|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 26, 2021 22:16:43 GMT
It's a great Dostoevsky novel ... but it's also just a topic that the discussion of S. Bennett/J.K. Harrison raised. B.E. has some thoughts, and I'm very interested to hear them, as I've given some thought to the topic in the past couple of years ... but nowhere near enough to feel like I have much to say definitively. (Meaning, I could argue a couple perspectives, but I'm not sure I've got a personal, strongly held perspective.)
I'll start by just laying out a few things for discussion. Anyone who is interested in general, I'd be very curious to hear what you have to say no matter where you land on the issues. And while it should go without saying, this is the kind of thing that can raise strong opinions, as it is right in line with politics or at least adjacent to them. This board has been fantastic in discussing such things without anybody going overboard, ranting and railing, alienating or disrespecting anyone. I trust we can keep doing that. We're grown ups.
So, prison or jail sentences can have a few purposes:
1) To remove dangerous people from society. Criminal murders people, it's better he be locked up so he can't murder more people.
2) To punish criminals. Criminal murdered someone, and must pay for his crime. The punishment is prison.
3) To rehabilitate criminals. Criminal murdered someone, and must be reformed in such a way as to be able to rejoin society without being a danger to others in the future.
I think often we go between these things in our discourse, and conflicts seem to occur when Group A is looking for one of those outcomes (say, #3) while Group B is looking for another (e.g. #2).
So that's our opening salvo. Proceed as you will!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 27, 2021 14:27:16 GMT
I want to add another item to my list above. It might be the least intellectually or emotionally fulfilling, and yet most practically valuable, objective of imprisonment.
4) Imposing finality onto a crime, to avoid ongoing feuds between citizens.
To some degree, I think this is what formal systems of law were for. In societies with weaker states, something like a murder is likely to result in retaliation by a family member or friend, which is likely to result in retaliation by a family member or friend, which is likely to result in retaliation...etc.
When a state (or whatever formal authority) takes a monopoly on violence and imposes objective, preconsidered punishments based on the facts of the incident, it removes both the inclination toward and opportunity for retaliatory feuding. It is the parent stepping in to punish Johnny for hitting Jimmy, rather than Johnny and Jimmy hitting one another back and forth. "He started it!?" they may say; the parent says "well, I'm finishing it."
That's an important piece of punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jun 29, 2021 12:37:47 GMT
I am not a Charles Manson/Manson Family scholar, though I've seen a few documentaries and read several articles on the subject. I am fascinated by the continuing parole hearings of the surviving "Manson Family" members. It seems like every year, another...murderer...comes up for parole, is paraded into the hearing, pleads their case, and is denied - or, they are granted parole, only to be denied/overturned by a governor's ruling. That news is usually followed by a short press snippet accompanied by a current photo of the aging prisoner.
Now, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am NOT ADVOCATING for the release of any murderer - Manson Family member or otherwise - so let's get that out of the way. I will say that when I see those recent photos of the now 70-something year old prisoners, I become intrigued and I inevitably will read the accompanying story. Let's use Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel as examples. At the time of the 1969 murders, Van Houten was 19 and Krenwinkel was 21. They have both been in prison for over 50 years.
Here is my question, and please allow me again to state that I am not in favor of them be paroled. I am far from an expert and far from knowing the facts. But, I do question why they haven't been paroled. I guess I am questioning more the system. In the 50 years that both Van Houten and Krenwinkel have been incarcerated, they have, by most (all?) accounts, been model prisoners. They've gotten college degrees, were active in Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, taught illiterate prisoners how to read, edited the prison newspaper, did secretarial work, and aided prisoners in many other ways. Some prison psychiatrists have proclaimed them remorseful and as having accepted responsibility for their crimes. However, after several parole hearings, they remain imprisoned and probably will be for the rest of their lives.
Again, I don't know all the facts and clearly there might be/are things that are preventing Van Houten and Krenwinkel from being granted parole. Certainly negative press and outrage from society are factors. And, if I was a friend or relative of the victims who were murdered, I'd be seeing things much differently. However...if 50 years in prison, if being a model prisoner, if contributing to the well-being of fellow prisoners, if being remorseful, and if taking responsibility for your crimes ISN'T ENOUGH to grant parole, then what is? How many years must you serve? 60, 70, 80? How many fellow prisoners must you help? Is there a magic number?How many prison psychiatrists must proclaim you rehabilitated? Three, four, a dozen? In the end, is there ANYTHING you can do to be paroled or is the "system" a very flawed one?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 29, 2021 12:54:44 GMT
I know next to nothing beyond the very broadly known popular information about the Manson murders and aftermath--honestly it has never interested me much at all--but just generally on the topic, I think it's silly not to parole the women you described if we consider prison along the lines of my #1, above. It's hard to imagine they pose a serious danger to anyone. I would imagine media frenzy causing public furor is the primary reason they remain imprisoned.
But I will say if we consider the point of prison to be primarily punishment as opposed to removing dangerous people from society or rehabilitation, then I guess that makes more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 29, 2021 14:35:19 GMT
Coincidentally, I read this Newsweek essay this morning on an ex-felon's view of cancel culture, but more on topic, about crime and punishment. This part stood out to me as outstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 1, 2021 12:12:08 GMT
From the "Can of Worms" thread: I didn't follow the trials, so I was just reading a little bit about why the PA Supreme Court overturned the conviction. What a strange legal situation. I think I might read more about the legal aspect of it. As for Cosby, he got off on a "technicality". The Supreme Court didn't say he was innocent. And, that, does come back around to what I was talking about. I can't just take the state's judgment as absolute. Apparently, they vowed never to charge him, charged him, convicted him, denied him parole a month ago, and have now overturned the conviction. I think I'll render my own judgment. This sums up quite a can of worms, itself. Not speaking specifically to B.E.'s own feelings here, but using that topic as a launching point...
It seems to me that people often have contradictory views about "technicalities," often based mostly on the alleged crime, their personal perceptions of the accused's guilt, or repercussions of the violation of the accused's rights (e.g., the technicality). And those views make sense, because I think we (as human beings) most often don't think systematically, or in terms of process, but in terms of the big picture.
So when we believe we're looking at a rapist getting out of prison, we often lose interest in due process. We want big-picture justice, which is "rapists go to prison." Yet when we look at due process gone wrong resulting in a tragedy, say police shooting a suspect in a situation arising out of bungled due process procedures, we point to those procedures as important protections. "He was just selling loose cigarettes/passing a counterfeit bill!" we say, "he wasn't even charged, much less tried and convicted! He deserved due process!" In the latter, it's not as if we REALLY care about due process, but again we look at the totality of the situation and see somebody dead in what seems like an unfair manner.
We're very big-picture creatures.
(Does this make sense? I'm pulling it out of my ass, to be honest, as it's occurring to me. But I didn't really think this out.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 1, 2021 13:52:53 GMT
Interestingly, after having posted the above about "technicalities," I saw this from independent (and controversial, and somewhat bratty, though in many ways great) journalist Glenn Greenwald:
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 4, 2021 14:50:50 GMT
From the "Can of Worms" thread: I didn't follow the trials, so I was just reading a little bit about why the PA Supreme Court overturned the conviction. What a strange legal situation. I think I might read more about the legal aspect of it. As for Cosby, he got off on a "technicality". The Supreme Court didn't say he was innocent. And, that, does come back around to what I was talking about. I can't just take the state's judgment as absolute. Apparently, they vowed never to charge him, charged him, convicted him, denied him parole a month ago, and have now overturned the conviction. I think I'll render my own judgment. This sums up quite a can of worms, itself. Not speaking specifically to B.E. 's own feelings here, but using that topic as a launching point...
It seems to me that people often have contradictory views about "technicalities," often based mostly on the alleged crime, their personal perceptions of the accused's guilt, or repercussions of the violation of the accused's rights (e.g., the technicality). And those views make sense, because I think we (as human beings) most often don't think systematically, or in terms of process, but in terms of the big picture.
So when we believe we're looking at a rapist getting out of prison, we often lose interest in due process. We want big-picture justice, which is "rapists go to prison." Yet when we look at due process gone wrong resulting in a tragedy, say police shooting a suspect in a situation arising out of bungled due process procedures, we point to those procedures as important protections. "He was just selling loose cigarettes/passing a counterfeit bill!" we say, "he wasn't even charged, much less tried and convicted! He deserved due process!" In the latter, it's not as if we REALLY care about due process, but again we look at the totality of the situation and see somebody dead in what seems like an unfair manner.
We're very big-picture creatures.
(Does this make sense? I'm pulling it out of my ass, to be honest, as it's occurring to me. But I didn't really think this out.) Yes, I think that does make sense. People want justice to be served. People want fairness. In the first example, the punishment wasn't perceived to be severe enough, in the second example, the punish is too severe. In a way, you could actually consider us little-picture creatures, in that we are looking at each case individually and not future cases (i.e. the big picture). I, personally, appreciate the big picture. When in doubt, lean toward freedom and the accused's rights. But, along the way, "smaller" injustices do occur. The Cosby decision is, really, about future cases. The facts of the case hadn't changed. His guilt (or innocence) hadn't changed. The guy confessed after all. And, that's the most common example, I think, of this sort of thing. If someone commits a crime and confesses, but the confession gets tossed because the warrant hadn't been signed in time or some other technicality, I think people rightly feel that justice hasn't been served (even while appreciating that due process is important and necessary).
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 4, 2021 15:18:15 GMT
Interestingly, after having posted the above about "technicalities," I saw this from independent (and controversial, and somewhat bratty, though in many ways great) journalist Glenn Greenwald: Yes, technically , courts do not exonerate defendants or declare them innocent. I'll give him that. But, on the whole, I find his commentary disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 4, 2021 15:43:21 GMT
Again, I don't know all the facts and clearly there might be/are things that are preventing Van Houten and Krenwinkel from being granted parole. Certainly negative press and outrage from society are factors. And, if I was a friend or relative of the victims who were murdered, I'd be seeing things much differently. However...if 50 years in prison, if being a model prisoner, if contributing to the well-being of fellow prisoners, if being remorseful, and if taking responsibility for your crimes ISN'T ENOUGH to grant parole, then what is? How many years must you serve? 60, 70, 80? How many fellow prisoners must you help? Is there a magic number? How many prison psychiatrists must proclaim you rehabilitated? Three, four, a dozen? In the end, is there ANYTHING you can do to be paroled or is the "system" a very flawed one?
Interesting post, SJS, but just to zero-in on these final questions: Yes, I think there's clearly things you can do to be paroled as criminals are paroled all the time. I do think, though, that in instances of infamous crimes such as this that that could unfairly keep criminals from being paroled (who might otherwise be). For the record, I'm even less knowledgeable about the Manson murders than you guys are, but, just from skimming wiki, I don't think Krenwinkel should even be eligible for parole (or perhaps all criminals should be, but she'd be among those least likely to actually be paroled). She killed multiple people over multiple nights, in a premeditated fashion, and they were particularly heinous and gruesome acts, and apparently with the motivation of starting a race war. That's a far cry from a crime of passion where you push someone and they fall and hit their head on the corner of a coffee table. Van Houten's situation seems quite different. She wasn't involved in the Tate murders, and, supposedly, though she did hold down one of the victims, she didn't actually kill anyone (granted, the law doesn't really split hairs on that account). Point is, I could see someone like her, someone who might be more of an "accessory" to a crime, who was being influenced by someone else, as someone who could potentially be rehabilitated (in the sense that they'd no longer be a danger to society). As it pertains to the Manson girls, I wonder if now that Manson is dead that might change their parole outlook.
|
|
alan
Denny's Drums
Posts: 1
Likes: 1
|
Post by alan on Sept 24, 2021 12:13:36 GMT
Interestingly, after having posted the above about "technicalities," I saw this from independent (and controversial, and somewhat bratty, though in many ways great) journalist Glenn Greenwald: Well that quote isn’t true either. Imprisonment is just one option open to courts (I work in the U.K. criminal justice system). If you are found Not Guilty then yes you leave the court both exonerated and innocent, as a court has found that they could not prove the charges against you. Sometimes that is because the person did not do the things they were charged with and were rightly acquitted, or because the jury thought there was reasonable cause for doubt, or that the prosecution did not do their job properly and could not properly prove the charge. Or had falsified evidence against an accused (it happens as we know). and if found guilty Imprisonment is just one of the options open to courts. Not every crime is murder or assault. And yes, constitutions and legal codes are there to protect everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 24, 2021 12:35:19 GMT
Thanks for the insights--and for resurrecting this thread. I'd meant to keep it alive but slacked off.
Back on the topic, several of our cities either have just eliminated, or are looking seriously at eliminating, police stops for minor traffic offenses such as expired tabs, busted lights or blinkers, etc., as well as further reducing the circumstances in which officers can pursue fleeing suspects. (I say "further" because those had been limited already in previous years.)
The reasoning is that a) these stops are too often excuses for racial profiling, and b) these stops too often escalate into violent situations.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 27, 2021 22:44:53 GMT
If he was a better shot, he would've been another Lee Harvey Oswald...or John Wilkes Booth. Now, he's a free man.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 28, 2021 12:04:08 GMT
I don't know what's right in that situation, but honestly I don't mind/worry much about it.
He attempted a murder 40 years ago (and was found not guilty by reasons of insanity). Plenty of people actually convicted of murder serve less time than that. And the U.S. is an outlier among developed countries in the severity of our sentencing. He was obviously mentally unwell, but the people monitoring him seem to think that situation has improved.
Assuming he will be properly monitored, I don't worry too much (though the chances of reoffending are never zero ... just like the chances for offending are never zero). Though the retirement of his doctor and disbanding of his current/previous therapy group is reason to keep a careful eye on him, I would think.
That was a long way for me to say "I dunno."
|
|