Being only 24 at the time of the trial, I still couldn't believe that the gloves (put on over medical gloves, mind you) being tight was convincing to the jury. "They couldn't be his gloves; they were tight." Had none of these idiots ever heard of the saying, "fits like a glove"--meaning...well, tight. Helter Skelter is a fascinating read. I started it when I was in high school, but after reading about the gruesome murders, the legal aspects of the book bored my sixteen-year-old self. However, I re-read the book in the summer of 2001, when I was 30 and pregnant (what was I thinking reading about the Tate murder?) When I re-read it, the murders just disgusted me, but the legal aspects of the book were really interesting. None of the Manson gang should ever be released. There is something very, very wrong with a person who, even under the influence of drugs and a demented cult leader, could make the leap to commit such hideous crimes.
Not to mention that the defendant had no motivation to try very hard to put them on. Stupid, stupid move by the prosecution. Cochran had not even thought about it. A big one was that Bugliosi was able to get a murder conviction on Charlie, who never actually killed anybody.
They say that a great lawyer knows the answer to every question before he asks it in court. Johnny Cochran was very smart. If he thought the prosecution would try to get OJ to try on the gloves he might have instructed his client to drink a lot of liquids the night before in order to bloat himself up including his hands
I have a pair of black gloves I wear during the occasional cold snap or when I'm out of town in the winter. They fit perfectly. I guaran-damn-tee you if I were on trial for my life and whether the gloves fit or not was the pivotal issue AND I was allowed to be the one to try to get them on my hands, they would never fit. It's the easiest thing in the world and, as a joke, I've done it several times and I always end the gag by finally pulling the glove on and saying, "And that's how OJ got away with murder."
You and Red both make great points. but I tend to agree more with vBall. After all, how many would truly feel comfortable with Patricia Krenwinkle as a neighbor? She has been in prison for a larger part of her life then she has been free, so she is 'institutionalized'. It would be a very difficult transition for her in today's world. I'm not sure how much technology they're exposed to in prison, but just think of all the things we have today that we didn't have in the 70s. All of that said, I did think it was ridiculous to continue spending millions of dollars on healthcare for Susan Atkins when she was dying of brain cancer. She couldn't even get out of bed towards the end, so why not release her and be free of that financial burden? The emotional side of me wanted her to die in prison, which she did. The common sense side of me was ok for her being paroled to save the state the costs of her healthcare. Because these murders were so brutal and so high profile, I believe all of them should remain in prison until the end. If any should get parole, it probably should be Leslie Van Houten. While there's no question she participated and got what she deserved to this point, if I remember correctly, that participation only involved stabbing Rosemary LaBianca after she was already dead. Still vile and disgusting, but not as culpable as Krenwinkle and Watson. But, as overburdened as the prison system is, I do agree with Red that the old timers with their better days behind them probably should be released, provided that they have a stable environment in place (like adult children willing to take them in) to help them with the transition. If true (and I have no reason to doubt you), that's incredible.
At one time there was so talk that Leslie Van Houten might someday be released. Probably because she was the prettiest of the Manson girls and she came from a good family. At her parole hearing she still displayed the same crazy ideas as the rest of them. While I agree that in most cases old harmless lifers should be released there are some crimes so heinous and atrocious that the perps should never be released if they live 150 years. We still deport 90 year old former Nazi death camp guards to face trial and rightfully so.
But where do you draw the line? I represented a guy who was convicted of 2 counts of 1st degree murder. He was in his 50s and allegedly shot his former girlfriend and the guy she was in bed with. (I still have my doubts as to whether he did it or not, but that's irrelevant for this discussion.) When he was housed in our local jail, the staff loved him. He as a peacekeeper. Young guys with problems went to him for help. He ran the Bible study group. But he's never (barring a reversal on appeal) getting out of jail. And the victims (if he did indeed do it) are just as dead and will be just as dead when he's 70 and probably will have kidney failure.
As an attorney I'm sure you know the difference between hardened career criminals and guys like your client who commit a crime of passion. Even if he did it I have no problem with somebody like that being released. The Manson family's victims are just as dead 45 years later and keeping them in prison won't bring anybody back but the enormity of their crimes should be enough to keep them locked up until the day they die. Maybe your 40 year old lawyer in Hell can do a plea bargain with the Devil for them.
There really is no such thing as black and white when it comes to murder, is there? That's why the law distinguishes between varying degrees of homicide, manslaughter, etc. Clearly the situation you describe above could fit into red's scenario of someone who might be let go and no longer a danger. And yet, punishment is the point and the victims and their families should have some right to justice; whatever it was that a judge/jury meted out. No victim of a murder ever comes back so that point is moot. I guess parole hearings are the chance for people to gain their release, if possible. Some people never even get a parole hearing but then again, there are folks who file appeals relentlessly and waste everyone's time. The justice system is not without flaw. There are always going to be people who fell outside the established norm or even wrongly convicted or acquitted. But there are just some people who I think, it's pretty clear need to stay in jail permanently. Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson, Dahmer (now dead), McVeigh, etc.
The Night Stalker Ramirez died recently. McVeigh was executed by the Federal system. His accomplice Terry Nichols is serving life without parole. He should never be released either.
