At least not yet.

there's no way this man should have been released 5 weeks before the presidential election. no way.

he probably registered as a Republican.

"Congratulations, sir, you're REFORMED!"

I agree he should die in prison, but this would have zero impact on the election if he were released on parole.

Understand now?

have to do with the pres. elections?

You don't know what Charles Manson intended to do, as he stated was told to him by listening to the Beatles WHITE album?

"RACE WAR"

but that has nothing to do with the pres. election and to think that this murderer would attempt to kill Pres. Obama to ignite a race war is so much baloney it boggles the mind.
Personally, I believe this POS of a human should just rot and die in prison, but that's just my opinion and I don't think CA gave a shit about my opinion.

He is obviously a racist POS, I agree he should have rotted in prison forever, but releasing him right before what is going to be a very close election is risky, imagine what will happen when Obama wins the rightwing racists are going to be apoplectic, figuers like this human trash could serve as catalysts for that anger..... It just shouldn't have happened.... all I am saying.

Igniting a race war by killing public figures was their first plan.

Igniting a race war by KILLING PRESIDENT FORD is exactly what Squeaky Fromme tried to do in 1975.

So yes, the Manson Family did indeed try to kill one President, this rube was part of that cult, and I think it is absolutely insane to release him a month before an important general election when another member of the same cult already tried to kill a President.

I don't give a shit if the guy earned his release. He can wait five weeks.

I damn well know exactly what happened, I never said anything about the Squeaky Fromme not trying to kill Ford in 75. I've already stated that I don't think this guy should ever be released from prison, whether before or after the elections. He should rot and die in prison. His 2 victims sure didn't have a say in whether or not he should be released.

or justy likey titles?

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice.

Surprised to see people talking about politics and "let 'em rot forever." Guy has been in prison for 40 years now.

He murdered 2 people and conspired to murder another, why shouldn't he rot and die in prison?

But if he is in prison, that gets to be paid by the Prison and thus the State Tax Payers. Medicare is a Federal program. California is hurting and needs to reduce costs, thus why keep a person in Prison if it is clear he or she will cause no further harm? I hate to reduce anything to money, but in this case makes sense.

I believe, as the poem above my post describes in more flowery terms, that we can be merciful even to people who have committed murder.

If he has been granted parole, that means he sufficiently impressed the board that he is not a danger to society...twice. He committed murder in 1969. That is quite some time ago, roughly 2/3 of his life has been spent in prison. I thought we understood that the Manson family were under the influence of drugs and Mr. Manson himself, which I think is something to consider when balancing the scales of justice here.

I don't think that vindictiveness should be the bedrock of our justice system. I know this puts me in a minority in this country (even on DU). If the guy is no danger to anyone anymore and has already been punished very harshly for very serious crimes, this is exactly why we have the concept of parole.

Mercy is a virtue and there are times when it is important to be merciful. I don't know much about this guy and what he has been doing for the last 40 years, but that's what parole boards are for. They aren't loaded with bleeding hearts like myself, either.

This "rot and die" crap isn't rhetoric associated with people who want a humane justice system. It's associated with a vindictive regressive mindset that I don't really understand very well.

I don't agree with you, I've been a cop in a fair sized city in MO for almost 30 years and I've seen the worse of human depravity so maybe I'm biased, but I'm not very forgiving of someone who committed 2 murders, I don't care if it was in 69.

and I will just leave it at that.

he's being shown Mercy. A cardinal Christian virtue, as William Shakespeare explains.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for someone who willfully murders 2 people.

I don't think people, for the most part, predicate their own mercy on that of others-- else no one would ever be afforded mercy again-- for good or for ill...

Neither is sympathy.

The last sentence from Shakespeare's sonnet:

"It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice."

I would argue that, in some ways, execution is more merciful than life in prison. But this man was not sentenced to die, he was left with the possibility of parole. I understand that you think that the Mercy of parole should not have been shown, at least at this point in his life, but the Parole Board disagreed.

You'll have to live with the injustice that others call Mercy.

I don't agree with it, but like you say, the Parole Board has spoken and that's the law.

We destroy the only alternative to the death penalty if a murderer can be paroled after 40 years. That is a long time and Gary Hinman has been dead for every moment of it. There is no redeeming the victim here. The perpetrator made choices and is lucky enough to be able to live with the consequences.

The guy is 69 years old and has served 42 years in prison.

Many other countries, including Norway, Portugal, and Spain, have 25-year or less maximum sentences, with parole. Mexico used to have a 20 year max; it may or may not still.

Our penchant for severe prison sentences--decades for drug offenses?--may or may not have some impact on our crime rates (criminologists disagree), but they clearly make "the land of the free" the world's leading jailer.

I would go for the 20-year max. For anything.

if it was a child that was raped and murdered, suppose it was your child, would you still think that the murderer should only get 20 years? Sorry, I have no sympathy for anyone who cold bloodedly murders 2 people.
Now for non violent drug offenses, I don't think prison is the answer, maybe some sort of drug treatment, or better yet, end the WOD, and legalize certain drugs, that would go a long way to ending the violence associated with the drug trade.

But we don't (shouldn't) make public policy on the basis of fear and rage.

I think Michael Dukakis should have answered that "what if it was your wife" question back in 1988 in the same way.

Many, many convicted murderers get out prison. I think this guy could, too, without any threat to public safery and having served 42 years.

I just can't get on board with this, I've been a cop too long and I'll readily admit that I'm biased. I've seen too much of human depravity to be able to change my mind, some criminals should never be released from prison and IMHO, this guy should have been one of them.

Bobby Beausoleil was convicted of killing Gary Hinman, but was locked up on that offense when all the other Manson family killings went on (the theory that some of these crimes were attempted copycats to save Beausoleil has often made more sense to me than the wacky "helter skelter" motive). He was, in effect, convicted of a single murder more than 40 years ago. He was denied parole again in 2008. But Davis, who helped kill Hinman, and who subsequently killed Shorty Shea, is paroled? Weird. If Beausoleil was any other convict not associated with Manson, he would have been paroled 15 years ago. The irony is that he is the one member of the family convicted of crimes that had no serious connection to Tate-LaBianca at all, since he was already locked up at the time.

Pardon my impulse to post something vapid.

Not "life span terminal."

An interesting take on that time and place...

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr104.html