And I would say that the world is a better and safer place.
"Safer?" you might ask - yes, listening to an interview with Manson's biographer, Jeff Guinn, that monster had tentacles that extended beyond his almost completely visitor rights free incarceration. His actions and reputation have, it seems, "inspired" many followers even through those prison walls - he did his best to ensure that he and his ideas were not forgotten through sales of his sick artworks.
The picture on Guinn's book shows a person who appears to be an innocent and friendly man, as Guinn said in the interview it is frightening how many can be misled, then and now, by a disturbed but forceful personality. We currently have a prime example of this in power in America.
As Guinn said Manson is an excellent example of why capital punishment, to possibly reduce the chance of a personality cult, is perhaps necessary in extreme cases.
I will try to get a link to the prog later.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16130503-manson
Link to BBC prog, interview is 33 minutes in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09fj9c3
Excellent interview into all aspects of Manson's strategies.
Quote from: No one on November 20, 2017, 06:30:24 PM
No one, your value set is self-negating and therefore, in my opinion, not worthy of substantial response in this case,
(https://imgur.com/CktyYT8.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/dsXgAV9.jpg)
Examples of Manson's work. Standby to hear of idiots paying huge sums for them now he is dead, if the "art world" performs as usual. They certainly deserve a place in history, but not for the purposes of instilling hatred snd violence or making money.
Even with Manson, no death penalty. Yes, he was vile. But giving the state the power to kill its own citizens is, in my opinion, contrary to the purpose of the state, which is to ensure the rights of its citizens. The power to kill is an absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It will be misused, and has been misused. Just lock them up and throw away the key, and don't let them be interviewed.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2017, 09:03:54 PM
Even with Manson, no death penalty. Yes, he was vile. But giving the state the power to kill its own citizens is, in my opinion, contrary to the purpose of the state, which is to ensure the rights of its citizens. The power to kill is an absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It will be misused, and has been misused. Just lock them up and throw away the key, and don't let them be interviewed.
I understand what you say, Bruce. In this case Manson's influence still leaked out, the seclusion was not 100%. But, chances are, if the bricked him in and fed him through a one inch hole his "legend" would survive with thise prone to follow such behaviour. And, with events like the mass shootings, there seems to be a surplus of such.
It is nearly impossible to contain the current crop and impossible to prevent the disease spreading without near draconian measures and struct regulations.
But yes, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchman? Perhaps a national referendum, spread the responsibility?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2017, 09:03:54 PM
Even with Manson, no death penalty. Yes, he was vile. But giving the state the power to kill its own citizens is, in my opinion, contrary to the purpose of the state, which is to ensure the rights of its citizens. The power to kill is an absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It will be misused, and has been misused. Just lock them up and throw away the key, and don't let them be interviewed.
My only problem with the death penalty is with the probability of it being misapplied, since killing someone is not a mistake that can be fixed. In Manson's case I would have had no problem with him being put down like a rabid dog.
Usually I feel sorry for anyone who's died, even a murderer, because death is a sad thing but for Manson I feel nothing.
He was said to be very charismatic, like many psychopaths are. To me he just looks like a deranged creep.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 20, 2017, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2017, 09:03:54 PM
Even with Manson, no death penalty. Yes, he was vile. But giving the state the power to kill its own citizens is, in my opinion, contrary to the purpose of the state, which is to ensure the rights of its citizens. The power to kill is an absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It will be misused, and has been misused. Just lock them up and throw away the key, and don't let them be interviewed.
My only problem with the death penalty is with the probability of it being misapplied, since killing someone is not a mistake that can be fixed. In Manson's case I would have had no problem with him being put down like a rabid dog.
Usually I feel sorry for anyone who's died, even a murderer, because death is a sad thing but for Manson I feel nothing.
You can't fix unjustly jailing someone for 30 years either.
Jailing someone could be considered a violent act, rape and brutality from other inmates is part of the deterrent value of prison.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on November 21, 2017, 09:21:49 AM
You can't fix unjustly jailing someone for 30 years either.
Jailing someone could be considered a violent act, rape and brutality from other inmates is part of the deterrent value of prison.
Hmm, how would you protect the rest of society from those who, sane or otherwise, directly or by personal influence, or for personal gain cause the deaths and suffering of those who do not deserve such then, BP?
Quote from: Dave on November 21, 2017, 10:14:44 AM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on November 21, 2017, 09:21:49 AM
You can't fix unjustly jailing someone for 30 years either.
Jailing someone could be considered a violent act, rape and brutality from other inmates is part of the deterrent value of prison.
Hmm, how would you protect the rest of society from those who, sane or otherwise, directly or by personal influence, or for personal gain cause the deaths and suffering of those who do not deserve such then, BP?
I'm not averse to the death penalty, apparently it's cheaper to keep them in jail than to kill them but I think there's room for some cost cutting in that equation. It's not really a big issue for me though.
My point would be killing and brutal incarceration are both unpleasant options.
There are brutal people to be dealt with though.
I think I'd choose a quick death. Guillotine seems quick and less prone to failure than most of the others. I'd get to see if you do get a moment of body-less consciousness.
Oh no , we aren't just going to let you choose to die.Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Maybe, unfortunately, humans are inherently violent beings on the whole. We lije to think that we have developed, mostly, beyond the stage of an absolute and immediate need for violence to feed and protect ourselves and our group, but that is not far under the surface of our "civilization". It keeps errupting like a rash of boils.
So, is a kind of utilitarianism needed? A pragmatic view that says, "Well, it is it not ideal but it offers more positives for society than negatives" ? The life incarceration of one person, not out of retribution or punishment, and no matter how psycholigically "cruel", but in order that more than one innocent person can rest easy? "Innocence", or otherwise, being, of course, a bit of a personal value judgement in some cases.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on November 21, 2017, 10:54:32 AM
Quote from: Dave on November 21, 2017, 10:14:44 AM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on November 21, 2017, 09:21:49 AM
You can't fix unjustly jailing someone for 30 years either.
Jailing someone could be considered a violent act, rape and brutality from other inmates is part of the deterrent value of prison.
Hmm, how would you protect the rest of society from those who, sane or otherwise, directly or by personal influence, or for personal gain cause the deaths and suffering of those who do not deserve such then, BP?
I'm not averse to the death penalty, apparently it's cheaper to keep them in jail than to kill them but I think there's room for some cost cutting in that equation. It's not really a big issue for me though.
My point would be killing and brutal incarceration are both unpleasant options.
There are brutal people to be dealt with though.
I think I'd choose a quick death. Guillotine seems quick and less prone to failure than most of the others.
If you were imprisoned for life, there would be plenty of options to get yourself killed without the state doing it officially. You could kill yourself, you could piss off another inmate or gang of inmates, you could attack a guard and get shot, or try to escape and get shot. The options would be endless if you didn't want to spend 40 years behind bars. Don't let the state kill its citizens officially, but giving them the option to kill themselves is acceptable. If Manson had offed himself 30 years ago, few tears would have been shed.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2017, 11:57:46 AM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on November 21, 2017, 10:54:32 AM
Quote from: Dave on November 21, 2017, 10:14:44 AM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on November 21, 2017, 09:21:49 AM
You can't fix unjustly jailing someone for 30 years either.
Jailing someone could be considered a violent act, rape and brutality from other inmates is part of the deterrent value of prison.
Hmm, how would you protect the rest of society from those who, sane or otherwise, directly or by personal influence, or for personal gain cause the deaths and suffering of those who do not deserve such then, BP?
I'm not averse to the death penalty, apparently it's cheaper to keep them in jail than to kill them but I think there's room for some cost cutting in that equation. It's not really a big issue for me though.
My point would be killing and brutal incarceration are both unpleasant options.
There are brutal people to be dealt with though.
I think I'd choose a quick death. Guillotine seems quick and less prone to failure than most of the others.
If you were imprisoned for life, there would be plenty of options to get yourself killed without the state doing it officially. You could kill yourself, you could piss off another inmate or gang of inmates, you could attack a guard and get shot, or try to escape and get shot. The options would be endless if you didn't want to spend 40 years behind bars. Don't let the state kill its citizens officially, but giving them the option to kill themselves is acceptable. If Manson had offed himself 30 years ago, few tears would have been shed.
Perhaps the scenario of a future-fiction novel I cannot remember the title of. On being declared "Pariah" by a court serious crimjnal offenders sre dropped on a very remote island with adequate clothing, a survival toolkit and food for a month - then left to their own devices amongst the other inmates. IIRC prey animals were also regularly dropped into the island to ensure a continuing food supply.
But, any system is open to abuse if administered by humans. Supposing an AI were to decide judgement . . .
Quote from: Dave on November 21, 2017, 12:16:16 PM
Supposing an AI were to decide judgement . . .
...perhaps then Justice would truly be blind.
My problem with the death penalty is that there's no good use for it. You have a dubious case you risk killing an innocent person. You have a clear cut case, the vast majority of the time the person is looking to be made a martyr. It's lose/lose.
Quote from: Pasta Chick on November 22, 2017, 01:23:51 AM
My problem with the death penalty is that there's no good use for it. You have a dubious case you risk killing an innocent person. You have a clear cut case, the vast majority of the time the person is looking to be made a martyr. It's lose/lose.
True, but locking someone up for a very long time isn't a solution either, unless there are ways to cure the person safely and permanently.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2017, 11:57:46 AM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on November 21, 2017, 10:54:32 AM
I'm not averse to the death penalty, apparently it's cheaper to keep them in jail than to kill them but I think there's room for some cost cutting in that equation. It's not really a big issue for me though.
My point would be killing and brutal incarceration are both unpleasant options.
There are brutal people to be dealt with though.
I think I'd choose a quick death. Guillotine seems quick and less prone to failure than most of the others.
If you were imprisoned for life, there would be plenty of options to get yourself killed without the state doing it officially. You could kill yourself, you could piss off another inmate or gang of inmates, you could attack a guard and get shot, or try to escape and get shot. The options would be endless if you didn't want to spend 40 years behind bars.
You say "You could kill yourself" and then offer three hit and miss ways to get someone else to kill or damage my precious self.
Endless ways, I could gnaw into my wrist I suppose.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2017, 11:57:46 AM
Don't let the state kill its citizens officially, but giving them the option to kill themselves is acceptable.
They take away your shoe laces and design cells so there's nowhere to tie to.
I don't agree with this officially/unofficially shit, government should own their actions.
They're taking a persons life away one way or another.
"Don't let the state kill its citizens officially!"
Government own your actions, Transparency!
We're getting nowhere with this, I challenge you to a battle of placards in the square, lunchtime tomorrow.
Of course it's OK for the State to officially kill citizens of other states.
What kind of weird fuck are you to even ask that?
I was asking for a friend, well not really a friend, less than an acquaintance really.
I shall pray for his soul, and hopefull he made it to purgatory.
Such a sad sad man
Quote from: SisterAgatha on November 22, 2017, 09:56:20 PM
I shall pray for his soul, and hopefull he made it to purgatory.
Such a sad sad man
Well, this is interesting.
You will pray so that Charles Manson's soul makes it to the purgatory. Tell me again,
SisterAgatha, where is it that your god tell you The Happy Atheists will go (directly) after they/we die?
Quote from: Magdalena on November 22, 2017, 10:29:05 PM
Quote from: SisterAgatha on November 22, 2017, 09:56:20 PM
I shall pray for his soul, and hopefull he made it to purgatory.
Such a sad sad man
Well, this is interesting.
You will pray so that Charles Manson's soul makes it to the purgatory. Tell me again, SisterAgatha, where is it that your god tell you The Happy Atheists will go (directly) after they/we die?
We don't know where atheists go and it's not where you think.
Up until the last moment,...they have a chance to say they are so sorry
There is hope for all of you but Id get on board soon..
Quote from: SisterAgatha on November 22, 2017, 11:03:54 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on November 22, 2017, 10:29:05 PM
Quote from: SisterAgatha on November 22, 2017, 09:56:20 PM
I shall pray for his soul, and hopefull he made it to purgatory.
Such a sad sad man
Well, this is interesting.
You will pray so that Charles Manson's soul makes it to the purgatory. Tell me again, SisterAgatha, where is it that your god tell you The Happy Atheists will go (directly) after they/we die?
We don't know where atheists go and it's not where you think.
Up until the last moment,...they have a chance to say they are so sorry
There is hope for all of you but Id get on board soon..
First of all, "We?"
Who is, "We?"
Is it you and your imaginary friend who tells you what you want to hear all the time?
Second, what are we supposed to be sorry about? --According to you and your imaginary friend.
and...
D.QuoteThere is hope for all of you but Id get on board soon..
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
I wrote the whole thing using bag grammar, puntuation and spelling so that you would understand me.
Quote from: Tom62 on November 22, 2017, 05:07:09 AM
Quote from: Pasta Chick on November 22, 2017, 01:23:51 AM
My problem with the death penalty is that there's no good use for it. You have a dubious case you risk killing an innocent person. You have a clear cut case, the vast majority of the time the person is looking to be made a martyr. It's lose/lose.
True, but locking someone up for a very long time isn't a solution either, unless there are ways to cure the person safely and permanently.
It's not perfect but it stops them from becoming what they want.
Quote from: SisterAgatha on November 22, 2017, 11:03:54 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on November 22, 2017, 10:29:05 PM
Quote from: SisterAgatha on November 22, 2017, 09:56:20 PM
I shall pray for his soul, and hopefull he made it to purgatory.
Such a sad sad man
Well, this is interesting.
You will pray so that Charles Manson's soul makes it to the purgatory. Tell me again, SisterAgatha, where is it that your god tell you The Happy Atheists will go (directly) after they/we die?
We don't know where atheists go and it's not where you think.
Up until the last moment,...they have a chance to say they are so sorry
There is hope for all of you but Id get on board soon..
That's such an unbelievably stupid statement :rofl:
SisterAgatha
This constitutes trolling "There is hope for all of you but Id get on board soon.." on an atheist forum. You've had one break for trolling, do you want another longer one?
Tank