SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the remembered-more-than-his-victims dept.
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/charles-manson-deathbed/
The end could be near for Charles Manson.
The legendary mass murderer is on his death bed at a Bakersfield, Ca. hospital, according to reports.
[...] Manson, 83, has spent much of the past year dealing with the aftermath of internal bleeding from a lesion on his intestines.
Insiders say he was admitted three days ago and "it's not going to get any better for him."
See also: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/charles-manson-grave-condition-california-hospital-article-1.3635813
http://kron4.com/2017/11/15/report-cult-leader-charles-manson-hospitalized-in-bakersfield/
Update: Charles Manson, Cult Leader Behind Tate-LaBianca Murders, Dead at 83
Charles Manson dies aged 83 after four decades in prison
The terrible charisma of Charles Manson
The human side of Charlie Manson
Charles Manson, whose cult slayings horrified world, dies
Cult leader Charles Manson dead at age 83 (2:13 video)
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 17 2017, @09:00PM (15 children)
Why would that be?
And what better argument is there for the death penalty?
How many followers spring from the woodwork after he dies? Better to get it over quick than allow him decades to build his flock.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @10:08PM (1 child)
Of course he is special. If his groupies had not killed who they killed, he would have been paroled a long time ago. As he is so found of saying, he never killed anybody. (Or rather, he didn't kill the people he is incarcerated for. He claims to have killed someone many years before that nobody cared about.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @11:29AM
Kind of the "Dick" Dick Cheney defense, eh?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @10:28PM (6 children)
I'll bite.
There are people in this world who are extremely dangerous. When these individuals are convicted of a crime (let's say murder) they are a danger to other inmates and the correction officers, even when kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. Any and every interaction with these dangerous individuals has the potential for injury or death. These violent individuals are a better argument for the death penalty. The fact they they will harm or kill anybody simply because they want to is enough reason to accept that they forfeit their right to live.
I am not a proponent of the death penalty. I recognize that those who fear a death sentence for crimes they have committed can endanger more people - including the police - because they have nothing left to lose. But I understand that there are times when the death penalty is necessary to protect the rest of society from individuals so dangerous that we cannot trust they can be contained or controlled. These violent individuals are a better argument for the death penalty.
(Score: 2) by letssee on Saturday November 18 2017, @03:39PM (5 children)
> the death penalty is necessary
But it isn't. It's just a barbaric impulse for revenge. Most (actual) civilized societies have abolished the death penalty, and those that have ar usually the safer societies to live in.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @10:41PM (1 child)
That comes across as a textbook post hoc fallacy. It would be interesting to see if there is any actual data to suggest that capital punishment abolition has any effect on crime or safety, I would suspect it does not (just as most studies show its use to have negligible effect as a deterrent).
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday November 20 2017, @08:50PM
Generally speaking, the severity of the penalty always has less of a deterrent effect on crime than the odds of getting caught. And that includes the death penalty.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @07:08PM (1 child)
No, it isn't. In my case (and I am from one of those actually civilized societies), my support for the death penalty comes from the pragmatic realization that some people just can't (or don't want to) be "fixed". And around here, that fact is exacerbated by mandatory maximum-term prison sentences (in many cases under 20 years), so way too many people are set loose on the population knowing they're still a threat.
No, in my model of "justice", you get one chance to better yourself: I support a probational death penalty, in which a judge can basically declare your life (well, your old "lifestyle") forfeit. From that moment on, you can call on government resources to change your live around (counselling, rehab, basic education), but every subsequent conviction can be turned into a death penalty if the judge deems you unworthy of more government effort.
That way, we also have some control over what a single criminal can cost society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @07:35PM
Oblig: "I AM the law!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday November 20 2017, @07:10PM
I think the AC made a good point that DID NOT involve revenge. If I were to try to summarize it concisely, I would say that there are certain individuals that are so dangerous to keep alive that we shouldn't. That criteria has nothing to do with revenge. It is based on a standard independent of what the subject did, and who he did it to. The sticky part is coming up with an objective criteria of someone that is too dangerous to keep alive. I think a better argument against the AC would have been to argue that no such criteria can be determined, which might possibly be true.
A modern approach to Agile development is called F'ing Ridiculous Agile or Fragile.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday November 17 2017, @10:38PM
As much as I agree with you that sometimes people like Manson should be removed from life there are occasionally some times good reasons not to.
First, as it stands currently he may still have groupies but not nearly as many as would be the case if he had been executed and become some kind of martyr to his groupies/followers, after his execution they would have elevated him to near mythic status. Just look at ho people still revere a certain historic figures who were far worse than Manson. Sure Manson still gets the occasional bit of press now and then by being alive but that mostly been when he does or says something like makes him look like the complete wacko that he is. I was honestly surprised when I read the headline, I hadn't heard anything about him in so long I had forgotten him.
Second is that trying to execute him would have caused years of appeals and press reports that would result in him also being elevated to mythic status by keeping him in the public mind. Just look at how much attention Mummia was getting until his death sentence was commuted to life in prison for an example. Has anyone heard anything about Mummia since then? Sure there are still people trying to get him freed but do you hear about it if you don't look for it?
And by keeping him alive it give time for anyone who does get reeled into his cult time to wake up and get out because get over the infatuation with him real fast as they learn about all the stupid stuff he has done while in prison. Makes me wonder if Jesus would have as big a following as he does if the Romans had just put him in jail for life. The whole "He died for your sins" glamour would no longer apply.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:34PM (4 children)
The death penalty results in innocents being killed, which is enough reason for me to oppose it. I also don't think it's justifiable to execute someone after they've already been captured and the threat has been neutralized. Any actions other people take are their own problems.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:32PM (3 children)
Because there are no murders or violence inside prisons. And nobody ever escapes. And nobody is ever released in error. And no criminal is ever capable of running a criminal enterprise from behind bars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @07:37PM
Ah yes, the old FUD campaign. There is a limited amount we can do before those measures start biting us in the ass. Do you want a totalitarian police state? Cause that is exactly how you get one. Well, more than we already have, which is pretty terrifying given how bad off we are now in the US.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @07:38PM (1 child)
Stop. There are ways to detain them even further. Don't be an idiot. Do you honestly believe that I didn't consider all of your flimsy, pathetic objections? One of them was even in a post above (violence in prison).
So we should kill people because bad things might happen at some unspecified point in the future. Great.
And of course, innocents are never given the death penalty. To me, that alone is enough of a reason to never do the death penalty, regardless of literally anything else. If you don't agree, our values are simply irreconcilable. I would rather risk all of that than give someone the death penalty, because I'm not an authoritarian piece of trash. The government should have no such power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @07:44PM
And while you can't reverse either the death penalty or the time someone spent in prison, it is at least possible for someone who spent time in prison but then was let out after being found innocent to live some sort of a life. I've heard all the arguments.