The scumbags who own and run the NY Post shouldn't talk...if there's any justice, they'll all be burning right alongside Charlie.

He was a able to see through people (especially young women) and exploit their weaknesses to his own ends. It was just second nature after already being in prison so many years before '67.

His prison interviews are creepily amusing, and beneath the ranting and raving, and bs, the guy can actually be pretty lucid sometimes.

He cuts (not literally) Geraldo Rivera down in a 1988 interview:
[www.youtube.com]

The guy definitely belonged behind bars - by his own admission; still, he was a sad case (born to a prostitute and later abandoned) that led to even sadder events.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Sighunt
I have never been a proponent of the death penalty as a blanket sanction for all capitol crimes (with the exception of cop killers & killing by terrorists), but in this instance, Manson and his followers probably should have gotten the death penalty for their heinous acts against humanity....

They did get the death penalty, but it was overturned when California changed the laws - but I assume you meant to actually have it carried out.
I have mixed feelings about the death penalty generally speaking - but yes some probably deserve it - serial killers, terrorists, etc. who were proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.
But being locked up in a cage for life without the possibility of parole seems to be a harsher punishment in some ways - letting them rot in a cage and stew over their evil ways until their final breath on earth.


(edit: spellcheck)

This is simply untrue. The United States Supreme Court banned executions which is why his death penalty conviction was turned into life with parole (the harshest sentence available at the time). So California did not change their law, the SCOTUS changed what was available. Later, when the death penalty was reintroduced at the Federal level, there were no changing of existing penalties TO a death sentence.

I remember the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's book Helter Skelter in the late 70's was a huge best seller. I tried to read it a few years later and had to put it away. Deeply disturbing story on so many levels.

The death penalty is a tricky issue. In so many cases it seems warranted and is hard to argue against. But - especially in recent years with the advances in DNA testing etc - so many wrongful convictions have been identified and overturned. Others have been identified posthumously. We had several very high profile cases in Canada - Milgaard, Marshall, Morin, Truscott - that we seriously lost our appetite for the death penalty, as that’s an error that can never be corrected. Stephen Truscott was a famous case of a 14 year old boy sentenced to hang. His lawyer was incompetent (and was rewarded with a Judgeship soon after the conviction), many never believed in his guilt from the beginning, and he has finally been cleared. The Tragically Hip did a song about Milgaard - Wheat Kings - with the lines “Late breaking story on the CBC, a nation whispered we always knew that he’d go free...” Milgaard’s mom fought for him for decades. So, to protect the lives (and eventual freedom) of people like that, I’m willing to pay the tab to keep people like Manson on ice for decades.

Quote
keithsman
Manson arguably never actually physically killed anyone himself, so i guess he must hold the record for the most years served in prison for telling someone to kill somebody.
If i told my friends to kill people and they did i wouldn't expect to serve 50 + years in prison.

He always maintained his innocence right to the end, even though he new it ruined his chances of parole.
I don't consider him as evil as say Bush or Blair, sending soldiers to death on false pretenses of WOMD. People coming back from Iraq with limbs blown off, thousands of innocent people , women and children killed by friendly fire. The Bushes and Blairs of this world have more blood on their hands and are more evil than Manson imho.

In all 50 states, and in most of the world, anyone who orders a killing is considered responsible for it, whether they personally performed the murder or not. Also, in some states, if a person is killed during a crime you are involved in (such as robbery), you would be charged with murder, whether you wanted that person killed or not.

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl
The death penalty is a tricky issue. In so many cases it seems warranted and is hard to argue against. But - especially in recent years with the advances in DNA testing etc - so many wrongful convictions have been identified and overturned. Others have been identified posthumously. We had several very high profile cases in Canada - Milgaard, Marshall, Morin, Truscott - that we seriously lost our appetite for the death penalty, as that’s an error that can never be corrected. Stephen Truscott was a famous case of a 14 year old boy sentenced to hang. His lawyer was incompetent (and was rewarded with a Judgeship soon after the conviction), many never believed in his guilt from the beginning, and he has finally been cleared. The Tragically Hip did a song about Milgaard - Wheat Kings - with the lines “Late breaking story on the CBC, a nation whispered we always knew that he’d go free...” Milgaard’s mom fought for him for decades. So, to protect the lives (and eventual freedom) of people like that, I’m willing to pay the tab to keep people like Manson on ice for decades.

I agree. The thought of just one innocent person being executed is worse to me than the thought of a guilty person locked up for decades.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl
The death penalty is a tricky issue. In so many cases it seems warranted and is hard to argue against. But - especially in recent years with the advances in DNA testing etc - so many wrongful convictions have been identified and overturned. Others have been identified posthumously. We had several very high profile cases in Canada - Milgaard, Marshall, Morin, Truscott - that we seriously lost our appetite for the death penalty, as that’s an error that can never be corrected. Stephen Truscott was a famous case of a 14 year old boy sentenced to hang. His lawyer was incompetent (and was rewarded with a Judgeship soon after the conviction), many never believed in his guilt from the beginning, and he has finally been cleared. The Tragically Hip did a song about Milgaard - Wheat Kings - with the lines “Late breaking story on the CBC, a nation whispered we always knew that he’d go free...” Milgaard’s mom fought for him for decades. So, to protect the lives (and eventual freedom) of people like that, I’m willing to pay the tab to keep people like Manson on ice for decades.

I agree. The thought of just one innocent person being executed is worse to me than the thought of a guilty person locked up for decades.

Also, many studies show that the cost of housing a convict sentenced to "life without parole" is actually less than that of housing a convict sentenced to death.

I tend to side with Aquamarine's & STG's views.

Side note: I also personally know a man who was sentenced to "life without parole" who I wouldn't mind if I found out his sentence had been reduced.

Crime and Punishment is not an exact science written in stone.

Peace,
Mr DJA

anything regarding this scumbag has no place on this web site.

I really don't understand why this creep appeared on a Stones board ............he's a Beatle fan!!!!!!!!!....a creep who loves piggies........

__________________________

Quote
sdstonesguy

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Sighunt
I have never been a proponent of the death penalty as a blanket sanction for all capitol crimes (with the exception of cop killers & killing by terrorists), but in this instance, Manson and his followers probably should have gotten the death penalty for their heinous acts against humanity....

They did get the death penalty, but it was overturned when California changed the laws - but I assume you meant to actually have it carried out.
I have mixed feelings about the death penalty generally speaking - but yes some probably deserve it - serial killers, terrorists, etc. who were proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.
But being locked up in a cage for life without the possibility of parole seems to be a harsher punishment in some ways - letting them rot in a cage and stew over their evil ways until their final breath on earth.


(edit: spellcheck)

This is simply untrue. The United States Supreme Court banned executions which is why his death penalty conviction was turned into life with parole (the harshest sentence available at the time). So California did not change their law, the SCOTUS changed what was available. Later, when the death penalty was reintroduced at the Federal level, there were no changing of existing penalties TO a death sentence.

I stand corrected.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
latebloomer
I remember the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's book Helter Skelter in the late 70's was a huge best seller. I tried to read it a few years later and had to put it away. Deeply disturbing story on so many levels.

It's an outright scary and haunting book - I read it in high school and a couple more times throughout the years.
Having grown up in the L.A./SoCal area in the 60's and '70s', most all of the locations are familiar and it literally hits close to home.

There's another one that's just as intriguing (possibly even more so than Helter Skelter) titled 'The Family' by Ed Sanders, 1971.

The Family

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Hairball

Quote
sdstonesguy

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Sighunt
I have never been a proponent of the death penalty as a blanket sanction for all capitol crimes (with the exception of cop killers & killing by terrorists), but in this instance, Manson and his followers probably should have gotten the death penalty for their heinous acts against humanity....

They did get the death penalty, but it was overturned when California changed the laws - but I assume you meant to actually have it carried out.
I have mixed feelings about the death penalty generally speaking - but yes some probably deserve it - serial killers, terrorists, etc. who were proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.
But being locked up in a cage for life without the possibility of parole seems to be a harsher punishment in some ways - letting them rot in a cage and stew over their evil ways until their final breath on earth.


(edit: spellcheck)

This is simply untrue. The United States Supreme Court banned executions which is why his death penalty conviction was turned into life with parole (the harshest sentence available at the time). So California did not change their law, the SCOTUS changed what was available. Later, when the death penalty was reintroduced at the Federal level, there were no changing of existing penalties TO a death sentence.

I stand corrected.

Actually, the California Supreme Court also put a halt to the death penalty in 1972. It is the reason most cited by news orgs as the reason Manson beat the penalty as it wasn't re-applied retroactively. Not certain which came first,but I believe it must have been the California decision.

From Newsweek
"However, Manson and his accomplices were allowed to live when, in 1972, the California Supreme Court invalidated the state’s death penalty statutes. As a result, the members of the family sitting on death row had their executions commuted. All were given life sentences and made eligible for parole."
[www.newsweek.com]

"The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628 (Cal. 1972), was a landmark case in the state of California that outlawed the use of capital punishment."

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
Hairball

Quote
sdstonesguy

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Sighunt
I have never been a proponent of the death penalty as a blanket sanction for all capitol crimes (with the exception of cop killers & killing by terrorists), but in this instance, Manson and his followers probably should have gotten the death penalty for their heinous acts against humanity....

They did get the death penalty, but it was overturned when California changed the laws - but I assume you meant to actually have it carried out.
I have mixed feelings about the death penalty generally speaking - but yes some probably deserve it - serial killers, terrorists, etc. who were proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.
But being locked up in a cage for life without the possibility of parole seems to be a harsher punishment in some ways - letting them rot in a cage and stew over their evil ways until their final breath on earth.


(edit: spellcheck)

This is simply untrue. The United States Supreme Court banned executions which is why his death penalty conviction was turned into life with parole (the harshest sentence available at the time). So California did not change their law, the SCOTUS changed what was available. Later, when the death penalty was reintroduced at the Federal level, there were no changing of existing penalties TO a death sentence.

I stand corrected.

Actually, the California Supreme Court also put a halt to the death penalty in 1972. It is the reason most cited by news orgs as the reason Manson beat the penalty as it wasn't re-applied retroactively. Not certain which came first,but I believe it must have been the California decision.

From Newsweek
"However, Manson and his accomplices were allowed to live when, in 1972, the California Supreme Court invalidated the state’s death penalty statutes. As a result, the members of the family sitting on death row had their executions commuted. All were given life sentences and made eligible for parole."
[www.newsweek.com]

"The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628 (Cal. 1972), was a landmark case in the state of California that outlawed the use of capital punishment."

Thanks for that research and info MisterDDDD...I was just writing what I've always thought to be true which you kind of clarified above.
I guess I don't stand corrected any more ha - although not sure which came first (US Supreme vs. California Supreme)... maybe it was simultaneous and/overlapping?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

A most horrible human being!

Quote
Aquamarine
The thought of just one innocent person being executed is worse to me than the thought of a guilty person locked up for decades.

Really? So by that logic, any thoughts on six million abortions?

Quote
StonedInTokyo

Quote
Aquamarine
The thought of just one innocent person being executed is worse to me than the thought of a guilty person locked up for decades.

Really? So by that logic, any thoughts on six million abortions?

I'll bite.
The abortions are a constitutionally protected medical procedure and executing an innocent person is murder.

Quote
sdstonesguy
This is simply untrue. The United States Supreme Court banned executions which is why his death penalty conviction was turned into life with parole (the harshest sentence available at the time). So California did not change their law, the SCOTUS changed what was available.

Proof that Thurgood Marshall had no business being appointed to the SCOTUS.

Quote
StonedInTokyo

Quote
sdstonesguy
This is simply untrue. The United States Supreme Court banned executions which is why his death penalty conviction was turned into life with parole (the harshest sentence available at the time). So California did not change their law, the SCOTUS changed what was available.

Proof that Thurgood Marshall had no business being appointed to the SCOTUS.

For those following along at home, Roe v Wade was the US Supreme Court decision striking down abortion bans. They decided 7-2 in favour, with Marshall assenting. Furman v Georgia was the 1972 case essentially striking down the death penalty, a 5-4 decision, with Marshall assenting. Marshall was also African American. Carry on.

Quote
Sighunt
in this instance, Manson and his followers probably should have gotten the death penalty for their heinous acts against humanity....

Ever heard of Lt. Calley? In March 68 he ordered the "My Lai" massacre : at least 350 innocent Vietnamese villagers were slayed. So that's about 50 times the amount of killings Manson ordered.
Manson spent almost 50 years in jail. Calley spent 3 years, most of his sentence was spent as... house arrest. He was free to go in 1974.

To me Calley is a far more hideous figure that Manson.

Quote
StonedInTokyo

Quote
sdstonesguy
This is simply untrue. The United States Supreme Court banned executions which is why his death penalty conviction was turned into life with parole (the harshest sentence available at the time). So California did not change their law, the SCOTUS changed what was available.

Proof that Thurgood Marshall had no business being appointed to the SCOTUS.

Damn uppity coloreds, amirite?

I don't want to start a "Free Manson" campaign. california was a better place to live with the guy behind bars (in prison or mental institution) but making him the DarK Evil Prince who killed the 60's is a bit OTT and cartoonish imo.

He was far more "normal" and clever than you might think. He directed the attacks on Cielo Dr. cause the house was occupied (or so Manson thought) by Terry Melcher, a record producer Manson held a grudge against for not signing him.

Quote
dcba
I don't want to start a "Free Manson" campaign. california was a better place to live with the guy behind bars (in prison or mental institution) but making him the DarK Evil Prince who killed the 60's is a bit OTT and cartoonish imo.

He was far more "normal" and clever than you might think. He directed the attacks on Cielo Dr. cause the house was occupied (or so Manson thought) by Terry Melcher, a record producer Manson held a grudge against for not signing him.

I always assumed that also based on what I've read in the past, but was just reading some articles the other day that dispute that.
Without listing all of those sources, here's a brief paragraph via wiki (I know it's not always accurate, but several sources are cited in the article).

Terry Melcher

On August 9, 1969, the house was the site of the murders of Tate (who was eight months pregnant at the time), coffee heiress Abigail Folger, hairdresser Jay Sebring, writer Wojciech Frykowski and Steven Parent by members of Manson's "family". Some authors and law enforcement personnel have theorized that the Cielo Drive house was targeted by Manson as revenge for Melcher's rejection and that Manson was unaware that he and Bergen had moved out. However, family member Charles "Tex" Watson stated that Manson and company did, in fact, know that Melcher was no longer living there,[7] and Terry's former roommate, Mark Lindsay, stated: "Everybody speculated that Manson sent his minions up there to get rid of Terry because he was angry about not getting a record deal. But Terry and I talked about it later and Terry said Manson knew (Melcher had moved) because Manson or someone from his organization left a note on Terry's porch in Malibu."[5]

"When Manson was arrested, it was widely reported that he had sent his followers to the house to kill Melcher and Bergen. Manson family member Susan Atkins, who admitted her part in the murders, stated to police and before a grand jury that the house was chosen as the scene for the murders "to instill fear into Terry Melcher because Terry had given us his word on a few things and never came through with them".[3] In this aim, the Manson Family was successful. Melcher took to employing a bodyguard and told Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi that his fear was so great, he had been undergoing psychiatric treatment. Melcher was the most frightened of the witnesses at the trial, even though Bugliosi assured him that "Manson knew you were no longer living (on Cielo Drive)"'

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
dcba

Quote
Sighunt
in this instance, Manson and his followers probably should have gotten the death penalty for their heinous acts against humanity....

Ever heard of Lt. Calley? In March 68 he ordered the "My Lai" massacre : at least 350 innocent Vietnamese villagers were slayed. So that's about 50 times the amount of killings Manson ordered.
Manson spent almost 50 years in jail. Calley spent 3 years, most of his sentence was spent as... house arrest. He was free to go in 1974.

To me Calley is a far more hideous figure that Manson.

DCBA-I get where you are going with this (and I do remember Lt. Calley and the massacre) and I am not in disagreement with you. My original post (and thought) was that if there were a bunch of people who were more "deserving" of being executed, it was Manson and his followers (I get that the death penalty was halted by the Supreme Court and they escaped it). In my mind, Charles Manson was the embodiment of evil.

would have been nice to hear of him apologizing for all he did, on his deathbed ... guess that didn't happen

Quote
LeonidP
would have been nice to hear of him apologizing for all he did, on his deathbed ... guess that didn't happen

Dennis Rader (the BTK serial killer) "apologized" to the families of his victims at his trial, and it was a farce. A psychopath is incapable of remorse, guilt or compassion. He made a rambling 30 minute speech that was simply an act of grandiosity and self-aggrandizement masquerading as an apology.

I imagine Manson was somewhat psychologically different than serial killers like Rader or Bundy, but his words would have been equally worthless.

Quote
LeonidP
would have been nice to hear of him apologizing for all he did, on his deathbed ... guess that didn't happen

Apologize!! Last night I saw an interview of him from the 80's and when asked if he felt guilty about his crimes he responded by saying he only felt guilty because he didn't kill enough people. He should have killed 500. This guy was nuts. I guess he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and paranoid delusions. Not to mention extraordinarily narcissistic and evil.

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl

Quote
StonedInTokyo

Quote
sdstonesguy
This is simply untrue. The United States Supreme Court banned executions which is why his death penalty conviction was turned into life with parole (the harshest sentence available at the time). So California did not change their law, the SCOTUS changed what was available.

Proof that Thurgood Marshall had no business being appointed to the SCOTUS.

For those following along at home, Roe v Wade was the US Supreme Court decision striking down abortion bans. They decided 7-2 in favour, with Marshall assenting. Furman v Georgia was the 1972 case essentially striking down the death penalty, a 5-4 decision, with Marshall assenting. Marshall was also African American. Carry on.

We like to say "favor"

So we lose the misconduct thread but get to discuss this killer.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
StonedInTokyo

Quote
sdstonesguy
This is simply untrue. The United States Supreme Court banned executions which is why his death penalty conviction was turned into life with parole (the harshest sentence available at the time). So California did not change their law, the SCOTUS changed what was available.

Proof that Thurgood Marshall had no business being appointed to the SCOTUS.

Damn uppity coloreds, amirite?

"Yes, I'll take race baiting for a hundred, Alex."

I was about to respond to your misguided ignorance in that other thread but it got closed.

So, you think you can tell which way I lean just because I don't like the Clintons? "Well, if you're not for us, then you must be against us."

You can't tell anything about me -- in fact, you don't even deserve to know anything about me.

So here's your reply -- hey, I didn't make this stuff up:

"A thought experiment: Would the Weinstein story have been published if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency? No, and not because he is a big Democratic fundraiser. It’s because if the story was published during the course of a Hillary Clinton presidency, it wouldn’t have really been about Harvey Weinstein. Harvey would have been seen as a proxy for the president’s husband and it would have embarrassed the president, the first female president.

Bill Clinton offered get-out-of-jail-free cards to a whole army of sleazeballs, from Jeffrey Epstein to Harvey Weinstein to the foreign donors to the Clinton Global Initiative. The deal was simple: Pay up, genuflect, and get on with your existence. It was like a papacy selling indulgences, at the same time that everyone knew that the cardinals were up to no good. The 2016 election demolished Clinton world once and for all, to be replaced by the cult of Obama, an austere sect designated by their tailored hair shirts with Nehru collars. “That is not who we are as Americans,” they chant, as Harvey Weinstein’s ashes are scattered in the wind."

Full article: [www.weeklystandard.com]