Great conversation!
Seriously, because if we went with every Old Testament doctrine, this is one of the stipulations:
) Seriously, I really try not to jump to snap judgments where the Bible is concerned, until I have done a good study of it; and consequently, I don't really agree with people too much who do what I, as well as Leatherface and others, have said they hate - pick and choose scripture to suit their needs/situation, while discarding and/or not following the rest. I now have about 3 different topics for a good study of the Bible. Um, thanks. I think. 
I think a life sentence should be at least half of the average life span or a human being....as for the ggod behavior part..all you have to do is show up on time to work, chow, showers and transfers, stay out of fights, volunteer, and be submissive to the guards and your pretty much in the clear.....D
A life sentence is an "indeterminate" sentance, NOT for a term of years.
I had one client who did four "stickings" while in prison...pretty heavy stuff.
are you a barrister?
No, I don't tell people that.
Life sentance is an INDETERMINATE sentance. That means that there are no "year" boundaries.
Originally posted by LeatherFace
I couldn't find one of TCM's Leatherface--and yes, this is a pic of Michael Myers---I'm a horror film fan, if you can tell
And I don't think Leslie Van Houten is a monster. Charles Manson on the other hand...
I agree with you about the Nazis, however, studies have been done (before ethics were really brought into the picture) of how people will behave when they are absolved from all responsibility of their actions. The most famous one was done by Milgram, in which he had a subject administer shocks to someone in the other room when they answered a question wrong. Take a look Milgram Experiment So it goes to show, that anyone is capable of anything. Besides, what the Nazis did greatly outweighed what Van Houten did.
Please elaborate...I'm intrigued.
The milgram experiment IS definitely the most famous, but it is not complete nor does it entirely explain the behavior of the german soldiers. The difference between the subjects of the milgram test is that they were remorseful/horrified that they were "hurting" the "patients," but continued to do so under duress. The Nazi soldiers that were sentenced to death displayed none of that same remorse during the perpetration of their crimes... Basically, the argument that the Germans were "simply following orders" no longer holds any water.
Yes, but the Nazis who were tried and sentenced to death at Nuremburg were not the only ones participating in the mass homicide. You are seeming to say that each and every German soldier that took part in WWII wanted to do what they did, based on the lack of remorse of the people at the top.
I disagree with that. Murder is murder regardless of the numbers or motivations.
I only used this to illustrate how easily humans can be influenced.
Who's to say. But, once she did meet Chuck she could have chosen not kill. The responsibility is still hers.
Right, I'm not talking about the higher ups; I AM talking about the common German soldier that CHOSE to follow orders and commit these crimes. It's not each and every German soldier that participated in WWII; some were on the front lines, some were transferred to posts that didn't require dehumanizing brutality. But for the most part the ones that murdered innocents did NOT do it simply because they were following orders.
But...what would have happened to them if they didn't follow orders?
there was actually official policy in place because they higher ups assumed that some soldiers wouldn't be able to stomach what higher-ups were about to ask them to do. The policy was a transfer without demotion. It might have not been the most "honorable" (I cringe using that word to describe this) transfer, and there may have been peer pressure, but there was NO loss of rank or pay. NONE. A suprising few number of soldiers chose this option.
True! She knew better and still did it! That is why she is guilty and should not get out of jail! She should have been put to death! That is one reason why crime is so rampant in america! There is no deterrant to stopping it!
:angry:
*OFF TOPIC**Originally posted by dg806
True! She knew better and still did it! That is why she is guilty and should not get out of jail! She should have been put to death! That is one reason why crime is so rampant in america! There is no deterrant to stopping it!
FYI....usually, depending on the state, life in prison means 33 years! Usaually, it is automatically cut in half for good behavior. So this means that someone gets life for killing someone usually gets about 10-15 years max! What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh....and I believe we need to go back to hanging at high noon and invite the public!!! Once people see that, I can almost guarantee that crime would be almost non existant!
And only you would notice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think people are failing to recognize the complexity of the enmeshment that Charlie had over these individuals. It was the whole basis for the Prosecuter's case: Helter Skelter, race war, blacks would rise up and overthrow whitey, Charlie and his family would hang out in Death Valley and then emerge 144,000 strong to reshape and rule the world. The murders were to accelerate what Charlie had "forseen." It was much bigger to them than murdering a few people---they had a mission. Van Houten didn't even partake in the Tate murders...she went along the next night for the LaBianca episode. I seriously think if she hadn't been exposed to Charlie and his preachings, she wouldn't have done what she did. Could she have made a choice? Maybe. But maybe she felt she didn't have a choice...we'll never know.
Charlie didn't kill anyone. He had no part in the murders. And as for Van Houten, who knows if she killed anyone? Tex Watson sure took care of it all when they were in the LaBianca house. There is speculation that she was pressured to partake while she was there.
Bad example...my mom is already dead. And just because I forgive doesn't mean I condone. There is a difference, and each case is different.
I don't know...maybe its because I'm so anti death penalty and anti prison. Maybe it saddens me that humans are so ready to seek vengeance. Maybe its because we are so eager to throw people away and view them as trash. Maybe its because I think people can change. Maybe its because I don't think she is a "danger to society." Maybe its because...because. I have different views, that aren't fuelled by religion or morality or revenge I guess.
Wow...had no idea that I touched such a raw nerve...sorry
It's just my opinion KB, and obviously you don't agree with it, and I'm sorry I have angered you so much. I just look at things differently. Like I was soooooo happy they gave Andrea Yates life in prison and not the death penalty. I'm sure you would disagree with that one as well. Studying criminal justice and sociology as long as I have makes me look at things differently, that's all.
