are criminally culpable.

In another state she would have been executed, so she has been lucky.

Meals provided. Study. Light duties. Socialising.

When I think about Rosemary LaBianca, I cannot feel sympathy for her killers, except deep pity that they lack human emotions.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 02:04 PM   #60
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by mikado View Post
I don't know how young we all are.
I, at almost 50, am light years away from who I was at 19, in fact a totally different person.
Raised in a cult I sort of can see how these things can happen.
I have often imagined how easily a Jonestown situation could happen. I have often asked others who were raised hard core Jw if is just me, or have they thought similar..many have, which is concerning.I know my family could have easily done it if commanded.
But I digress..

I don't know how long is punishment, or rehabilitation and how much is a desire for revenge,
One is healthy,the other isn't.
Perhaps we should bring back transportation. Send'em off to the colonies where they can make a new life.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 02:48 PM   #61
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,381
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Only the Home Secretary can give a 'life tariff'. A court can only say 'life', and that invariably means nine years, and then out on parole.

ETA Soz, I was thinking of 'whole life sentence.' Times have changed. The judge decides minimum term. The Home Secretary has been stripped of the above power, but does have the power to rescind it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_i...land_and_Wales
Which doesn't answer the question at all.

Do you understand that you are completely and utterly wrong about lifers being eligible for parole after 6 years?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 02:53 PM   #62
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,772
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In another state she would have been executed, so she has been lucky.
No - the Manson family convictions preceded the temporary abolishment of the Death Penalty. People who had death sentences at the time had their convictions dropped to the next longest sentence on the books - twenty to life in CA.

Once it was reinstated, people previously sentenced to death could not be re-sentenced to death again. I believe Charlie Manson was sentenced to death, yet he's been eligible for parole for decades now.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 03:02 PM   #63
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,299
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It's not about the time but the state during that time.
What happens if I destroy a priceless and unique possession that belongs to you? I can't possibly replace it, ever. Does that mean my punishment should be permanent? Later in your post you mention mitigating circumstances (context), but here and elsewhere you're not allowing for much subtlety, instead only focusing on reparations (or punishment, or a vague notion of "justice", depending on the post). So which is it?

Quote:
Perhaps if you were less belligerent and wrote more clearly people wouldn't find your posts confusing.
There was nothing belligerent or confusing about my post. I'm not responsible for your emotional state.

Quote:
The desired outcome is to satisfy the communally shared notions of justice
Then that's a piss poor desired outcome. I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that objectively useful solutions work better than those that just satisfy people's feelings.

Quote:
There is no requirement that justice, any more than any other human institution, be free of emotion. We want to be happy, don't we?
That's a lazy and lame excuse for going with your guts rather than with reason. You could use that reasoning to justify any act so long as you show that it made you or some other people feel better. You're basically just rationalising your use of emotion-based thinking.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 03:14 PM   #64
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 316
I can understand getting mad enough to kill my cousin Allen. He can be totally annoying and knows how to push my buttons. I cannot understand breaking into strangers' home to kill them to satisfy the bloodlust of a coward who won't do it himself. I know it's done, but those people need to kept away for as long as possible from the rest of us. There's a difference in a murder committed in a fit of anger and one done in cold blood. Van Houten killed in cold blood.

Van Houten went into the home of people she did not know, because she was "told to". She then viciously, unhesitatingly assisted in the brutal murder of two people - just because "Charlie said to do it". There is an element in inhumanity to these crimes that does not justify parole - unless the relatives of the murder victims unanimously agree that she should be released.

She is still dangerous. She can wield a knife or a gun or other weapon that requires no strength. She's on her best behavior to get out; big surprise - not. But the fact remains that, as an adult, she elected to do what someone else told her even though she knew it was wrong. She was part of a deliberate attempt to subvert society on violent level; there is no way to know that she's actually eschewed this or is just acting for a reward (Parole). I would prefer to err on the side of caution in this case and not gamble on some innocent's life. It's the purpose of the murders that matters as well as her participation. She was fully invested in "Helter Skelter" as Manson viewed it.

If the family of victims agree, then I'd say yes. But.....only if. I hope the governor blocks it again.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 03:14 PM   #65
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,980
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What happens if I destroy a priceless and unique possession that belongs to you? I can't possibly replace it, ever. Does that mean my punishment should be permanent? Later in your post you mention mitigating circumstances (context), but here and elsewhere you're not allowing for much subtlety, instead only focusing on reparations (or punishment, or a vague notion of "justice", depending on the post). So which is it?



There was nothing belligerent or confusing about my post. I'm not responsible for your emotional state.



Then that's a piss poor desired outcome. I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that objectively useful solutions work better than those that just satisfy people's feelings.



That's a lazy and lame excuse for going with your guts rather than with reason. You could use that reasoning to justify any act so long as you show that it made you or some other people feel better. You're basically just rationalising your use of emotion-based thinking.
Okay, then, why don't you explain why you think she should be paroled? What good is served? What objective is achieved by releasing this person? And of course that objective cannot have any basis in emotion, because that is a rule you insist upon for some reason.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 03:14 PM   #66
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Which doesn't answer the question at all.

Do you understand that you are completely and utterly wrong about lifers being eligible for parole after 6 years?
From wiki:

Quote:
an average of 14 years and for other lifers the average has been in decline and now stands at nine years
As your application comes up for parole three years in advance, then after six years on average you can apply for parole, as I said (ceteris parabus).


Quote:
3. Life and indeterminate sentences

The government will apply for parole on your behalf if you have a life or indeterminate sentence - you don’t need to do anything. You’ll be contacted:

3 years before your tariff runs out if you’re serving a sentence of 4 years or more
https://www.gov.uk/getting-parole/li...nate-sentences

Do you understand that you are completely and utterly wrong about lifers never being eligible for parole after 6 years?
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 8th September 2017 at 03:15 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 03:20 PM   #67
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,299
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Okay, then, why don't you explain why you think she should be paroled?
Well, I didn't say I thought she should. Obviously I haven't evaluated her, and I barely know her name or involvement in the murders. However, as I've already said (which raises questions about your request. Haven't you read my posts?) 50 years sounds like a very long time, even for murder, unless you judge her to be a threat to society still.

Quote:
What good is served?
Saves money, for one. What's the point of holding an old coot in prison if she's no longer a threat? If the people responsible for handling her request judge her to be either largerly reformed or no longer a problem, what's the issue?

Quote:
What objective is achieved by releasing this person?
You could ask the same question about some black guy serving 15 years for possession. What's the point of releasing them?

Quote:
And of course that objective cannot have any basis in emotion
I know you can't fathom someone's conception of justice being based on anything but emotion, but please don't project that onto other people. I assure you, it's possible.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 03:32 PM   #68
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,980
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, I didn't say I thought she should. Obviously I haven't evaluated her, and I barely know her name or involvement in the murders. However, as I've already said (which raises questions about your request. Haven't you read my posts?) 50 years sounds like a very long time, even for murder, unless you judge her to be a threat to society still.
Why does it sound like a long time? What criteria are you using to decide what is an appropriate length of time? What is the formula? Do tell me you're not just deciding with your "gut" because it feels inappropriately long. You must have a rational, measurable, explicable reason for your decision. That's what you demanded I provide.

Quote:
Saves money, for one.
What is the point of saving money? What is the harm in not saving money? Whatever formula you're using to decide, apparently money is a factor in it?

Quote:
What's the point of holding an old coot in prison if she's no longer a threat?
What makes you think she is not a threat? Is being a threat the only reason for prison sentences? Why would being a threat merit a prison sentence? Remember: the answer cannot involve emotion.

Quote:
If the people responsible for handling her request judge her to be either largerly reformed or no longer a problem, what's the issue?
If you're willing to defer to their judgment on releasing her, would you be unwilling to defer to their judgment if they decided to keep her in prison? Are you abidicating making an argument for your position to their authority?

Quote:
You could ask the same question about some black guy serving 15 years for possession. What's the point of releasing them?
I could but I won't, that is not the topic of discussion. Unless you have a reason to bring drugs and race into your argument that life in prison is an inappropriate sentence for Van Houten. Are you? Does your formula for deciding she should be paroled involve her race?

Quote:
I know you can't fathom someone's conception of justice being based on anything but emotion, but please don't project that onto other people. I assure you, it's possible.
And I know you cannot muster an argument here that meets all the requirements you demand of others.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 03:40 PM   #69
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,299
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why does it sound like a long time? What criteria are you using to decide what is an appropriate length of time? What is the formula? Do tell me you're not just deciding with your "gut" because it feels inappropriately long. You must have a rational, measurable, explicable reason for your decision. That's what you demanded I provide.
See, again you're being unreasonable. It stung you, somehow, that I pointed out that you were being overly emotional about this issue, and you have to bring it up constantly. You must show that I'm being just as irrational as you are, just like a creationist calling science a religion.

The answer is simple: 50 years is the majority of someone's life. And yes, it seems too long for all but the most heinous crimes.

No one said that emotions aren't a factor in decisions. That's your black-and-white interpretation; a rather disproportionate reaction to what I told you earlier. What I said is that emotion can't be the basis for the decisions you make, especially when we're talking about other people's lives.

Quote:
What is the point of saving money? What is the harm in not saving money?
It impoverishes the taxpayers. Please tell me you agree that being poorer is worse.

Quote:
What makes you think she is not a threat?
I didn't say she wasn't. Do you read my posts for comprehension, or are you in "confrontation" mode now?

Quote:
Is being a threat the only reason for prison sentences?
No.

Quote:
Remember: the answer cannot involve emotion.
Strawman.

Quote:
If you're willing to defer to their judgment on releasing her, would you be unwilling to defer to their judgment if they decided to keep her in prison?
No.

Quote:
I could but I won't, that is not the topic of discussion.
You and I both know why you won't answer. You know that your answer would be inconsistent with the one you're giving for Van Houten.

That's the problem with basing your decisions on how you feel rather than using the emotion to set your goals and then using objective and rational measures to attain them: it means that you have no consistency, and cannot find agreement with other members of your society.

Quote:
And I know you cannot muster an argument here that meets all the requirements you demand of others.
My, you're really frothing at the mouth here. This happens in every thread where I disagree with you. You just can't accept that someone might require a better standard of you than you do yourself. If it feels good to you, then it should suffice for everyone else. Well, it doesn't. It can't. Otherwise society couldn't function.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 8th September 2017 at 03:41 PM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 03:53 PM   #70
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,980
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
See, again you're being unreasonable. It stung you, somehow, that I pointed out that you were being overly emotional about this issue, and you have to bring it up constantly. You must show that I'm being just as irrational as you are, just like a creationist calling science a religion.
Personalizing. You do that a lot.

Quote:
The answer is simple: 50 years is the majority of someone's life. And yes, it seems too long for all but the most heinous crimes.
"Seems"? That doesn't sound very rational.

Quote:
No one said that emotions aren't a factor in decisions. That's your black-and-white interpretation; a rather disproportionate reaction to what I told you earlier. What I said is that emotion can't be the basis for the decisions you make, especially when we're talking about other people's lives.
It's the only basis you've given so far for your opinion on why she should be released. "It seems too long".

Quote:
It impoverishes the taxpayers. Please tell me you agree that being poorer is worse.
Worse than what? How "impoverished" are they by one woman continuing her sentence? Do you have the numbers to compare the cost of continuing her sentence versus the cost of paroling her?

Quote:
I didn't say she wasn't. Do you read my posts for comprehension, or are you in "confrontation" mode now?
Personalizing, again.

Quote:
No.
What are the other reasons? Which made a prison sentence appropriate at all in this case? Which reasons determined the length of that sentence?

Quote:
Strawman.
I disagree, you kept complaining that I was involving emotion.

Quote:
No.
Then why do you appeal to their authority as if it could be the basis for your reasoning on why the parole is appropriate? You can't have it both ways--parole is appropriate because those people say it is, and if they don't say it's appropriate then they're wrong. I think for consistency you must remove the opinion of the parole board from your reasons for why parole is appropriate in this case.

Quote:
You and I both know why you won't answer. You know that your answer would be inconsistent with the one you're giving for Van Houten.
Possession of drugs, in my opinion, is a "victimless crime" and wouldn't merit punishment at all, except perhaps confiscation of the banned substance if it were one of the more dangerous ones. How does that relate to this topic?

Quote:
That's the problem with basing your decisions on how you feel rather than using the emotion to set your goals and then using objective and rational measures to attain them: it means that you have no consistency, and cannot find agreement with other members of your society.
From what you have said so far, you are basing your decision on how you feel. I see no objective and rational measures in your responses so far. And as for appealing to the masses, do you want to do a poll to see how many are in favor of paroling her versus how many are not?

Quote:
My, you're really frothing at the mouth here. This happens in every thread where I disagree with you. You just can't accept that someone might require a better standard of you than you do yourself. If it feels good to you, then it should suffice for everyone else. Well, it doesn't. It can't. Otherwise society couldn't function.
Personalizing, again.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 04:14 PM   #71
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,299
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
"Seems"? That doesn't sound very rational.
Again, you're operating from a strawman. This further shows that you're being irrational on this topic: you just can't let it go, because I had the nerve to call you emotional.

Quote:
Worse than what?
Being not impoverished. Stop playing games.

Quote:
How "impoverished" are they by one woman continuing her sentence?
You do understand that prisons aren't run for free, right?

Quote:
Personalizing, again.
Oh, stop crying every time I call you on your mistakes. You didn't read my post properly, you got caught on it. Just man up.

Quote:
I disagree, you kept complaining that I was involving emotion.
And despite me explaining it to you more than once you still have no idea what it means. Gee, it's almost as if you just can't get out of your head that I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your irrational thinking.

Quote:
Then why do you appeal to their authority as if it could be the basis for your reasoning on why the parole is appropriate?
This is ridiculous. I said that if they judge her to be ready for release, then I trust their judgment. Obviously, if they judge her not to be ready, I trust their judgment too. You're making an argument out of absolutely everything.

Quote:
You can't have it both ways--parole is appropriate because those people say it is, and if they don't say it's appropriate then they're wrong.
That only makes sense if my personal opinion is held to be the universal standard, which is exactly what I'm arguing against.

Quote:
Possession of drugs, in my opinion, is a "victimless crime"
Irrelevant. You still haven't answered my question: What objective is achieved by releasing this person?

Quote:
From what you have said so far, you are basing your decision on how you feel.
Then you just don't understand basic logic or English. Or, more likely, you don't want to understand because it challenges your beliefs.

Yes, personalising. Woe is you.

Quote:
I see no objective and rational measures in your responses so far.
Of course you don't. Your entire worldview is based upon how things feel to you. My perspective is different, and that bothers you. In response, you try to make me as irrational as you. It's a tu quoque, nothing more.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 8th September 2017 at 04:17 PM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 04:24 PM   #72
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
DING LING LING!

Seconds out, Round two.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 04:35 PM   #73
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,980
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Of course you don't. Your entire worldview is based upon how things feel to you. My perspective is different, and that bothers you. In response, you try to make me as irrational as you. It's a tu quoque, nothing more.
All of that and you still can't explain why you think she should be released.

Can you try one time, just one, without resorting to insults and accusations about me, personally?

Why do you think this case justifies parole?

If your answer is still "It just seems too long" then I think we can stop. Why the countering "It just seems too short" isn't equally valid...well, I suppose some mysteries cannot be answered.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 05:00 PM   #74
p0lka
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 718
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Studies show that psychopaths adapt well to prison. They rarely show the kind of distress normal prisoners exhibit.

I'll wager she has her own prison mafia going, and a nice little number in tobacco, cell phones and legal highs going. Not to mention a posse of butch thugs to protect her.
Thats some good imagination you got going there, where can I get me some of that?
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 05:34 PM   #75
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,457
@p0lka:
For someone who has been in prison for nearly 50 years, it's not an unreasonable path for her life to take. (Being involved to some extent in a prison gang).

She's been in prison from age 19 through age 67. The sum total of her social skills are prison based. I see no reason to release her to society given her utter lack of social skills, and her history as a sociopath and murderer.

It is regrettable that the Supreme Court screwed the pooch in 1972 and put the death penalty on hold. This murderess ought to be pushing up daisies. Since she isn't, then allowing her to finish her time on this planet as a prisoner is fine. However, that isn't my call. There is a due process, and it will be followed with the usual arguments for and against at the hearing. The result will be what it will be.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

Last edited by Darth Rotor; 8th September 2017 at 05:36 PM.
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 05:39 PM   #76
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,796
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
She's been in prison from age 19 through age 67. The sum total of her social skills are prison based. I see no reason to release her to society given her utter lack of social skills, and her history as a sociopath and murderer.

.
If prison makes someone ineligible for parole because prison does not develop social skills, the government is wrong to imprison people and should stop.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 05:42 PM   #77
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,187
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If prison makes someone ineligible for parole because prison does not develop social skills, the government is wrong to imprison people and should stop.
Only true if the purpose of prison is to make people eligible for parole.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 05:43 PM   #78
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,796
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Only true if the purpose of prison is to make people eligible for parole.
In certainly shouldn't be making people ineligible.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 05:47 PM   #79
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,457
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
In certainly shouldn't be making people ineligible.
Bob, there's a difference between a few years in prison and 48 out of 67 years in prison, as in one's entire adult life. I realize that you don't do nuance, so I'll stop there. I think you need to revisit my point about the Supreme Court screwing the pooch on the death penalty. She should have been executed. She wasn't. Keeping her in prison is a good enough alternative.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 05:49 PM   #80
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,796
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Bob, there's a difference between a few years in prison and 48 out of 67 years in prison, as in one's entire adult life. I realize that you don't do nuance, so I'll stop there.
Im saying the problem is the difference. If a person is sentenced to a long sentence with eligibility for parole, and the prison system actively disqualifies or prevents eligibility, it doesn't deserve to exist. Inability to fulfill leniency of a sentence is just as bad as a facility incapable of keeping inmates for the duration of their sentence.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.