The Smiley Smile Message Board

This is a delicate and controversial subject but I would be interested in what other posters feel about these issues, particularly in relation to The Manson Family. I have recently bought several books and DVDs on them, as well as watching a fair bit of youtube footage from news reports over the years. I was stunned that I actually felt a degree of compassion for some of these people still behind bars. Am I starting to get soft the older I become? I used to think that if you take a life you should pay with your life - now I'm not sure I could feel that way. Any thoughts, theories and philosophical stances welcome!

You know I hate to admit it but it did make me sad when Susan Atkins died while incarcerated. I still feel she was in the right place after her actions in the 60's but the whole situation should have never happened to begin with. And then there's Phil Spector to prove that alcohol and firearms should never be combined.....

I made the mistake of watching the footage of her on youtube where she was being given the last rites on her death bed. I wish I hadn't. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. She may have participated in one of the most heinous acts imaginable, but to read posts along the lines of "you didn't suffer enough, hope you are rotting in hell you c*nt" left a nasty taste in my mouth.

The problem with such a simple equation is that people kill for lots of different reasons. Sometimes, they're soldiers sent overseas. Sometimes they're a driver surprised because someone runs out in front of their car. Sometimes they're a sociopath who feels no remorse for doing horrible things -- and every variation in between. Sometimes they're simply dumb.

And I know -- I know -- that a soldier in wartime cannot be compared with a murderer. But they both take life. It's just that we have a lot of different contexts in which we think about human life -- and it's more sacred in some, and less sacred in others. I mean, beat writer William Burroughs shot his wife to death while playing William Tell. It was an accident, and he wasn't prosecuted -- but does that make him any less responsible, really?

The general point -- my only one, really -- is that this is really complicated. And we should beware of simple answers. Even ones like: "well, the government has no role in having capital punishment at all." Because we can all name the one or two guys who we think -- we know -- deserve such a harsh punishment. But how can you legislate that? And how can you ensure it's only the monsters?

I guess another problem is that we like to think that government and laws and police and precautions will protect us, when the world is actually strange and unpredictable and oftentimes terrifying. And we cannot pass any law that will ever protect everyone all the time, or remove fear. To live is to embrace uncertainty, whether we want to or not.

I do not believe in capital punishment. However, I also think we're wasting huge amounts of money in the U.S. on an entirely ineffective, and probably counterproductive, prison system. If I knew how to solve things, I guess I'd tell you how. As it is I'm just disappointed in all of it. But I guess it could be worse: while our system of law may not always be entirely fair, at least we have some semblance of order.

I think I'm trying to figure out for myself what a person can be forgiven for if they are truly repentant and sorry for what they have done; not for themselves but for the suffering they have caused to others. The Tate/LaBianca murders are a very good example of this.

That would be based on the forgivers, not the to-be-forgiven. Sorry or not, a third party could forgive (or not).

Sorry Luther but could you elaborate on this a bit?

Sure. What I mean is, if I understand you correctly, you're asking for what a person can be forgiven (with the added note about their particular repentance). But the act of forgiveness isn't based on the person who commits the crime so much as it is based on the would-be forgiver. What I mean is, can a murderer be forgiven? Sure...by someone, but not necessarily by everyone. There isn't a right or wrong answer as to what level of crime can be forgiven, because each potential forgiver has different capacities for forgiveness. Obviously, the law doesn't punish based on that; it is based on set punishment terms for set crimes. But that's largely different than forgiveness.

I do not believe in the death penalty.

First off, WAY too many innocent people have been sent to the electric chair.

Second, we're all wired differently in the brain. Is it ones fault that they were born with anxiety? depression? rage? No. these things just happen in life. People with rage issues can't really help they have rage. Like anxiety or depression, you can tame down the feelings of rage, but when something pushes you towards the edge, you don't have much control over your actions....and thus, sometimes rage leads to murder. Or take serial killers: they are wired to find pleasure in other's suffering....is that their fault? No. They should be held accountable for their actions, but to kill them because they were born with a certain brain-chemistry is a little messed up, in my humble opinion.

Third, who are (the 'civilized') we to send someone to their eternal death?

The term "death penalty" is simply a euphemism for the act of State sanctioned murder, ironically carried out under the pretense of justice.

    Some liken the death penalty to killing in self-defense since, they argue, violent criminals have both the capacity to repeat their crimes and the potential to escape from or be released from prison. Therefore, they pose a threat to society, and must be eliminated. It may be morally legitimate for Bob to kill Ed in the event that Ed directly and immediately threatens Bob’s life. However, violent criminals who are executed are not directly threatening anyone when they are put to death. Execution and self-defense are different situations. Moreover, the very fact that the execution is carried out on behalf of the State makes it illegitimate – because the State is not a person, no one can threaten its life, and therefore it does not have a reason to kill in self-defense.
   
    Central to the issue of State-sanctioned killing is power and autonomy. Granting the State a literal license to kill places every individual’s life within the grip of the State executioner’s icy hand. Though it may be improbable, it is certainly possible for anyone who lives in a place which practices capital punishment to be wrongly accused, sentenced to death, and executed. That possibility grants the State enormous power – the power to end any individual’s life, potentially including innocents.

Also, I thought this thread was about the bootleg "Capital Punishment' that came out in the 90's!!!

I understand much better now what you are getting at. In reference for the Manson crimes, the Tate family could not or would not forgive Susan Atkins for what she did to Sharon, even after 40 years.


I agree with much of what you say, however would you be able to pull the switch if we were talking about someone like Bin Laden?


Yes, at what point does justice become revenge? Is the State killing on behalf of the outrage of "the people" and does it have the right to do so? Again, the ultimate extreme example would be Bin Laden - what would you do if you had him in custody?

There was a pretty good Camus essay about capital punishment, by the way--through the lens of a then not-distant WWII. I forget the name at the moment, but I'll dig it out.

In reality, justice (meaning the carrying out of the law, not meaning what is necessarily just) is very often revenge. The state killing on behalf of the outrage of the people is absolutely what is happening (because there is no measurably greater safety / minimization of future crime, and obviously no rehabilitation in those cases). Yes, in much of America it has the legal right to do so; but I don't think it is right to do so, ever. And ultimate examples tend to do more harm than good. How is anyone better off by killing Bin Laden than by imprisoning him? Anyone come back to life? No. The "benefit" is the base satisfaction of revenge killings--the very thing we abhor in other countries and societies. All we do is say that, in the end, killing really IS the answer to problems.

I don't believe in the death pentalty, except in cases where it's a child that was murdered. I have no compassion for people who hurt or murder children. Although, I have a problem with the idea of putting somebody to death as a form of "punishment". It doesn't matter if you try to justify it by calling it "the death penalty". The act causing the death of a human being is murder, no matter what a judge or jury says.

I recommend a book called "Jesus For President" by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw. There is a section in it called "Amish for Homeland Security" - it basically goes: in 2006 a gunman ran into an Amish schoolhouse killing five children. What did the Amish do? They went to the murderers wife and offered forgiveness. They invited the widow to the funerals of the slain children. They requested all the relief money (sent in by donors) be shared with the murderer's wife and children. DOZENS of amish families attended the murderers funeral.

If I had the chance to pull the switch on Bin Laden, I don't know if I would. Ask yourself this though: Do you think MLK would pull the switch on his murderer (If he had had the chance)?

Very well said, Luther.

Another thing I'd like to point out, since the Bin Laden example is quite popular: How did Bin Laden get his start? The CIA funded and trained him. Same with Saddam: We gave him WMDs. We funded his rise to power. America has been the cause of a lot of its troubles...I really hate to say that, but our black-ops do some pretty messed up things throughout the world (heck, the CIA has sold drugs to fund it's "off the record" projects).

We aren't a perfect country, but we can at least start bringing sanity back into the world by ridding our country of a barbaric form of punishment.

Would Bin Laden be no threat to anyone if imprisoned for ever? If we are talking about a confined, solitary, dank prison cell til the day he dies, completely cut off from everybody and everything except the guard that brings him his meals then yes he would pose no more threat directly to society. But then as he is a religious fanatic killing him could make him into a martyr to his sick cause for similar zealots. However the mere notion that the man is being granted the right to still draw breath after all the blood that he carries on his hands with not a shred of remorse could be damaging to those who have lost someone because of him.*

* Edit. I first tried typing this post this morning when I was more asleep than awake. I hope it makes more sense now.  :)

    The Bin Laden question is moot. How many innocent people has the US killed in retaliation for Bin Laden's accused crimes? How many dead will be enough to satisfy the blood lust? Who on earth is better off if one more person (even a big bad bogey-man like bin laden) is murdered?
     Since I follow the axiom of non-aggression ( http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html) ) I cannot justify the use of force against anyone who is not aggressing against me. And, using logic, I cannot delegate someone else to do the same.

It isn't moot; it's just a tiny, tiny part of the bigger issue--and an obviously inflammatory one, at that. grillo, your question ("Who on earth is better off...") may not follow the strongest logic, though--at least not unless you add alternatives. For example, who is better off with Bin Laden murdered if the alternative is that he's left to do whatever he wants? Well, a person may legitimately find answers to that one. Don't get me wrong: I agree with you. I just think that's a faulty point.

Bin Laden has almost definitely been dead since December of '01, thus making it extremely moot. (sourcehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html)
For more proof that the CIA faked those Bin Laden tapes to keep the bad guy alive (and thus allow for endless war) please read this washington post article (I know you're not much of a 'conspiracy' guy, Luther). http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html Of course these guys say they never went through with it,,,yeah, and the CIA are just a bunch of Boy Scouts! Anyway, glad to hear you agree with the general idea I'm going for...

The reason it's moot isn't whether Bin Laden is alive or dead (about which I couldn't care less), but because he'd be one "#1 bad guy" example. An example of which there will always be one more to take his place, but the existence of which doesn't really affect the debate in my opinion. The "would you kill the devil?" question is an easy yes for a lot of people; but the real world isn't so simple. The discussion of capital punishment isn't about the single worst example of humanity we can find and agree upon, but about where we draw the line as to who lives and who dies, and how we prove it. As we prove again and again, our system isn't anywhere near foolproof. When you have to draw a line somewhere, and repeatedly demonstrate that you're drawing the line in the wrong places (even if by cautious accident), you've got a problem.

I try not to stray too far down the conspiracy path but I do find it odd that with the might of the US Intelligence Force they have been unable to flush out some guy hiding out in the desert after 9 years. Alive or dead? Like Luther points out, as soon as one is gone another is waiting to take their place. The threat, implied or real will always be there.The world, esp America always seems to need a bogeyman.

Intriguing topic, thanks to mikes beard.

It has already been noted that people kill for many different reasons. The soldier, the abused wife, the jealous husband, the sociopath, the rapist, the bankrobber, the policeman... the list is endless. We need to differentiate.

Let me say first: the death penalty is a no-no for me. Killing the wrong person is the main reason, but I think it's a wider problem. There is no absolute instrument to assess someone's sanity, or responsibility at the time of the crime. The sociopath, it is believed, has a psychiatric disorder, where his/her powers for moral judgment and empathy are corrupted very severely. Call it blood lust (just like normal people have sexual desire); call it instinct. These people unfortunately can't be taken to hospital and 'cured'. They need to be isolated from society. That at least is a rather simple conclusion, and it holds up. But take the wife who was abused and raped by her husband many times, and who took a knife one bad evening and committed manslaughter... I think many of us would say: it's a crime, and yet I can understand her action. Take the policeman, or the soldier: they can kill out of self-defense, out of the need to protect an innocent, or out of the necessity to occupy a territory inhabited by enemies. But, we all know: soldiers and policemen can also sometimes get deceived, in that they may feel they are operating in a moral vacuum; and they can suffer from the lust for killing and blood too, and the consequence is that the number of people killed in the end may be greater than strictly necessary.

We in Holland don't have the death penalty, and I am grateful for that. But I hate it that populist parties at the moment are considering introducing minimum sentences. That would mean that the abused woman, and the criminal who liquidates, get the same sentence (say, 15 or 20 years). I am happy that our judges are already mounting their protest against this, because they rightfully feel that their own capacities to judge are going to be limited by this heartless idea.

BTW: I saw David Cronenberg's 'A History Of Violence' on TV three days ago. Brilliant movie, a meditation on how humans are stained by lust and aggression.

In the UK many people wish for the death penalty to be reinstated, under the belief that it would be a deterrant for committing a crime. Would it make a mentally ill psychopath reconsider his actions? Or someone who kills in the heat of the moment? No, I don't think it would. I think there is an element of thinking that by executing someone who has committed a major crime we are cutting the dead wood out of society. There is logic in that but as Luther has pointed out if a person is safely locked away then they have no chance to be a danger to anyone anyhow. As for a life sentence meaning life I think there is no hard or fast answer to that. Every case must be dealt with on a strictly case to case basis. The murderous sociopath who can never change than yes, keep them locked up and out of harms way forever. But if a person has been rehabilitated, is deeply remorseful for their past actions, has passed every psychiatric test under the sun to prove that they are no longer a danger to others and has spent a sufficient time in prison as punishment for their crimes, then shouldn't they be allowed to rejoin the human race and try put some good back into the world rather than rot behind bars?

Jesus, grillo, i hope you aren't being serious. If you are, find a better source than the Daily Mail. That paper is sensationalist rightwing dirt.

Good call mr Beard. I like your comment on the person that is remorseful. It has been proven again and again that longer sentences are not deterrent more than 'normal' ones. The longer a sentence, the more a convict is in contact with 'pro' criminals, the really heavy ones, and the lesser the chance that he/she will return as a 'healed, sane' person. Abuse and rape are quite endemic in prisons, even in the West. Furthermore, the longer a sentence, the more the chance that the convict will develop irreversible clinical depression. That is sad.

I made that comment with certain members of the Manson Family in mind. Having read several books and watched as much documentary footage as I can get my hands on in regards to them, I get the strong impression that Van Houton and Krenwinkle are of no harm to anybody, have shown nothing but remorse and sympathy for their victims families for over 20 years now and should be set free. Compare them to Myra Hindley, who was scum till the day she died never showing remorse or compassion. Also it must be said that Manson himself was a product of a prison environment. It doesn't excuse what he is one bit but reading his life story I must say the poor guy never stood a chance to become a healthy decent person. The irony lies in that the very system that created Charlie must now hold him at bay from others.