Arnie denies parole to convicted killer

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-18 09:42pm

Also, a guy who plans a murder for months is more than capable of saying whatever the parole board wants to hear.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-18 11:28pm

Thinkmarble wrote:1980 was 26 years ago, that is long time, sufficient time indeed for him to change.

Having sufficient time doesn't mean its actually happened.

So when the parole board is sufficently sure that he is no danger why shouldnt he be released ?

What exact qualifications does one need to be on a parole board?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-18 11:29pm

Darth Servo wrote:What exact qualifications does one need to be on a parole board?

The ability to feel no guilt whatsoever when you make a mistake, no matter how horrific the consequences and how many people warned you not to do it.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-18 11:45pm

Darth Servo wrote:
So when the parole board is sufficently sure that he is no danger why shouldnt he be released ?
What exact qualifications does one need to be on a parole board?

They're selected the same way juries are. They usually select judges, lawyers, cops, or psychologists. I.E. people who are used to dealing with criminals, and can tell when they're lying.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-09-18 11:46pm

Dominus Atheos wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:
So when the parole board is sufficently sure that he is no danger why shouldnt he be released ?
What exact qualifications does one need to be on a parole board?
They're selected the same way juries are. They usually select judges, lawyers, cops, or psychologists. I.E. people who are used to dealing with criminals, and can tell when they're lying.

I'm glad you're willing to risk the life, or lives of potential future victims just so a killer can get a second chance.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-18 11:47pm

Dominus Atheos wrote:people who are used to dealing with criminals, and can tell when they're lying.

You mean people who BELIEVE they can tell when a criminal is lying.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-19 12:10am

Dominus Atheos wrote:They're selected the same way juries are. They usually select judges, lawyers, cops, or psychologists.

Um, news flash. Any idiot can serve on a Jury. Case in point: the OJ Simpson trial. If it IS similar for parole boards, that is one scary thought.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-19 12:16am

Darth Wong wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:They usually select judges, lawyers, cops, or psychologists. I.E. people who are used to dealing with criminals, and can tell when they're lying.
You mean people who BELIEVE they can tell when a criminal is lying.

Judges recieve a special education to be judges, and to be able to judge whether a person is guilty or innocent(Bench trials). Lawyers likewise recieve an advanced education to be able to grill witnesses, and get them to admit thay're lying. Cops get trained to be cops, and to be able to tell when a suspect is lying. Psychologists need no explination. All four of them should be more then capable of deciding if a convict is really reformed.

Here is the parole board of the UK's official site. It states that in each individual parole board there must be at least one of:

a. a person who holds or has held judicial office;

b. a psychiatrist;

c. a person who has experience of the supervision or after-care
of discharged prisoners;

d. a person who has made a study of the causes of delinquency or
the treatment of offenders.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-09-19 12:19am

So let me get this straight, you're using UK parole board regulation regarding California?!

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-19 12:20am

Darth Servo wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:They're selected the same way juries are. They usually select judges, lawyers, cops, or psychologists.
Um, news flash. Any idiot can serve on a Jury. Case in point: the OJ Simpson trial. If it IS similar for parole boards, that is one scary thought.

The board of howevermany(8?) is drawn from about 200 or so people who volunteered and fit some criteria, and had an interview, and got accepted. (at least in the UK, I would imagine it works similar here, as our law is based on theirs.)

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-19 12:27am

Ace Pace wrote:So let me get this straight, you're using UK parole board regulation regarding California?!

I was debating the morality of parole in general.

But looking it up, what do you know, California has an even better system then the UK!

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Board Of Parole.

BPH is comprised of 17 members appointed by the Governor and require confirmation by the Senate. Of the 17 commissioners, 12 hear only adult matters, and five hear only juvenile matters.

So, he appointed them, but rejects their recommendations.

Yeah, great Governer.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-19 12:37am

Dominus Atheos wrote:So, he appointed them, but rejects their recommendations.

Yeah, great Governer.

Whats the problem? Appointing someone doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they do (unless you're a GW Bush lakey)

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-19 12:42am

Darth Servo wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:So, he appointed them, but rejects their recommendations.

Yeah, great Governer.
Whats the problem? Appointing someone doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they do (unless you're a GW Bush lakey)

Well, if he's not smart enough to appoint yes-men, he's not a very good politician, period.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-09-19 01:08am

Dominus Atheos wrote:
Judges recieve a special education to be judges, and to be able to judge whether a person is guilty or innocent(Bench trials). Lawyers likewise recieve an advanced education to be able to grill witnesses, and get them to admit thay're lying. Cops get trained to be cops, and to be able to tell when a suspect is lying. Psychologists need no explination. All four of them should be more then capable of deciding if a convict is really reformed.

You make it sound as if they are infallible. The fact that they're human means that they can be deceived. Allowing someone who's shown that his method for solving a problem is with a pistol back into society is grossly irresponsible.

What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-19 01:22am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:
Judges recieve a special education to be judges, and to be able to judge whether a person is guilty or innocent(Bench trials). Lawyers likewise recieve an advanced education to be able to grill witnesses, and get them to admit thay're lying. Cops get trained to be cops, and to be able to tell when a suspect is lying. Psychologists need no explination. All four of them should be more then capable of deciding if a convict is really reformed.
You make it sound as if they are infallible. The fact that they're human means that they can be deceived. Allowing someone who's shown that his method for solving a problem is with a pistol back into society is grossly irresponsible.

What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?

Judges, lawyers, and cops are expected to be infallible. What if the cops fucked up in investigating this crime, the lawyer was incompetent, and the judge was an ass? He could be completely innocent.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-19 01:44am

Dominus Atheos wrote:Judges, lawyers, and cops are expected to be infallible. What if the cops fucked up in investigating this crime, the lawyer was incompetent, and the judge was an ass? He could be completely innocent.

Then we pardon the guy. And pray he doesn't sue the state for wrongful prosecution.

But this isn't about mistaken guilt. This is about releasing a known murder back into the public.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2006-09-19 01:47am

Was this guy sentenced to life in prison? I don't think the article says if that was the case.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2006-09-19 01:52am

Dominus Atheos wrote:Well, if he's not smart enough to appoint yes-men, he's not a very good politician, period.

Or, you know, he's smart enough to realize that surrounding himself with people who are unwilling to disagree with you is both really stupid and really dangerous, particularly in a position of responsibility. Bush was "smart enough" to appoint yes-men, and look where that's taken us.

You also didn't answer Kamakazie's question.

Kamakazie Sith wrote:What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-19 01:54am

Civil War Man wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:Well, if he's not smart enough to appoint yes-men, he's not a very good politician, period.
Or, you know, he's smart enough to realize that surrounding himself with people who are unwilling to disagree with you is both really stupid and really dangerous, particularly in a position of responsibility. Bush was "smart enough" to appoint yes-men, and look where that's taken us.

psst. the "

" just might be indicating he was being sarcastic. Just a thought.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2006-09-19 01:56am

Civil War Man wrote:You also didn't answer Kamakazie's question.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?

He gets charged with murder and imprisoned for committing a new offence. He gets punished again.

Who's he gonna kill anyway?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-19 01:57am

Stofsk wrote:
Civil War Man wrote:You also didn't answer Kamakazie's question.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?
He gets charged with murder and imprisoned for committing a new offence. He gets punished again.

Who's he gonna kill anyway?

And no penalty on the idiots who let the guy back on the streets?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2006-09-19 02:04am

Darth Servo wrote:
Stofsk wrote:
Civil War Man wrote:You also didn't answer Kamakazie's question.
He gets charged with murder and imprisoned for committing a new offence. He gets punished again.

Who's he gonna kill anyway?
And no penalty on the idiots who let the guy back on the streets?

Ideally there would be accountability on their parts as well. Believe me, I'm all in favour of the authorities being held accountable for fuck ups they make.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-19 02:05am

Stofsk wrote:Ideally there would be accountability on their parts as well. Believe me, I'm all in favour of the authorities being held accountable for fuck ups they make.

But there aren't. Thats the whole complaint.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-19 02:06am

Civil War Man wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:Well, if he's not smart enough to appoint yes-men, he's not a very good politician, period.
Or, you know, he's smart enough to realize that surrounding himself with people who are unwilling to disagree with you is both really stupid and really dangerous, particularly in a position of responsibility. Bush was "smart enough" to appoint yes-men, and look where that's taken us.

It was a joke, fucktard. Apperently you're too stupid to tell by the razz smiley.

You also didn't answer Kamakazie's question.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:What should happen if they're wrong, and that parolee goes out and kills again? How do you make up for that?

That's because it's a retarded question. By that logic, we should lock up all criminals. What happens if some kid steals an old lady's purse, if you only give him short sentance, he might get out and steal another old lady's purse? Do you want that on your conscience? What about a drunk driver? Obviously we should throw him in a dark hole for the rest of his life. What happens if you only give him community service, and then after he worked all day at a park, he goes to a nearby bar and gets drunk? What should happen if he drives home from the bar, and hits one of the little kids that was playing at the park? How do you make up for that?

Kamakazie Sith is an idiot, and I ignored his moronic question. If you have a problem with that, you can suck my balls.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2006-09-19 02:07am

Darth Servo wrote:
Civil War Man wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:Well, if he's not smart enough to appoint yes-men, he's not a very good politician, period.
Or, you know, he's smart enough to realize that surrounding himself with people who are unwilling to disagree with you is both really stupid and really dangerous, particularly in a position of responsibility. Bush was "smart enough" to appoint yes-men, and look where that's taken us.
psst. the " " just might be indicating he was being sarcastic. Just a thought.

I realized. I'm just tired of the cynicism and apathy surrounding politics. The whole "Honest people don't go into politics because all politicians are dishonest" mentality is really grating.