So if you get a "Life Without Parole" sentence in California, why is it that you still get a parole hearing? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "without parole"? If that's the case, isn't that just wasting time and taxpayer dollars?
Charles Manson is up for parole again. Of course, no one expects him to actually GET paroled, but if there's literally no chance, let's not waste time and money shall we? California is in some serious debt and they could use the cost savings wherever they can get them. Leave murderers in jail without parole hearings like we were all told at sentencing.
Regardless of if Charles Manson got "life" or "life without parole", I don't think there really should be a difference. You get "life", you stay in jail until the day you die. If you do a crime where the criminal could theoretically get out at some point, give them 30 years or whatever time deemed appropriate by a judge.
Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com
No comments:
Post a Comment