Release denied for dying Manson follower

[Peikko 1,575]

That's what I'm thinking, and especially on these high profile cases one has to suspect that in certain instances justice is hijacked by political expediency which is a flaw in how the system is operated rather than in the system itself. At least, in my opinion.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

oh screw it, let's just let everyone out of jail. then some should be happy.

[NavarreMan 10]

• California Codes

• California Penal Code

• PENAL CODE SECTION 1170-1170.9

1170. (a) (1) The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose

of imprisonment for crime is punishment. This purpose is best served

by terms proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with

provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the

same offense under similar circumstances. The Legislature further

finds and declares that the elimination of disparity and the

provision of uniformity of sentences can best be achieved by

determinate sentences fixed by statute in proportion to the

seriousness of the offense as determined by the Legislature to be

imposed by the court with specified discretion...

I am not sure what we consider a punishment “proportionate to the seriousness of the offense” of a person convicted of multiple, extremely violent homicides, where the crimes were premeditated and committed with such brutality, as were these murders. It is the violence of these crimes, which sets this case apart from others, and I believe that the cry of “political grandstanding” is far outweighed by the fact that the original sentence was death and the sentence was not changed because of any facts in the case but by politicians in Washington DC. Having said that I find it appalling that any of the conspirators in this case ever received parole consideration.

(2) The court shall have the discretion to resentence or recall if

the court finds that the facts described in subparagraph (A) and (B)

or subparagraphs (B) and © exist:

(A) The prisoner is terminally ill with an incurable condition

caused by an illness or disease that would produce death within six

months, as determined by a physician employed by the department.

(B) The conditions under which the prisoner would be released or

receive treatment do not pose a threat to public safety.

© The prisoner is permanently medically incapacitated with a

medical condition that renders him or her permanently unable to

perform activities of basic daily living, and results in the prisoner

requiring 24-hour total care, including, but not limited to, coma,

persistent vegetative state, brain death, ventilator-dependency, loss

of control of muscular or neurological function, and that

incapacitation did not exist at the time of the original sentencing.

The Board of Parole Hearings shall make findings pursuant to this

subdivision before making a recommendation for resentence or recall

to the court. This subdivision does not apply to a prisoner sentenced

to death or a term of life without the possibility of parole...

(4). If the secretary determines that the prisoner satisfies the

criteria set forth in paragraph (2), the secretary or board may

recommend to the court that the prisoner's sentence be recalled. The

secretary shall submit a recommendation for release within 30 days in

the case of inmates sentenced to determinate terms and, in the case

of inmates sentenced to indeterminate terms, the secretary shall make

a recommendation to the Board of Parole Hearings with respect to the

inmates who have applied under this section. The board shall

consider this information and make an independent judgment pursuant

to paragraph (2) and make findings related thereto before rejecting

the request or making a recommendation to the court. This action

shall be taken at the next lawfully noticed board meeting...

(7) Any recommendation for recall submitted to the court by the

secretary or the Board of Parole Hearings shall include one or more

medical evaluations, a post-release plan, and findings pursuant to

paragraph (2).

(8) If possible, the matter shall be heard before the same judge

of the court who sentenced the prisoner.

(9) If the court grants the recall and resentencing application,

the prisoner shall be released by the department within 48 hours of

receipt of the court's order, unless a longer time period is agreed

to by the inmate. At the time of release, the warden or the warden's

representative shall ensure that the prisoner has each of the

following in his or her possession: a discharge medical summary, full

medical records, state identification, parole medications, and all

property belonging to the prisoner. After discharge, any additional

records shall be sent to the prisoner's forwarding address.

(10) The secretary shall issue a directive to medical and

correctional staff employed by the department that details the

guidelines and procedures for initiating a recall and resentencing

procedure. The directive shall clearly state that any prisoner who is

given a prognosis of six months or less to live is eligible for

recall and resentencing consideration, and that recall and

resentencing procedures shall be initiated upon that prognosis...

My understanding is that this process was followed precisely. The recommendation came from the prison personnel to the Board then to the Court and was denied by the Court based on whatever consideration the Court deemed the case merited.

It is on this point that I disagree with PH. There was no precedence set with this case as early release based on medical conditions is not the norm. I just do not see political wrangling here. It is easy to point at others and say that they do not deserve all the rights and considerations afforded to upstanding citizens. It is easy to say this because you are not the one on the hot seat. My stance is only that the laws are the laws and if we don’t like them then it is up to us to take action to get the laws changed. As for her punishment, she should have been put to death long ago. Would have saved the State and taxpayers a fortune.

Edited July 16, 2008 by NavarreMan

[Big Papa Zone 93]

That's what I'm thinking, and especially on these high profile cases one has to suspect that in certain instances justice is hijacked by political expediency which is a flaw in how the system is operated rather than in the system itself. At least, in my opinion.

You are, of course, correct in your suspicion. That's why Myra Hindley died in jail. It's also why Mark Chapman will die in jail. Ditto Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, and Peter Sutcliffe.

If the crime is infamous enough, the perpetrator can forget about ever seeing the light of day again. Right or wrong, that's just how it is.

[Peikko 1,575]

oh screw it, let's just let everyone out of jail. then some should be happy.

Not yet reached your low point then Charles? Allowing compassionate release to dying prisoners = opening the jail cells to all and sundry? Yes, I can follow that logic completely.

Your efforts to smear people who don't 'feel' as you do as having no regard for due process are simply laughable.

[NavarreMan 10]

That's what I'm thinking, and especially on these high profile cases one has to suspect that in certain instances justice is hijacked by political expediency which is a flaw in how the system is operated rather than in the system itself. At least, in my opinion.

You are, of course, correct in your suspicion. That's why Myra Hindley died in jail. It's also why Mark Chapman will die in jail. Ditto Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, and Peter Sutcliffe.

If the crime is infamous enough, the perpetrator can forget about ever seeing the light of day again. Right or wrong, that's just how it is.

??? I wonder how many not-so-well-known murderers will also "never see the light of day again"? I fail to see the argument here. Why should these killers be set free?

Mark D. Chapman convicted of killing John Lennon.

Hyra Hindley & Ian Brady convicted of killing 4/5 children. (Moors murders)

Ian Huntley convicted of killing 2 children. (Soham murders)

Peter Sutcliffe convicted of killing 13 people. (Yorkshire Ripper)

[Big Papa Zone 93]

That's what I'm thinking, and especially on these high profile cases one has to suspect that in certain instances justice is hijacked by political expediency which is a flaw in how the system is operated rather than in the system itself. At least, in my opinion.

You are, of course, correct in your suspicion. That's why Myra Hindley died in jail. It's also why Mark Chapman will die in jail. Ditto Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, and Peter Sutcliffe.

If the crime is infamous enough, the perpetrator can forget about ever seeing the light of day again. Right or wrong, that's just how it is.

??? I wonder how many not-so-well-known murderers will also "never see the light of day again"? I fail to see the argument here. Why should these killers be set free?

Mark D. Chapman convicted of killing John Lennon.

Hyra Hindley & Ian Brady convicted of killing 4/5 children. (Moors murders)

Ian Huntley convicted of killing 2 children. (Soham murders)

Peter Sutcliffe convicted of killing 13 people. (Yorkshire Ripper)

I'm sorry NavarreMan, but you've just completely lost me? What "argument?" I'm not making any argument. I'm agreeing with you (I think???). None of the aforementioned killers should be set free - where did I suggest otherwise?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's what I'm thinking, and especially on these high profile cases one has to suspect that in certain instances justice is hijacked by political expediency which is a flaw in how the system is operated rather than in the system itself. At least, in my opinion.

You are, of course, correct in your suspicion. That's why Myra Hindley died in jail. It's also why Mark Chapman will die in jail. Ditto Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, and Peter Sutcliffe.

If the crime is infamous enough, the perpetrator can forget about ever seeing the light of day again. Right or wrong, that's just how it is.

??? I wonder how many not-so-well-known murderers will also "never see the light of day again"? I fail to see the argument here. Why should these killers be set free?

Mark D. Chapman convicted of killing John Lennon.

Hyra Hindley & Ian Brady convicted of killing 4/5 children. (Moors murders)

Ian Huntley convicted of killing 2 children. (Soham murders)

Peter Sutcliffe convicted of killing 13 people. (Yorkshire Ripper)

I think you're missing the point here - its about judicial process, not about what individuals feel that the person deserves.

For one reason and another not all murderers are treated the same - as I believe we've seen in other cases you can perpetrate a horrible crime and still be eligible for parole (in some cases to offend again), provided the original crime wasn't so high-profile and outrageous in the public consciousness (or the news media more specifically) that some politician will pander to sentiment and apply pressure to reject parole or early release.

It doesn't have anything to do with sympathy for the criminal (as some of the folks who reject these arguments allege) but rather apply a uniform standard of justice that isn't subject to outside manipulation.

[zqt3344 21]

She is lucky she has not already been hung or fried in the chair, she deserves no sympathy at all.

That's what I'm thinking, and especially on these high profile cases one has to suspect that in certain instances justice is hijacked by political expediency which is a flaw in how the system is operated rather than in the system itself. At least, in my opinion.

You are, of course, correct in your suspicion. That's why Myra Hindley died in jail. It's also why Mark Chapman will die in jail. Ditto Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, and Peter Sutcliffe.

If the crime is infamous enough, the perpetrator can forget about ever seeing the light of day again. Right or wrong, that's just how it is.

??? I wonder how many not-so-well-known murderers will also "never see the light of day again"? I fail to see the argument here. Why should these killers be set free?

Mark D. Chapman convicted of killing John Lennon.

Hyra Hindley & Ian Brady convicted of killing 4/5 children. (Moors murders)

Ian Huntley convicted of killing 2 children. (Soham murders)

Peter Sutcliffe convicted of killing 13 people. (Yorkshire Ripper)

I think you're missing the point here - its about judicial process, not about what individuals feel that the person deserves.

For one reason and another not all murderers are treated the same - as I believe we've seen in other cases you can perpetrate a horrible crime and still be eligible for parole (in some cases to offend again), provided the original crime wasn't so high-profile and outrageous in the public consciousness (or the news media more specifically) that some politician will pander to sentiment and apply pressure to reject parole or early release.

It doesn't have anything to do with sympathy for the criminal (as some of the folks who reject these arguments allege) but rather apply a uniform standard of justice that isn't subject to outside manipulation.

[NavarreMan 10]

I apologize if I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that high profile cases were being treated unfairly and would remain imprisoned due to their celebrity rather than the fact that they were cold-blooded killers. Myra Hindley died in jail of a heart attack after serving more than 35 years of a life sentence for killing 4 children. Seems to me that she successfully served her sentence. There are few cases that compare to the celebrity of O.J Simpson's trial and he walked from what seemed like an open and shut case. I believe he received a fair trial and that he walked because some really stupid people did some really stupid things to make what was already an iron-clad case more believable. Mark Furman should have been hauled outside and shot dead for being such an idiot. IMHO!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said - it has nothing to do with sympathy.

The justice system should be insulated from the outside interference by politicians trying to protect themselves from the torches and pitchforks brigade.

[NavarreMan 10]

Hell, for that matter, most trials should also be protected from the media as well. The media never learns. They continue to try cases long before they go to trial and the worst offenders are the Nancy Graces' et. al. of the cable news networks. Scott peterson was just another azzhole wife killer until the press decided it was the case d'jour.

[Peikko 1,575]

Totally agree with that, I don't see any place for the visual media in a court room and the press should be limited in what they can and can't say about the defendants, witnesses and alleged victims before and during the trial process. The problem is there is a conflict of intererests with the interests of the trail and due process and the interests of free speach and information. Not an easy thing to control.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hell, for that matter, most trials should also be protected from the media as well. The media never learns. They continue to try cases long before they go to trial and the worst offenders are the Nancy Graces' et. al. of the cable news networks. Scott peterson was just another azzhole wife killer until the press decided it was the case d'jour.

The Scott Peterson case bothered me a lot - because one of the TV networks made a for TV movie depicting him as the murderer, before the trial was actually concluded.

I definitely oppose bringing TV cameras into court rooms - and in the UK at least the judge does have ultimate jurisdiction as to whether TV cameras are permitted to broadcast the trial, and to restrict what details the press are permitted to give out.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

oh screw it, let's just let everyone out of jail. then some should be happy.

Not yet reached your low point then Charles? Allowing compassionate release to dying prisoners = opening the jail cells to all and sundry? Yes, I can follow that logic completely.

Your efforts to smear people who don't 'feel' as you do as having no regard for due process are simply laughable.

was i married to you at some point in time? is that why you like being on my nuts?