Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[DVV]

Which is not what you've claimed.

It is not a difference of opinion. You've repeatedly represented Krug's statements as a legal ruling that applies to Leslie's case. You've been informed of your error. This is the first time that you've admitted that the parole board has every right to do what they've done. You keep repeating all this knowing that you are factually wrong. You are lying.

What ??
"Legal rulings"??
Am I an expert in Californian law ??
I just think a judge knows a bit about law.

And have never "lied". Misunderstood something, may be...But lying, certainly not, in spite of your repeated insults.

[DVV]

Gee, now who's stooping to insults?

Even yesterday you said I was a liar.
You said it many times, in fact.
As I have made it clear, I've never lied regarding Krug.
I find his statement interesting, and part of the discussion.

Liar is an insult I resent very much.
And you said it (several times) far before my "bastard".

[DVV]

Ally, of course Manson is more guilty.
He planned the murders.
Who, when and where.

Believe it or not, but as rotten as a SS could be, he can't be as much guilty as Hitler himself, for example.

[FreeLeslie]

that she or he chose to identify themselves as FreeLeslie as i had a choice..

Oh, Ally

You shouldn't assume; Leslie is my cocker spaniel, the catcher got the poor girl and even though it's only the price of a pint, I can't get her out 'til Friday. Pay day you know...

I am going to love this Forum, by the time I get home from work, it's late over there and have of ya'll are drunk!

Good night my new friends,

FreeLeslie

[DVV]

You lie:



And have never "lied". Misunderstood something, may be...But lying, certainly not, in spite of your repeated insults.

Unless you can explain to me what it is you don't understand about "The Appeal Court said Krug was wrong" then it is not "misundertanding", it is lying by way of willful ignorance.[/QUOTE]

No, hundred times, no.

Yes, Krug WAS talking about law - I never said he was making the law, nor that his words are LAW in themselves.

[Magpie]

Even yesterday you said I was a liar.
You said it many times, in fact.
As I have made it clear, I've never lied regarding Krug.
I find his statement interesting, and part of the discussion.

Liar is an insult I resent very much.
And you said it (several times) far before my "bastard".

I called you a liar because you lied, and I provided the verbatim posts to show exactly how you lied.

Let's be clear: You said Krug made a legally ruling about Leslie, so I provided evidence that his ruling was overturned. So you said you never claimed it was a legal ruling, and I provided the post where you claimed exactly that.

[Magpie]

Yes, Krug WAS talking about law - I never said he was making the law, nor that his words are LAW in themselves.

Well finally.

Okay, next step. Which part of "He was wrong" is still eluding you?

[Ally]

Ally, of course Manson is more guilty.
He planned the murders.
Who, when and where.

Believe it or not, but as rotten as a SS could be, he can't be as much guilty as Hitler himself, for example.

Manson is not the leader of a country. They were not soldiers following orders. They were not bound by a chain of command, oath to country or threat of death. He was a man with no power except what they gave him. They were men and women with free will. They did not have to obey him. They did not have to be led by him.

What he plans is irrelevant without them choosing of their own free will to carry it out. They could have walked away. They chose what they did. His plans are irrelevant.

[Ally]

Oh, Ally

You shouldn't assume; Leslie is my cocker spaniel, the catcher got the poor girl and even though it's only the price of a pint, I can't get her out 'til Friday. Pay day you know...

I am going to love this Forum, by the time I get home from work, it's late over there and have of ya'll are drunk!

Good night my new friends,

FreeLeslie

I assume that was your attempt at humor. I understand how you'd resort it to it, since the facts aren't on your side.

[Magpie]

I just deleted a post for the sake of avoiding further confrontation.

My apologies.

[DVV]

Well finally.

Okay, next step. Which part of "He was wrong" is still eluding you?

Oh...

He wasn't wrong, nor right, in legal terms...
He pointed out a contradiction in the parole system, with good reason, in my opinion.
That the parole board can rule Leslie out on the sole basis of the crime seems indeed legal, but I maintain that the primary purpose of a parole board has to be about the inmate improvement, dangerosity, understanding, etc.
And that is exactly what Krug meant.

Is that why you still call me a liar ?
Well... what can I say...

[Magpie]

Oh...

He wasn't wrong, nor right, in legal terms...
He pointed out a contradiction in the parole system, with good reason, in my opinion.
That the parole board can rule Leslie out on the sole basis of the crime seems indeed legal, but I maintain that the primary purpose of a parole board has to be about the inmate improvement, dangerosity, understanding, etc.

Is that why you still call me a liar ?
Well... what can I say...

Yes, he was wrong in legal terms. The Appeals Court said so. Explicitly.

That's what Appeals Courts do--they point out when judges are wrong. Which is what they did.

[DVV]

For the last time, no.

The contradiction he has pointed out is real.

On the one hand, she's allowed to stand for parole.

On the other, her parole seems already denied, for something that she cannot change: the nature of her crime.

Where is the difference, then, between life with parole, and life without ?

That's what Krug said, and it's not completely stupid.

[Ally]

Where is the difference, then, between life with parole, and life without ?

That's what Krug said, and it's not completely stupid.

The difference is with life without parole then you don't even get the option of applying. Life with the possibility ofparole means you get to apply. It doesn't mean you get it. There is no legal guarantee or protection for parole. A life sentence with the possibility of parole does not preclude you dying in jail. And considering that her sentence was originally death and her sentence reduced on a legal technicality she's never going to get parole. She was a death row inmate. When death row was abolished she was automatically sentenced to life. Her sentence had nothing whatsoever to do with her crime, it was the default from the death penalty being overturned. Now I realize that she was retried and could have been re-sentenced to life without, but I presume the judge instituted the same sentence as she'd had prior.

She was originally a death row inmate and frankly, that's where she should be now. When the ban was overturned all prisoners whose original sentences were reduced should have been re-instated in my opinion.

So again, rather than whinging that she's not getting parole, she ought to be damn grateful that she was convicted during the short window when the death penalty was abolished and she got off on a technicality.

She's a death row prisoner, and there she will remain until her death.

[DVV]

She may be released, she may be not.
That's not up to you.
That will be the decision of the parole board.