Friday, February 6, 2009

Three people we are still feeding...


Today's three beauties are all residing in California.

1. Sirhan Sirhan

Our lovely first terrorist. Assassin of presidential candidate Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Still chowing down in California's San Quentin prison, last we checked. Want to see how he looks now, after 43,000+ meals? Click here. One presumes he is fed special porkless meals so as not to offend his religious beliefs. Well, I guess a lot of prisoners are fed special meals so, cheap shot. Why don't I feel bad for saying it right now? Every time I think of how much better our country would be today had Sirhan never been born, I stop feeling sorry.

2. Charles Manson

Such a prince. Directed the murders of 7 random victims, including actress Sharon Tate (wife of director Roman Polanski.) And coffee heiress Abigail Folger. And her boyfriend. And famous hair stylist Jay Sebring. And 18-year-old Steve Parent, unlucky visitor to the caretaker, just leaving. Shot in the driveway in his car. And Rosemary and Leno Labianca, getting ready for bed in their own home the next evening. And others he was never charged with but orchestrated. Charlie was a director of fiends. Such a prince. Still chowing down in California's Corcoran prison when last seen. [Left: teenage Charlie, fresh from reform school. A new suit and $20. Go forth and kill the world, Charlie. Click to enlarge if you care to get a better look at the face of Satan. Right: good ol' Charlie at the time of the murders. How is he faring after all these years in prison? Click here to see a more recent photo.]

[Both of the above lovelies were sentenced to death but in 1972 the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the gas chamber probably hurt when a person inhaled the cyanide, and was therefore cruel and unusual punishment. So they still live. Thank you for that, Supremes.]

Just curious...not to argue with the Supreme Court... but I wonder if Abby Folger was hurting that hellish night when they were chasing her around the yard with their steely knives, cutting, poking, slashing monstrous gaping gashes in her flesh until she finally dropped her arms and said "Just take me..." Perhaps. Wouldn't want to make her attackers burn their throats for a few seconds with the cyanide. No sir. Or as Tex Watson, one of the fiends from hell that night, told the victims, "I am the devil. And I am here on the devil's business." This was by way of introduction to the slaughter victims, before Sadie took 9-months-pregnant Sharon Tate's baby. A bonus victim they were never charged with. Oh, well. Midnight candle vigils whenever there is an execution in the U.S. The lives of these barbarians are so precious. My, but we would be no better than them if we took their lives. I will explain that one to you next time I am as pissed off as I am right now.

3. Richard Allen Davis.

Kidnapper, rapist, murderer of 12-year-old Polly Klass. All he did was abduct Polly from a slumber party in her bedroom at knife-point and then take her to a visit to hell. Captured 65 days later he said, "Who - me?" But his palm print in Polly's bedroom said, "Yes - you." A death-house palm print, buddy. Polly will get justice someday. Wait and see. Sentenced to death but years of appeals remain. It's already been 16 years. He's still chowing down today at San Quentin Prison, California, courtesy of California taxpayers.

4. John David Chapman

Assassin of Beatle John Lennon. Current residence: Riker's Island, New York. Still chowing down 3 meals a day at your expense. 'Cuz the judge thought he might be tetched in the haid. No shit.

Incidentally, One of the "risk factors" shown on Chapman's prison file is "obesity". So I'm guessing he is being fed properly.

I sincerely hope I haven't tipped my hand as to whether or not I favor the death penalty.


  1. Robert A Heinlein is one of my favorite authors. He wrote a number of books about how much better, or at least much different, the world would be if a few things had gone a little bit different. One of these worlds he created had Strict Biblical Law, namely An Eye for An Eye. So that if you ran over someone with your car and it took twenty minutes for help to arrive, you had to be run over by a car and wait twenty minutes for medical treatment. Might cut down on that whole drunk driving thing.

    As a resident of the great state of Texas, I am familiar with the death penalty, and I am also familiar with the joke we call Trail by Jury. Your pool of bad guys here are guilty of their crimes, but lots of others who have been put to death have later been found to have not committed the crime they were executed for.

    There should be some separate class for people who commit murder on video tape or hang around to dance in the blood of their victims-and they should be shot on the spot.

    Where's Judge Dread when you need him?

  2. @Descartes - It's good to see you again. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

    My thinking has evolved a bit on this too. (Not about the strict eye for an eye - I am not perfect enough to live by that strict standard -but I mean views on the death penalty.) And I have come to the same conclusion that there should be two categories of guilt. While I don't believe there have been so many cases of innocent people being put to death (or that even THEIR lives as a whole didn't warrant them still being put to death, using an impossibly pure standard of moral values), I don't want to see that happen. And, as you say, out current system is pretty unreliable.

    Like you, I think there should be a category of killers (we are only speaking of murderers here) whose guilt is really not that disputable at all vs. those who are convicted only on circumstantial evidence, (which is sometimes a bit complicated for the average jury to understand anyway.) Best that those people be given life in any case.

    I have been on a couple of juries, not death cases, where the prosecutor in his closing statement always seemed to stress that the law did not require guilt beyond all doubt, but only guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - what a reasonable person would normally believe rather than having to be absolutely convinced. And it occurred to me at that time that even that high standard leaves cracks for innocent people to be convicted. But an "absolute" standard is not realistic, and so that's what we live with. But your point is well taken.

    My making this post was mostly to blow off steam rather than change anyone's mind. That is seldom done in blogs. My examples are people whose guilt is not disputed: Sirhan killed Kennedy in front of a zillion witnesses and was captured on the spot; Manson is more complicated, but the fact that he himself may not have actually killed people doesn't matter: when you influence the killing of someone, the law says you are also guilty of that murder; and the child killer happily and sadistically admitted his guilt. As for Lennon's killer, I don't think he was crazy at the time - not to the point where he was under an "irresistible impulse". I see him the same as the guy who shot Reagan - seeking to be seen as "somebody" instead of living a life of a loser. Maybe that's crazy, but since we know they are guilty, what do we need them for? First category, this guy.

    So much more to say on this subject, but I have already chased away my regular visitors who don't care to venture a viewpoint on something this serious.

  3. You both have some good points. I also do not think there are that many "innocent" people put to death. In the case of these soulless killers, why are they being kept alive? Because we are too scared to stand up and say put them to death, is it "politically" wrong? They should choke on cyanide, they should feel every jolt of electricity, in short, their victims had no chance to be left alive, why should they? It cost so much to keep them in prison awaiting appeals then to just get it over with and send to hell where they belong.

  4. I know that some innocent people have been put to death but normally that is because someone did not do their job properly. I agree with Relax Max that if a murderer or rapist's guilt is not disputed they should pay with their own life. Why must money be wasted on keeping them alive, they took a life and should pay with their life.

  5. Ettarose and Frostygirl, thank you. I know there is no real answer to this. And I do NOT want to execute except when we are absolutely sure. For example, Sirhan Sirhan's guilt is not disputable; even he has never denied what he did. The post, as I say, was mostly out of frustration. And I fully realize that the opposing point of view stems from the simple belief that society simply does not have the right to take a life, no matter what.

    So many things in life are so unfair.

  6. I agree with you on this one. These people are unquestionably guilty. Why should they get to sleep indoors and have 3 squares a day and TV when innocent children and adults are starving and sleeping in their cars (not that I think we should put them in jail so they won't be homeless - some have proposed that). But taxpayer money could be put to much better purpose than housing murderers. In the case of Manson, I tend to fall on the side of an "eye for an eye". Chase him around the yard with a bunch of knives and rip him apart.


  7. @Janet - I never thought about comparing them with the homeless who are often not getting any hot meals at all. A good comparison. The homeless (and many more) are much more deserving.



Related Posts with Thumbnails