One wonders...

[Tris]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/13/mans...index.html

Why should the state care whether or not she dies in jail or not? After all, it was a life sentence IIRC.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why should the state care whether or not she dies in jail or not? After all, it was a life sentence IIRC.

Yep. And why should anyone else care, at least anyone not somehow involved with the case? Perhaps they don't have the facilities to treat her condition where she is, but that would be just a matter of relocating her. As it is, I'm sure she's getting better health services than are many who deserve it more.

But, fundamentally, a footnote to ancient history.

--Pete

[Bogota]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/13/mans...index.html

Why should the state care whether or not she dies in jail or not? After all, it was a life sentence IIRC.

It's true that her crime is horrible beyond comprehension. What difference can it make to society if she dies in prison or not? I say let's show some compassion and let her die at home. Dying she is no danger to society and there is no point in cruelty. The Tate family will have to hear about her over and over from here on out whether she stays in prison or not.

Prison hospital facilities in the US are notoriously bad, btw.

Just my opinion.

[Urza-DSF]

It's true that her crime is horrible beyond comprehension. What difference can it make to society if she dies in prison or not? I say let's show some compassion and let her die at home. Dying she is no danger to society and there is no point in cruelty. The Tate family will have to hear about her over and over from here on out whether she stays in prison or not.

Prison hospital facilities in the US are notoriously bad, btw.

Just my opinion.

Or we can let her rot in prison like any other inmate, and not allow her limited fame due to being a part of a well-known series of murders to circumvent the punishment she was justly given.

[swirly]

Or we can let her rot in prison like any other inmate, and not allow her limited fame due to being a part of a well-known series of murders to circumvent the punishment she was justly given.

Kind of goes back to the old question "What is the purpose of prison?"

1: To punish
2: To rehabilitate
3: To seperate for the protection of others

If it is to punish then maybe compassion isn't a good reason for release. If it is to rehabilitate then it is rather pointless to keep trying with her going to die. If it is to seperate for the protection of others then there isn't much point in keeping her anymore since she is in no state to harm anyone.

[kandrathe]

Kind of goes back to the old question "What is the purpose of prison?"

1: To punish
2: To rehabilitate
3: To seperate for the protection of others

If it is to punish then maybe compassion isn't a good reason for release. If it is to rehabilitate then it is rather pointless to keep trying with her going to die. If it is to separate for the protection of others then there isn't much point in keeping her anymore since she is in no state to harm anyone.

And, the 4th might be to serve as a warning for others as to what happens to people who do what she did. They die in jail.

[Nystul]

Screw justice and compassion both. How likely is she to commit a violent crime from her death bed, and how much can the great state of California save in medical costs by giving her prison bed to some healthy 20 year old drug dealer or car thief? What would they do if she was just one of the gazillion ordinary murderers in California instead of a world famous one?

[Vandiablo]

If we are going to use rationalization...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/13/mans...index.html

Why should the state care whether or not she dies in jail or not? After all, it was a life sentence IIRC.

If we are rationalizing, why not go the other way?

If she's going to die soon anyway: Have the state sell, to the highest bidder, the right to strangle her to death.

Some restrictions: The strangling itself only available to victims and relatives of course. The right to strangle is transferable, so rich people can bid for the honor of assisting the victims.

Neat, huh?

-V

[kandrathe]

If we are going to use rationalization...
If we are rationalizing, why not go the other way?

If she's going to die soon anyway: Have the state sell, to the highest bidder, the right to strangle her to death.

Some restrictions: The strangling itself only available to victims and relatives of course. The right to strangle is transferable, so rich people can bid for the honor of assisting the victims.

Neat, huh?

-V

Dull fork anyone? I'd rather not bring back the dark ages. :) 6 months is not too long to wait for the grim reaper to collect another soul. If she is truly "born again" then she won't mind waiting. One hospital bed is like another when you are dying.

[Vandiablo]

No no, punishments in the dark ages were barbaric...

Dull fork anyone? I'd rather not bring back the dark ages.

...but my suggestion is merely to bring about some Empathy Training Therapy. Straight out of the Corporate 1980's. If you want to call that the "dark ages", maybe I'll agree with you.

She gets to feel what it's like to be killed by another human being, and her strangler gets some "closure" (around her neck) as to possibly understanding how easy it is* to kill someone you detest.

-V

*Not that I know that myself personally. I've never killed anyone <strike>who didn't have it coming</strike>. Honest!

[Occhidiangela]

If we are going to use rationalization...
If we are rationalizing, why not go the other way?

If she's going to die soon anyway: Have the state sell, to the highest bidder, the right to strangle her to death.

Some restrictions: The strangling itself only available to victims and relatives of course. The right to strangle is transferable, so rich people can bid for the honor of assisting the victims.

Neat, huh?

-V

Where do I sign up for this event? No, I am not rich. Cheaper and quicker to use the lead poultice on the mangled brain.

Occhi