California governor won't free Manson follower Van... - Page 3

Goldengate8361 · ‎01-27-2014

People sometimes love to be super vindictive and choose to not look at a situation (like this) rationally. She is clearly not a threat. So, instead we let the taxpayers of California house her for $40,000 per year. Keep in mind, many people serve time in prison that is NOT for life. Murder is murder. There should at least be more consistency in sentencing.

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

@Goldengate8361 wrote:
People sometimes love to be super vindictive and choose to not look at a situation (like this) rationally. She is clearly not a threat. So, instead we let the taxpayers of California house her for $40,000 per year. Keep in mind, many people serve time in prison that is NOT for life. Murder is murder. There should at least be more consistency in sentencing.

@Goldengate8361 It isn't clear that she is no longer a threat because the heart of the decision not to release her is the fact that she still blames Manson for her actions.

At her age, how do you think she will be supported living outside of prison? Same way as living in prison-taxpayer money.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

proudlyfromNJ · ‎05-01-2010

@Goldengate8361 wrote:
People sometimes love to be super vindictive and choose to not look at a situation (like this) rationally. She is clearly not a threat. So, instead we let the taxpayers of California house her for $40,000 per year. Keep in mind, many people serve time in prison that is NOT for life. Murder is murder. There should at least be more consistency in sentencing.

@Goldengate8361. There is no such thing as consistency in sentencing. It depends on the state, depends on deals that may be made by prosecutors or defense. Laws are different in every state and each side will make the best deals for their side.

As for her being a threat is not the point. If you chose to murder then you have to be prepared to give up your life also. What gives you the right to kill someone and then expect to be set free. I guess you wouldn't mind if your parents were murdered and their murderer was set free. That wouldn't be me.

SahmIam · ‎04-16-2010

And this is a bad thing because.....why?

Love my grandkids · ‎11-24-2013

@itsmetoo And I was 7 months pregnant at the time, and that really affected the horror that I felt for Sharon Tate. Of course I felt horrible for all the victims but what happened to her...it was unspeakable.

Wild animals don't do that.

Goldengate8361 · ‎01-27-2014

@proudlyfromNJ @Consistency in sentencing that is devoid of biases SHOULD be the goal. No, the same is true whether or not I am personally victimized by the convicted party. And, I absolutely do not believe she is currently a threat at all to anyone. And, no, the state would not be supporting her as it does while she is incarcerated. It is responsible to take an objective look at the situation and not be stuck in an emotional response.

Starpolisher · ‎03-10-2010

@Cakers3 wrote:
@Goldengate8361 wrote:
People sometimes love to be super vindictive and choose to not look at a situation (like this) rationally. She is clearly not a threat. So, instead we let the taxpayers of California house her for $40,000 per year. Keep in mind, many people serve time in prison that is NOT for life. Murder is murder. There should at least be more consistency in sentencing.
@Goldengate8361 It isn't clear that she is no longer a threat because the heart of the decision not to release her is the fact that she still blames Manson for her actions.

At her age, how do you think she will be supported living outside of prison? Same way as living in prison-taxpayer money.

@Cakers3

ITA! I don't live in CA but I sure as he** wouldn't want her living next to me! Like you said, if my tax money is what's going to support her...and it is! Then heck yeah, let her evil self stay in prison! There are enough crazies living free among us already! One less to worry about! I'm sorry to sound so bitter but nowadays the world is a scary place!

"Kindness is like snow ~It beautifies everything it covers"
-Kahlil Gibran

proudlyfromNJ · ‎05-01-2010

@Goldengate8361 wrote:
@proudlyfromNJ @Consistency in sentencing that is devoid of biases SHOULD be the goal. No, the same is true whether or not I am personally victimized by the convicted party. And, I absolutely do not believe she is currently a threat at all to anyone. And, no, the state would not be supporting her as it does while she is incarcerated. It is responsible to take an objective look at the situation and not be stuck in an emotional response.

@Goldengate8361. When it comes to murder I don't believe in taking an objective look. That is for something like someone stole my wallet because they were hungry. Again, if you can forgive and want someone out of jail that murdered your parents that is up to you. I don't believe anyone who competed murder should be free.

Goldengate8361 · ‎01-27-2014

The rule of law is meant to be objective. That’s why the statue of justice outside the Supreme Court and elsewhere is lady justice, blindfolded, holding a balancing scales.