should charlie manson get parole?

jsaso

well...facts:
-manson is crazy - he DIDNT KILL nobody, he told his freinds to do it
and they listened
-he ran a gang/cult ... - he has a nazi svastika tatooted on his forhead...
-he is old now... - he stole cars - he wrote hippi music and did drugs

so...after looking at these things it seems that he got a
realy bad deal...jail for life...people that realy do kill somebody get off in 15 years...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xioCGmZVoqw

Juberoo

well...facts to add...

He still has a following.
He does not think he did anything wrong.
He is still insane and has anti-social ideologies.

Hitler never killed anyone either. He just orchestrated it.

jsaso

Juberoo wrote:

well...facts to add...

He still has a following.
He does not think he did anything wrong.
He is still insane and has anti-social ideologies.

Hitler never killed anyone either. He just orchestrated it.

true...but...hitler killed a lot of people with his own hands...
but if charlies freinds killed some guy that wouldnt be from hollywood
he would be walking the streets today...

Ahnimus

There is no point.

We haven't learned a damn thing from Manson.

Manson did not create himself, we did.

We need to figure out what we did wrong, then maybe we can handle Manson.

blackredyellow

jsaso wrote:

but if charlies freinds killed some guy that wouldnt be from hollywood he would be walking the streets today...

not entirely true... in the LaBianca murders, Manson was there, he may not have actually stabbed anyone, but he directed the murders, so it wasn't like his friends just happened to go out and kill people.

If he wasn't caught, he wouldn't have stopped... it would have just gotten worse and worse and his need to elevate himself and draw attention to himself, the murders would have gotten higher and higher profile.

He had a lifelong history of manipulation, violence, and controlling crimes like prostituting women.

He was and continues to be a danger to society and should stay in prison.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Manson did not create himself, we did.

Manson had to agree with our creation and choose to internalize what we as a society imposed on him. He did so, whether consciously or superconsciously. To deny his role in his own creation of his life is to deny reality.

Evacuation Rules

Manson DID personally kill Shorty Shea, a family snitch, and he was convicted of it. People seem to either overlook or forget this.

Rushlimbo

I say we let him out and give him a map to Lindsey Lohan's house.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Manson had to agree with our creation and choose to internalize what we as a society imposed on him. He did so, whether consciously or superconsciously. To deny his role in his own creation of his life is to deny reality.

What is "Manson"? How could "Manson" have created "Manson"? It's not possible. We [Society] need to accept responsibility.

3 things shape a character. Genetics, Environment and the Agent (Manson). The agent is like a feedback loop. The agent reflects the influence of environment and genetics, and consequently affects the environment. The agent cannot be the source of the agent. A flower does not grow by it's self, neither does a weed. Within the flower or the weed, there is no cognition, yet it's presence affects it's environment, which in-turn affects it. Just because we have cognition, does not mean that our fate is any different.

Animals have cognition, yet when pets act violently, we attribute it - justifiably - to poor ownership or genetics. It's just not possible for any thing to be the cause of it's self.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

What is "Manson"? How could "Manson" have created "Manson"? It's not possible. We [Society] need to accept responsibility.

3 things shape a character. Genetics, Environment and the Agent (Manson). The agent is like a feedback loop. The agent reflects the influence of environment and genetics, and consequently affects the environment. The agent cannot be the source of the agent. A flower does not grow by it's self, neither does a weed. Within the flower or the weed, there is no cognition, yet it's presence affects it's environment, which in-turn affects it. Just because we have cognition, does not mean that our fate is any different.

Animals have cognition, yet when pets act violently, we attribute it - justifiably - to poor ownership or genetics. It's just not possible for any thing to be the cause of it's self.

Apparently you have overlooked the power of the "agent" or of "agency" ("a means of exerting power or influence").

An agent is one who ACTS. Acting is not a passive role. It's an ACTive role.

I didn't in any way say one acts alone. I say that when one acts, they act.

The flower or weed do not grow alone, but they do grow. And to grow is and ACTive role.

blackredyellow

Ahnimus wrote:

What is "Manson"? How could "Manson" have created "Manson"? It's not possible. We [Society] need to accept responsibility.

3 things shape a character. Genetics, Environment and the Agent (Manson). The agent is like a feedback loop. The agent reflects the influence of environment and genetics, and consequently affects the environment. The agent cannot be the source of the agent. A flower does not grow by it's self, neither does a weed. Within the flower or the weed, there is no cognition, yet it's presence affects it's environment, which in-turn affects it. Just because we have cognition, does not mean that our fate is any different.

Animals have cognition, yet when pets act violently, we attribute it - justifiably - to poor ownership or genetics. It's just not possible for any thing to be the cause of it's self.

So two twin brothers with the same DNA, that grew up in the same family, were treated the same, went to the same school, etc., should act the same?

Skitch Patterson

blackredyellow wrote:

So two twin brothers with the same DNA, that grew up in the same family, were treated the same, went to the same school, etc., should act the same?

they dont even have to be twins. One can be a white town america business man with an ivy league degree, the other can be a witty down on his luck black fella, and if you force them to switch places, the white guy will become a drunken bum, and the black guy will become a successful businessman.

i saw it in a movie, it must be true.



so now this place in addition to all the crazy theories about everything else, has resorted to questioning the life sentence of a man who was guilty of being behind multiple murders, without any real question?

MLC2006

something isn't responsible for it's own creation, but it IS responsible for it's own actions. there are a million different people (probably way more than that) that had the same upbringing (or lack thereof) and same kinds of experiences that Manson had, and they deal with it in different ways. some embrace it and become a shitty reflection of their shitty life, and some bust their ass to rise above it. and some go completely off the deep end like Manson did. there is no possible way to diagnose the problems of every individual person on earth and every individual DOES have their own individual set of problems. so to try to throw the blame off on society is silly.

like somebody else said, Manson DID kill at least one person. and to me, he's more guilty than the others because they were brainwashed and high. he did things that show he knew exactly what he was doing, like picking which cult members should go do the killing because they were the ones who were strong enough to stomach it. and also like somebody pointed out, there are still people crazy enough to follow him. so no, he shouldn't be let out, that's crazy to even suggest.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Apparently you have overlooked the power of the "agent" or of "agency" ("a means of exerting power or influence").

An agent is one who ACTS. Acting is not a passive role. It's an ACTive role.

I didn't in any way say one acts alone. I say that when one acts, they act.

The flower or weed do not grow alone, but they do grow. And to grow is and ACTive role.

It's not a question of playing an active role.

It's a question of what motivates the agent to act, and what grants the agent the basic function that it serves. 'I' cannot commit murder in my present mental state, so why should Manson be able to?

It's an issue of what 'I' is and how it is determined. Once you figure that out, you'll understand what my point is.

Here are some facts to consider:

Intellectually impoverished environments cause a decline in child IQ by approx. 3 points every year. A child raised in an intellectually impoverished environment will generally be below average intelligence and may even be rated mentally retarded by age 18. Meanwhile, their DQ (developmental quotient) at infancy may have been quite high. Intelligence, like all human traits, needs stimulation and encouragement.

Emotionally impoverished environments have similar effects and traumatic experiences can result in impairment of emotional ability.

Stereotypes affect human performance.

Most property crimes are the direct result of class inequality.

Without an operational frontal brain region, especially the orbital-frontal lobe, a human has difficulty inhibiting primitive desires. The frontal brain region can be damaged by physical force, chemical consumption, lack of oxygenation to the brain, strokes, tumors, intercerebral hemorrhaging and may not develop properly in environments lacking proper stimulation.

It is an undeniable fact, that childhood environment plays a major role on the neural development of the child. Yes, the child is an agent in their environment, however, the effects of genetics and environment have begun shaping the "agent" prior to the agents awareness or contribution to it's environment. The "agent" has already been determined by antecedent variables.

Now let's take a look at Manson's childhood:

crimelibrary.org wrote:

Just who was this Charlie anyway? Both the LAPD and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office started to dig through the rubble of his heavily documented 36 years. As information came in about him, it was no surprise that he was in trouble. If ever a kid had a miserable start in life Charles Manson was it.

An illegitimate and unplanned child, he was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, November 12, 1934 to Kathleen Maddox, a promiscuous sixteen-year-old who drank too much and got into a lot of trouble. Two years later, Kathleen filed suit against Colonel Scott of Ashland, KY, for child support, which she was awarded, but never received. Kathleen was briefly married to William Manson who gave his name to the boy.

Charles Manson in Nuel Emmons' book Manson in His Own Words describes the Maddox family:

Kathleen was the youngest of three children from the marriage of Nancy and Charles Maddox. Her parents loved her and meant well by her, but they were fanatical in their religious beliefs. Especially Grandma, who dominated the household. She was stern and unwavering in her interpretation of God's Will, and demanded that those within her home abide by her view of God's wishes.

My grandfather worked for the B&O Railroad. He worked long hard hours, a dedicated slave to the company and his bosses...He was not the disciplinarian Grandma was...If he tried to comfort Mom with a display of affection, such as a pat on the knee or an arm around her shoulder, Grandma was quick to insinuate he was vulgar.

For Mom, life was filled with a never-ending list of denials. From awakening in the morning until going to bed at night it was, "No Kathleen, that dress is too short. Braid your hair, don't comb it like some hussy. Come directly home from school, don't let me catch you talking to any boys. No, you can't go to the school dance, we are going to church..." In 1933, at age fifteen, my mother ran away from home.

Other writers have portrayed Mom as a teenage whore...In her search for acceptance she may have fallen in love too easily and too often, but a whore at that time? No!...In later years, because of hard knocks and tough times, she may have sold her body some...

Charlie never knew his father and never had a real father figure. His mother was the kind that children are taken away from and placed in foster homes. Kathleen had a habit of disappearing for days and weeks at a time, leaving Charlie with his grandmother or his aunt. When Kathleen and her brother were both sentenced to the penitentiary for armed robbery, Charlie got sent off to live with his aunt and uncle in McMechen, West Virginia. The aunt was very religious and strict in stark contrast to his mother's permissiveness.

When Kathleen was released from jail, she was not responsible enough to take care of him, preferring her life of promiscuity and hard drinking to any kind of normal lifestyle. There was no continuity in his life: he was always being foisted on someone new; he moved from one dingy rooming house to another; there were only transitory friendships that he made on the streets.

Manson tells the story that circulated within his family: "Mom was in a café one afternoon with me on her lap. The waitress, a would-be mother without a child of her own, jokingly told my Mom she'd buy me from her. Mom replied, 'A pitcher of beer and he's yours.' The waitress set up the beer, Mom stuck around long enough to finish it off and left the place without me. Several days later my uncle had to search the town for the waitress and take me home."

John Gilmore in his insightful book called The Garbage People describes how Charlie adapted to this life of emptiness and violence:

He kept to himself. Though friendless, his young mind bypassed the loneliness of his surroundings. He watched, listened, pretended his imaginative resources knew no limit. And he began to steal, as if to hold onto something that continually flew away. There was a consistency and permanency to the habit of stealing and it became easier. With everything transient, the thefts and goods he carried with him offered a sense of stability, a kind of reward. An object owned gave identity to an owner, an identity that had yet to be acknowledged.

When he was nine, he was caught stealing and sent to reform school and then later when he was twelve, he was caught stealing again and sent to the Gibault School for Boys in Terre Haute, Indiana, in 1947. He ran away less than a year later and tried to return to his mother who didn't want him. Living entirely by stealing and burglary, he lived on his own until he was caught. The court arranged for him to go to Father Flanagan's Boys Town.

He didn't last long at Boys Town. A few days after his arrival, thirteen-year-old Charlie and another kid committed two armed robberies. A few more episodes like that landed Charlie in the Indiana School for Boys for three years. His teachers described him as having trust in no one and "did good work only for those from whom he figured he could obtain something."

In 1951, Charlie and two other boys escaped and headed for California living entirely by burglary and auto theft. They got as far as Utah when they were caught. This time he was sent to the National Training School for Boys in Washington, D.C. While he was there they gave him various tests which established that his IQ was 109, that he was illiterate and that his aptitude for everything but music was average.

His keepers said this about him: "Manson has become somewhat of an 'institution politician.' He does just enough work to get by on. Restless and moody most of the time, the boy would rather spend his class time entertaining his friend. It appears that this boy is a very emotionally upset youth who is definitely in need of some psychiatric orientation."

That same year, Dr. Block, a psychiatrist examined him, noting "the marked degree of rejection, instability and psychic trauma." His illegitimacy, small physical size and lack of parental love caused him to constantly strive for status with the other boys. "This could add up to a fairly slick institutionalized youth," Dr. Block concluded, "but one is left with the feeling that behind all this lies an extremely sensitive boy who has not yet given up in terms of securing some kind of love and affection from the world."

For a short time, things started to look up for Charlie. His aunt had agreed to take care of him and his chances for parole were good. Shortly before the parole hearing, Charlie held a razor blade against another boy's throat while he sodomized him. Charlie was transferred to the Federal Reformatory at Petersburg, Virginia, where he was characterized as definitely homosexual, dangerous and safe only under supervision.

In September of 1952, he was sent to a more secure institution in Chillicothe, Ohio. His keepers there saw him as "criminally sophisticated despite his age and grossly unsuited for retention in an open reformatory type institution." For some reason, Manson suddenly changed his attitude. He was more cooperative and genuinely improved educationally so that he was able to read and understand basic math. This improvement lead to his parole in May of 1954 at the age of nineteen.

At first he lived with his aunt and uncle, then his mother for a short period of time. Early in 1955, he married a waitress who bore him a son, Charles Manson, Jr. Charlie worked at various low-paying jobs and augmented his income by stealing cars. One of them he took to Los Angeles with his then pregnant wife. Inevitably, he was caught again and eventually found his way to the prison at Terminal Island in San Pedro, California.

by Marilyn Bardsley

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/manson/15.html

But as I said, Manson should not be released. He has the stability he needs in prison, we can't offer that to him, it's the only place he has ever had it. He said as much himself when he requested to be kept in prison prior to the conception of the family.

"I said I can't handle the maniacs outside, let me back in."

"I understand jail so I understand myself so I can deal with that."

"My father is the jailhouse. My father is your system... I am only what you made me. I am only a reflection of you."

Ahnimus

blackredyellow wrote:

So two twin brothers with the same DNA, that grew up in the same family, were treated the same, went to the same school, etc., should act the same?

The environment and the child's place in it, is different for every child. It doesn't matter if they are monozygous twins or not. They can't possibly experience the exact same things every second of their lives for their entire lives. They experience different things.

Ahnimus

MLC2006 wrote:

something isn't responsible for it's own creation, but it IS responsible for it's own actions. there are a million different people (probably way more than that) that had the same upbringing (or lack thereof) and same kinds of experiences that Manson had, and they deal with it in different ways. some embrace it and become a shitty reflection of their shitty life, and some bust their ass to rise above it. and some go completely off the deep end like Manson did. there is no possible way to diagnose the problems of every individual person on earth and every individual DOES have their own individual set of problems. so to try to throw the blame off on society is silly.

like somebody else said, Manson DID kill at least one person. and to me, he's more guilty than the others because they were brainwashed and high. he did things that show he knew exactly what he was doing, like picking which cult members should go do the killing because they were the ones who were strong enough to stomach it. and also like somebody pointed out, there are still people crazy enough to follow him. so no, he shouldn't be let out, that's crazy to even suggest.

I think it's rather comic that on one hand you say "Society is not responsible for Manson's actions" but on the other you say "Manson is responsible for The Family's actions".

MLC2006

Ahnimus wrote:

I think it's rather comic that on one hand you say "Society is not responsible for Manson's actions" but on the other you say "Manson is responsible for The Family's actions".

why, did society get him high on mind altering drugs so that he would do society's bidding? because that's what HE did to his followers.

Skitch Patterson

MLC2006 wrote:

why, did society get him high on mind altering drugs so that he would do society's bidding? because that's what HE did to his followers.

The pressures of growing up in the enviroment that he did, under the factors that he lived with created him. Had it not been for the society that created him, he wouldnt have been dr... im just kidding, i dont believe any of that nonsense. the dude was a killer and a nut.

Ahnimus

MLC2006 wrote:

why, did society get him high on mind altering drugs so that he would do society's bidding? because that's what HE did to his followers.

It did worse.

But, I think your view is far too myopic at this point to see all the variables. You want to blame Manson.

Ahnimus

Skitch Patterson wrote:

The pressures of growing up in the enviroment that he did, under the factors that he lived with created him. Had it not been for the society that created him, he wouldnt have been dr... im just kidding, i dont believe any of that nonsense. the dude was a killer and a nut.

Why is a nut, a nut? Because it's a nut.

Did you learn that at church?

blackredyellow

Ahnimus wrote:

The environment and the child's place in it, is different for every child. It doesn't matter if they are monozygous twins or not. They can't possibly experience the exact same things every second of their lives for their entire lives. They experience different things.

That is an exaggeration... Have you ever been around infants that were twins or other multiples? When they have lived in the same house, the same room, had same sleep schedules, same contact with the same people, they can develop drastically different personalities at an extremely early age.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's not a question of playing an active role.

It's a question of what motivates the agent to act, and what grants the agent the basic function that it serves. 'I' cannot commit murder in my present mental state, so why should Manson be able to?

It's an issue of what 'I' is and how it is determined. Once you figure that out, you'll understand what my point is.

Here are some facts to consider:

Intellectually impoverished environments cause a decline in child IQ by approx. 3 points every year. A child raised in an intellectually impoverished environment will generally be below average intelligence and may even be rated mentally retarded by age 18. Meanwhile, their DQ (developmental quotient) at infancy may have been quite high. Intelligence, like all human traits, needs stimulation and encouragement.

Emotionally impoverished environments have similar effects and traumatic experiences can result in impairment of emotional ability.

Stereotypes affect human performance.

Most property crimes are the direct result of class inequality.

Without an operational frontal brain region, especially the orbital-frontal lobe, a human has difficulty inhibiting primitive desires. The frontal brain region can be damaged by physical force, chemical consumption, lack of oxygenation to the brain, strokes, tumors, intercerebral hemorrhaging and may not develop properly in environments lacking proper stimulation.

It is an undeniable fact, that childhood environment plays a major role on the neural development of the child. Yes, the child is an agent in their environment, however, the effects of genetics and environment have begun shaping the "agent" prior to the agents awareness or contribution to it's environment. The "agent" has already been determined by antecedent variables.

Now let's take a look at Manson's childhood:



But as I said, Manson should not be released. He has the stability he needs in prison, we can't offer that to him, it's the only place he has ever had it. He said as much himself when he requested to be kept in prison prior to the conception of the family.

"I said I can't handle the maniacs outside, let me back in."

"I understand jail so I understand myself so I can deal with that."

"My father is the jailhouse. My father is your system... I am only what you made me. I am only a reflection of you."

Accountability is a matter of who is accountable for the ACTions in question.

When the ACTor ACTively ACTS, the ACTor is accountable for said ACTions.

If you are interested in the psychological or sociological aspects, great--it's just removed from accountability, which is why those aspects while relevent, are not the job of the legal profession. The legal profession deals in facts, such as what is self-evident like what was ACTed out and by whom.

Skitch Patterson

Ahnimus wrote:

Why is a nut, a nut? Because it's a nut.

Did you learn that at church?

Did i learn what at church?

Ahnimus

blackredyellow wrote:

That is an exaggeration... Have you ever been around infants that were twins or other multiples? When they have lived in the same house, the same room, had same sleep schedules, same contact with the same people, they can develop drastically different personalities at an extremely early age.

Yes, it's been studied very well. Sharing a room doesn't equate to every second of their lives. They will have different experiences from the whom to death.

MLC2006

Ahnimus wrote:

It did worse.

But, I think your view is far too myopic at this point to see all the variables. You want to blame Manson.

Manson knew who to go after....truants and runaways

Manson knew how to control them.....drugs and a strict "commune" type lifestyle

Manson knew what he wanted....to start a race war before the blacks took over

Manson thought he knew how to get this race war started....by killing wealthy white people

Manson knew exactly where to send his followers to and knew which of his followers had the guts to go through with it



now, you can say that society failing a person may cause him to steal. or even mistreat his children or wife, or whatever. but I'd like to hear you link what exactly you think society did to Manson with some of the fucked up stuff he did.

he was sentenced to die. he got out of that because of a temporary stay on the death penalty. so now he's got life instead of death, and people are talking about releasing him on parole. THAT is the sickest joke. that somebody would suggest that a once death penalty should be commuted to community supervision.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Accountability is a matter of who is accountable for the ACTions in question.

When the ACTor ACTively ACTS, the ACTor is accountable for said ACTions.

If you are interested in the psychological or sociological aspects, great--it's just removed from accountability, which is why those aspects while relevent, are not the job of the legal profession. The legal profession deals in facts, such as what is self-evident like what was ACTed out and by whom.

I'm not talking about law or Manson's accountability. I'm talking about our accountability as individual contributors to society, which in-turn results in personalities and disturbances like Manson.

As I said, Manson should remain in prison because we are too infantile to deal with him, we continue to create Mansons.

Ahnimus

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Did i learn what at church?

contra-causality

Ahnimus

MLC2006 wrote:

Manson knew who to go after....truants and runaways

Manson knew how to control them.....drugs and a strict "commune" type lifestyle

Manson knew what he wanted....to start a race war before the blacks took over

Manson thought he knew how to get this race war started....by killing wealthy white people

Manson knew exactly where to send his followers to and knew which of his followers had the guts to go through with it



now, you can say that society failing a person may cause him to steal. or even mistreat his children or wife, or whatever. but I'd like to hear you link what exactly you think society did to Manson with some of the fucked up stuff he did.

he was sentenced to die. he got out of that because of a temporary stay on the death penalty. so now he's got life instead of death, and people are talking about releasing him on parole. THAT is the sickest joke. that somebody would suggest that a once death penalty should be commuted to community supervision.

Some of us don't believe in capital punishment and some of us look beyond the individual for causality.

I think you are attributing more intellect to Manson than he actually has. Much of what he knew was a result of chance. He was placed in environments where he bore whitness to dynamics of society others would never learn. Even within my small community as a child (24,000) I knew of dynamics that my siblings and my parents were completely ignorant of. It wasn't because of my superior IQ, it was because of my circumstances.

Skitch Patterson

Ahnimus wrote:

contra-causality

I havent been to church in 12 years for anything other than weddings and funerals. No Andie McDowell either.

Ahnimus

Skitch Patterson wrote:

I havent been to church in 12 years for anything other than weddings and funerals. No Andie McDowell either.

Right, well saying that Manson is the cause of himself is contradicting the law of conservation of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not talking about law or Manson's accountability. I'm talking about our accountability as individual contributors to society, which in-turn results in personalities and disturbances like Manson.

As I said, Manson should remain in prison because we are too infantile to deal with him, we continue to create Mansons.

Oh, trust me, having been seriously downgraded and abused in this society, to the degree of having ludicrous mental illness, I'm completely aware that society has huge accountability as well. I'm very aware society is fast asleep and overlooking their accountability and paying a BIG price.

My point here is only to be very clear about the role of the "agent". For my own healing, it was only once I realized, on every level, in every interaction in my life, I agreed with and internalized the external and ugly forces that caused my downfall. I participated in my own interaction with my environment every step of the way. It was self AND other together. Each choice I made in every interaction made all the difference in the outcome. And my healing, and the change in my inner torment, and the shift from lack of power to personal empowerment, came from creating new agreements with reality. I no longer accepted and perpetuated situations that caused me pain. Charles Manson is not ready to make new agreements with reality and therefore is a dangerous criminal because he is ACTively capable of ACTing out the same patterns, as he is carrying the same mindset that ACTed dangerously and with deplorable self-entitlement in the past. I understand he's not being validated for what he has endured. And won't for a long time.