PDA

View Full Version : Schwarzenegger To Decide Parole for RFK's Killer! Uh-Oh!


Mother_Marjorie
Mar 14th, 2006, 09:46 PM
RFK's killer eligible for parole
Kennedy connection poses conflict for Schwarzenegger

Tuesday, March 14, 2006; Posted: 1:57 p.m. EST (18:57 GMT)


Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's connection to the Kennedys could conflict with Sirhan Sirhan's parole.

FRESNO, California (AP) -- Robert F. Kennedy's killer is eligible for parole this week, and the decision could ultimately rest with Arnold Schwarzenegger, a potential conflict for the governor because he is married to the victim's niece.

Sirhan Sirhan shot Kennedy on June 5, 1968, minutes after the New York senator claimed victory in the California presidential primary election.

His parole hearing on Wednesday, the 13th since his conviction and first since Schwarzenegger's election in 2003, will be heard by two board members, one of whom was appointed by the current governor.

If the board recommends his release -- an unlikely scenario, experts say -- the decision of whether to free Sirhan would fall to Schwarzenegger, setting up an unusual dilemma.

The governor's press office declined to comment this week, saying it is highly unlikely the decision would fall to Schwarzenegger.

Kennedy's assassination shocked a nation already reeling from the violent deaths of Martin Luther King Jr. and President John F. Kennedy, the senator's brother.

The Kennedys' sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, is the mother of Schwarzenegger's wife, TV journalist Maria Shriver.

Schwarzenegger and Shriver are occasional visitors to the Massachusetts home of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, RFK's youngest brother.

As recently as last year, the California governor participated in a benefit for the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial by reprising his role in "The Terminator" and recording a voicemail greeting saying "Hasta la vista baby" for the winning bidder of an online auction.

Wednesday's hearing will not be the first time Sirhan's fate could be influenced by a member of the Kennedy family. At Sirhan's May 1969 sentencing, Edward Kennedy wrote to the LA District Attorney asking for Sirhan's life to be spared.

"He would not have wanted his death to be a cause for the taking of another life," he wrote. "If the kind of man my brother was is pertinent, we believe it should be weighed in the balance on the side of compassion, mercy and God's gift of life itself."

In spite of Kennedy's request, Sirhan got a death sentence, which was commuted to life in prison in 1972, when the California State Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional.

SelesFan70
Mar 14th, 2006, 09:51 PM
There may be a conflict of interest for Arnold, but there's no doubt to Sirhan's guilt. Kill him and get it over with. Send him to the Milosovic prison. :tape:

Helen Lawson
Mar 14th, 2006, 09:52 PM
Only in California do cold-blooded murderers come up for parol all the time! :o

Wigglytuff
Mar 14th, 2006, 09:59 PM
if this man is paroled it would be pure evil...

Barrie_Dude
Mar 15th, 2006, 04:29 AM
As I recall, Charles Manson is also imprisoned in California and is routinely denied parole! I think this case will follow suit

Lord Nelson
Mar 15th, 2006, 12:58 PM
The people who tried to kill Reagan and Ford are also still behind bars. With Ford if I am correct both attempts on his life were done by members of Manson's cult. So Sirhan Sirhan will not be paroled. The only person who thinks that this may happen is the one who started this thread and who clearly likes to twist the truth since Arnie will most probably not have to decide the case as the article itself states.

Mother_Marjorie
Mar 15th, 2006, 01:02 PM
The only person who thinks that this may happen is the one who started this thread

How presumptuous. I never stated that or ever thought that.

Supermonica
Mar 15th, 2006, 07:21 PM
There may be a conflict of interest for Arnold, but there's no doubt to Sirhan's guilt. Kill him and get it over with. Send him to the Milosovic prison. :tape:


To keep someone in prison for more than 37 years is almost as inhumane as the death penalty. Justice Iran-style ....

meyerpl
Mar 15th, 2006, 07:49 PM
To keep someone in prison for more than 37 years is almost as inhumane as the death penalty. Justice Iran-style ....
So......would you release Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and other serial killers after a certain amount of time in the interest of humanity?

Barrie_Dude
Mar 15th, 2006, 07:51 PM
To keep someone in prison for more than 37 years is almost as inhumane as the death penalty. Justice Iran-style ....And how do you describe what these people did to their victims? I don't recall any of these people being concerned about humanity then! Or am I wrong? :shrug:

Supermonica
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:14 PM
So......would you release Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and other serial killers after a certain amount of time in the interest of humanity?


Sirhan was no serial killer.
And yes, everybody should have at least the chance to be free some day again. 35 years is enough in EVERY case, IMO.

Supermonica
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:16 PM
And how do you describe what these people did to their victims? I don't recall any of these people being concerned about humanity then! Or am I wrong? :shrug:


You think the state should apply the same moral standards as those killers?
Interesting idea.
But not my idea of law and order ....

Helen Lawson
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:18 PM
Sirhan was no serial killer.
And yes, everybody should have at least the chance to be free some day again. 35 years is enough in EVERY case, IMO.

It was premeditated, planned murder in cold blood. RFK doesn't get a second chance after 35 years. Anyway, he has free health care and gets three meals a day, something a lot of Americans don't get.

Martian KC
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:20 PM
I'm surprised he's still alive. I would surely kill myself if I was in jail for 37 years.

Supermonica
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:21 PM
It was premeditated, planned murder in cold blood. RFK doesn't get a second chance after 35 years. ...

Then rapists should be raped, thieves should get their hands cut off ....

Helen Lawson
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:23 PM
Then rapists should be raped, thieves should get their hands cut off ....

No, dear, that's flawed. I didn't say Siran should be executed, but rather in some cases of murder, 35 years doesn't seem long enough for what they did.

meyerpl
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:28 PM
Sirhan was no serial killer.
And yes, everybody should have at least the chance to be free some day again. 35 years is enough in EVERY case, IMO.
I applaud your humanity, I really do. My experiences, which include working in five different prisons, have led me to different conclusions. I am absolutely convinced that some criminals are truly pathological and to ever release them would pose an unreasonable risk to the community. Also, that incarceration for any length of time does not necessarily have to be, nor should it be, inhumane.

Supermonica
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:29 PM
No, dear, that's flawed. I didn't say Siran should be executed, but rather in some cases of murder, 35 years doesn't seem long enough for what they did.

In "some" cases of murder?
Why this distinction?
In ALL cases of murder the victim doesn't get a second chance ....

Supermonica
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:31 PM
I applaud your humanity, I really do. My experiences, which include working in five different prisons, have led me to different conclusions. I am absolutely convinced that some criminals are truly pathological and to ever release them would pose an unreasonable risk to the community. Also, that incarceration for any length of time does not necessarily have to be, nor should it be, inhumane.


I never ever heard of someone who was 30 years in prison for murder, was set free and committed another murder.

Helen Lawson
Mar 15th, 2006, 08:41 PM
In "some" cases of murder?
Why this distinction?
In ALL cases of murder the victim doesn't get a second chance ....

It's not just the victim not getting another chance. A lot of people just lose their temper and do it or are on drugs or drunk, while others coldly plan for months and do it. I think most people realize the difference.

meyerpl
Mar 15th, 2006, 09:09 PM
I never ever heard of someone who was 30 years in prison for murder, was set free and committed another murder.
It happens but it's rare. In fact, murderers have a very low recidivism rate compared with other criminals. It's not as simple as it looks on the surface though. In cases where murderers get a "second chance", it's usually a person who commits a single offense and is otherwise generally non-criminal. In cases where criminals are guilty of multiple homicides, they usually never see the streets again. In cases where a murderer is truly pathological and is released on parole, they are usually reincarcerated for offenses or parole violations short of murder. To a large extent, your statement reflects well on the criminal justice system in terms of assessing a murderer's risk to the community at the time of sentencing, again when he's eligible for parole, and yet again after he's released on parole.