Man who Killed 10 People is Free- Should Mass Killers be Eligible for Parole?

truthatallcost said:

You took a selfie posing with a cigarette....which proves what exactly?

Let's examine some actual facts, instead of hunches;

- Christopher Thomas asked for parole 5 times since 2009. No, he's not scared to be out of prison, nor clambering to get back in.

- He was being held in a state prison, not a city jail. He wasn't released 'so the city don't have to pay for him no more'. His parole is based upon the fact that the judge ordered all his sentences to run concurrently, and he only had to serve 50% of that time in order to become eligible for a parole hearing.

- New York was NOT known as a state that tolerated thuggish crap, until the the left wing do-gooders took power. Ever heard of Sing Sing? It's where men like Thomas were sent to meet their maker, before New York became too soft on crime. Read the autobiography of Willie Sutton, he'll set you straight.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, he's going to wind up either figuring out a way to get back into prison, or he'll be in a halfway house somewhere and he'll probably die from heart disease or some other crap, because he's a nearly seventy year old institutionalized ex-con. I doubt he'll make it past 75 at the latest.

And this is more about feeding your fantasies fueled by prison movies and some baseless deep seated belief that New York coddles murderers than it is about anything else.

Did you get mugged while visiting Radio City Music Hall or something?
Hey, I'm sorry if something bad happened to you while you were a tourist in the Big Apple.
Hope that makes you feel better.

Ever hear of Sing Sing...do me a favor please, go watch some gangster movies, okay?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

They're not Latinos in America, they're citizens of Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, and if you are growing up in most parts of those countries, you don't often have much choice unless your family is wealthy and powerful.
A kid on the streets of Managua, San Miguel or Tegulchigalpa will be recruited, and if they refuse, they usually wind up dead.

The absolute stupidity of this entire discussion is making my head spin.
You're handwringing about California evicting its judges, over a case that happened in New York, and pretending that kids in Central America only came here because the gangs are better, or something, or I don't know what the **** you're on about.

Gangs exact a price in BLOOD down in Central America, that's the reality. The gangs today exist because the cartel armies created them. The cartel armies exist because there wasn't anymore work for the Contras, who were mercenaries.

You can pretend to be ignorant of the facts but it doesn't make the facts go away. History matters.
These people are refugees.

And the crime rate in New York is at a historical low right now.

Click to expand...

The predominant gangs in most of the countries you mentioned were started in the United States. They spread to Latin America when we deported criminal immigrants who were members of those gangs. I know where you're going with this, and it doesn't have any legs at this point.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

It doesn't matter, he's going to wind up either figuring out a way to get back into prison, or he'll be in a halfway house somewhere and he'll probably die from heart disease or some other crap, because he's a nearly seventy year old institutionalized ex-con. I doubt he'll make it past 75 at the latest.

And this is more about feeding your fantasies fueled by prison movies and some baseless deep seated belief that New York coddles murderers than it is about anything else.

Did you get mugged while visiting Radio City Music Hall or something?
Hey, I'm sorry if something bad happened to you while you were a tourist in the Big Apple.
Hope that makes you feel better.

Ever hear of Sing Sing...do me a favor please, go watch some gangster movies, okay?

Click to expand...

Lol, whatever. Conversing with you is impossible, because you're wrong about so much while not having the good sense or grace to know it.

upsideguy said:

He was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. Your issue is not with his release, but with the original conviction of 1985. He has served 32+ years. A 68-year old man is not a threat to society. Sorry that your thirst for blood was not satisfied with this one.

Click to expand...

Jurors found Thomas guilty of 10 counts of intentional murder but reduced their findings to manslaughter because of ''extreme emotional disturbance.'' They said later that testimony about his cocaine abuse had convinced them he was disturbed at the time of the slayings on April 15, 1984.

'Palm Sunday Massacre' Triggerman Could Be Out in 50 Years

Meanwhile, do you realize that Anders Behring Breivik, the Norway mass shooter that killed 77 teenagers in 2012 was convicted of mass murder and sentenced to 21 years? Norway has no where near the crime problem of the US. There is an argument to be made that many of our prison sentences in the US are too long such that they create "professional" or career criminals, thus are counter productive tot he real interests of society.

Norwegians Relieved After Anders Breivik's Sentencing | TIME.com

Click to expand...

Wait...are you saying you agree with giving Breivik such a short sentence?

He murdered ten people, such a vile act.

Some information on the little girl that survived. Very heartwarming.

The sole survivor of the murders was only 13 months old. One of the first Police Officers who arrived on the scene, (Joanne Jaffe, who would later become the Police Department’s highest-ranking female chief), became the girl’s benefactor, then a surrogate parent and eventually adopted her.

The officer was assigned to the toddler through the night, taking her to the hospital and then watching over her at a police station in East New York. Since that day, the officer has never really let go.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/...rivera-and-joanne-jaffe-tell-their-story.html

Click to expand...

Serenity said:

He murdered ten people, such a vile act.

Some information on the little girl that survived. Very heartwarming.

The sole survivor of the murders was only 13 months old. One of the first Police Officers who arrived on the scene, (Joanne Jaffe, who would later become the Police Department’s highest-ranking female chief), became the girl’s benefactor, then a surrogate parent and eventually adopted her.

Click to expand...

You found the diamond in the rough here, Ms Jaffe is a great example of how police officers can do good things. She deserves some kind of award for resolutely finding a way to make a positive difference in all of this. I wish more people were open to reading about this story.

DiAnna said:

Dumped into a cruel world, no medical care or health insurance at an age when most of us break down, no way to feed himself, or find a place to live. Yeah, it kinda sounds like a cost-saving measure for the state to me, not a kindness to a mass killer.

Click to expand...

Certainly not a kindness to his next victims if he decides he needs to go back either.

truthatallcost said:

He was actually eligible for parole after serving 25 years, according to this article from '85-

Thomas would be eligible for parole after 25 years. ''It is this court's intention that you serve every day, every hour and every minute of the minimum sentence I impose on you,'' said Aiello.


'''Don't let him out.' That is my message to the New York State Parole Board,'' said Aiello, adding ''Your judgment day today is on earth. Your next judgment day will be with the good Lord. Today is a piece of cake, Mr. Thomas, compared to your final judgment day.''

'Palm Sunday Massacre' Triggerman Could Be Out in 50 Years

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's from the article I linked. Eligible for parole in 25 years is absurd. Taking ten lives and then having one is unacceptable.

truthatallcost said:

As far as liberalism infecting the NY justice system, why was his cocaine use allowed to be considered as a factor for charging him with lesser crimes, or as a way to achieve a reduced sentence? There's no way that would have happened when NY was tough on crime. Furthermore, the death penalty was a viable option in 1985 New York, and who's more deserving than a man who murdered 8 children? Yet it was never on the table. Capital punishment was abolished in New York state in 2004.

Click to expand...

A consideration of his cocaine use seems to fit nicely within the 1980s context of the "war on drugs" and "just say no" campaigns of Reagan conservatives. Understanding the drugged out mind was not simply a matter of liberalism "infecting" New York's proud and autocratic justice system. And when was New York ever "tough" on crime? Since Rudy Giuliani is given credit for cleaning up New York throughout the 1990s, I don't see where "hard on crime" was a lost feature in the 1980s. It was a crap city well before that decade.

You people toss that word around so whimsically anymore that it has lost meaning.

Liberalism: A political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

So, it is thanks to liberalism that he even had a trial, whereas conservatism breeds reactionaries who always push traditionalist thought into a place where they insist that things go back to "the way they were." Without liberalism, due process would be tossed out and he would have just been beheaded without trial. And like I stated, it was also Reagan conservatives who pushed to fight drugs through understanding. But again, I don't see where you are seeing a dastardly liberal hand behind this issue. You just seem to only wish to irrationally rail against liberals. A person with "truthatallcost" as a name should probably not work so hard inventing a truth.

truthatallcost said:

Jurors found Thomas guilty of 10 counts of intentional murder but reduced their findings to manslaughter because of ''extreme emotional disturbance.'' They said later that testimony about his cocaine abuse had convinced them he was disturbed at the time of the slayings on April 15, 1984.

'Palm Sunday Massacre' Triggerman Could Be Out in 50 Years

Wait...are you saying you agree with giving Breivik such a short sentence?

Click to expand...

Again, your issue is with the verdict.... not with his being released. He was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. Again, a 68 year old man is not likely a threat.

I bring up the Breivik verdict not so much that I agree with it, but merely pointing out an alternative way of thinking about this. I do believe the American justice system is too much about vengeance and not enough about justice. Again, this guy is not likely a threat to society. What is the point of him being in prison? The outrage seems to be coming from people that have nothing to do with this case. You have no horse in this race, yet you have outrage. Why is that?

With rare exception, its not really in our best interest to have someone locked up at 80 for something he did at 19. Norway (and most of western Europe) have no where near the problem with violent crime that we have in the US, yet you will find the sentences for such offences much shorter than their US counterparts. That certainly seems worth pondering.

upsideguy said:

Again, your issue is with the verdict.... not with his being released. He was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. Again, a 68 year old man is not likely a threat.

Click to expand...

In most cases, I'd agree with you. But Christopher Thomas has a history of violence. It's irresponsible to society to release a 10x killer, under the assumption that older people aren't likely to commit violence. Here's a small sampling of cases that also weren't very likely, yet occurred nonetheless:

Stephen Paddock- 65 years old, killed 59 people.

Bruce McArthur- 66 years old, suspected of killing at least 7 in Canada.

Dorothy Puente, 82. Killed 9-16 people when she was in her 60's.

More importantly, the issue is whether 34 years of incarceration is a fair price to pay for killing 10 people. He ended up serving just a little over 3 years per life he snuffed out. Is that fair?

I bring up the Breivik verdict not so much that I agree with it, but merely pointing out an alternative way of thinking about this. With rare exception, its not really in our best interest to have someone locked up at 80 for something he did at 19. Norway (and most of western Europe) have no where near the problem with violent crime that we have in the US, yet you will find the sentences for such offences much shorter than their US counterparts. That certainly seems worth pondering.

Click to expand...

Norway's low crime figures have less to do with lenient criminal sentences, and more to do with the overall wellbeing of the country as a whole. I could list 5-10 reasons that are more significant than sentencing guidelines.

I do believe the American justice system is too much about vengeance and not enough about justice. Again, this guy is not likely a threat to society. What is the point of him being in prison? The outrage seems to be coming from people that have nothing to do with this case. You have no horse in this race, yet you have outrage. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Have you bothered to look at where the poll stands? 10-2 in favor of my position.

truthatallcost said:

I'm dumbstruck that a person can kill 10 people and receive parole in this country. Thomas' sentence came at a time when ultra liberalism infiltrated the justice system in states like New York, and especially California. We're still seeing the fallout from that period now.

Click to expand...

Mass murderers should be executed.

jamesrage said:

Mass murderers should be executed.

Click to expand...

Candidate and President Trump disqualified the NY Court and prosecutors
who reversed the convictions of the Central Park 5, as well as DOJ, FBI, and the
Federal judiciary from being involved in such irreversible punishment determination.

All "rigged" according to Him, including the voting. You cannot have it both ways!

post said:

Surprising Trump did not do a pontificating Ad buy on this one, too.:

Click to expand...

Really? You have it that bad that you just had to put Trump into this? Sad.

truthatallcost said:

Lol, whatever. Conversing with you is impossible, because you're wrong about so much while not having the good sense or grace to know it.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, he's not.

holbritter said:

Really? You have it that bad that you just had to put Trump into this? Sad.

Click to expand...

If not for the entirely avoidable body count and misery inflicted on the rest as the intended result of reactionary fervor, I am sure they could be "very good people".

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/08/magazine/the-expanding-empire-of-donald-trump.html?pagewanted=all
| 1984
THE EXPANDING EMPIRE OF DONALD TRUMP
By WILLIAM E. GEIST

...His next appointment is with Philip Johnson and John Burgee, the eminent architects. 'These guys are hot,' Mr. Trump declares as he breezes into their office. Models are brought in of Mr. Trump's next - can it be! - proposed building, a 60-story castle, Trump Castle, six cylinders of varying heights with gold-leafed, coned and crenelated tops to be built at 60th Street and Madison Avenue. There is to be a moat and a drawbridge. 'My idea,' says Mr. Johnson with a mischievous grin. 'Very Trumpish.'....
'Trump is mad and wonderful,' says Mr. Johnson. The 77-year-old architect proclaimed the castle his 'most exciting project' ever. 'Other developers come in with sober faces, carrying their market-research studies on what the public will like.'

The combination of Mr. Johnson, who is leading the architectural charge out of the era of glassbox moderism with such unusual buildings as the 'Chippendale'-topped A.T.&T. building, and Donald Trump, who is excited about putting up the most distinctive buildings imaginable, seems positively dangerous. One can almost imagine this: 'Phil, I'd like to build a 135-story cheeseburger on Park Avenue.' 'Lettuce and tomato on that, Don?'

With castles on the drawing boards, the first tenants are moving into Mr. Trump's $125 million Trump Plaza...

A Builder Who Trumps His Peers - Page 3 - tribunedigital-chicagotribune
A Builder Who Trumps His Peers
February 09, 1987|By Christopher Boyd.
....
Trump has toyed with some wild architectural ideas. Trump Castle was one. The fanciful 60-story project, designed for Manhattan`s Upper East Side, would have been configured in six cylinders, each embellished with turrets, spires and battlements. The Castle, which didn`t survive the drafting table, would have been encased by a moat and connected to the city by a guarded drawbridge. Philip Johnson, the lauded 80-year-old architect, designed Trump Castle and called it his ``most exciting project ever.`` Trump, he said, is impulsive, decisive and occasionally capricious; a man who mixes intuition with unflappable confidence.

``He`s a swashbuckler, so fast with an idea that it`s hard to keep up with him,`` Johnson said. ``It`s true that I`ve also called him a liar. He will do things like call the 14th floor of Trump Tower the 26th floor just to sell apartments. But really, it`s just good marketing. Donald Trump is like P.T. Barnum: He understands hype. He is a master showman with a good eye.``

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

...No; and a person convicted of a extreme violent crime or a crime that involved a firearm at all should lose his/her Second Amendment Right for life.

truthatallcost said:

I'm dumbstruck that a person can kill 10 people and receive parole in this country. Thomas' sentence came at a time when ultra liberalism infiltrated the justice system in states like New York, and especially California. We're still seeing the fallout from that period now.

Click to expand...

Look at the bright side: he can't own a gun. That means he's perfectly safe.

post said:

If not for the entirely avoidable body count and misery inflicted on the rest as the intended result of reactionary fervor, I am sure they could be "very good people".

Click to expand...

Uhm, yeah. Whatever you say.

MSgt said:

Yeah, that's from the article I linked. Eligible for parole in 25 years is absurd. Taking ten lives and then having one is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

We agree on that part. Hearty hand clasp.

A consideration of his cocaine use seems to fit nicely within the 1980s context of the "war on drugs" and "just say no" campaigns of Reagan conservatives. Understanding the drugged out mind was not simply a matter of liberalism "infecting" New York's proud and autocratic justice system. And when was New York ever "tough" on crime? Since Rudy Giuliani is given credit for cleaning up New York throughout the 1990s, I don't see where "hard on crime" was a lost feature in the 1980s. It was a crap city well before that decade. You people toss that word around so whimsically anymore that it has lost meaning.

Click to expand...

Listen, every special circumstance defense comes from people who are soft on crime, and politically liberal. That's not even debatable, unless you want to split hairs, and pretend like the obvious isn't so obvious.

Giuliani was tough on crime, but he was mayor of NYC from 1994-2001. During his time as US Attorney for S District of NY, he definitely had no say over what sentence a Supreme Court Justice might mete out to a killer, or whether cocaine use could be used as a way of securing a light sentence for a heinous crime.

So, it is thanks to liberalism that he even had a trial, whereas conservatism breeds reactionaries who always push traditionalist thought into a place where they insist that things go back to "the way they were." Without liberalism, due process would be tossed out and he would have just been beheaded without trial.

Click to expand...

That's your own unrealistic fantasies talking. Conservatives here have mostly been in favor of a life sentence, or capital punishment, AFTER a trial and guilty verdict had been obtained.

And like I stated, it was also Reagan conservatives who pushed to fight drugs through understanding. But again, I don't see where you are seeing a dastardly liberal hand behind this issue. You just seem to only wish to irrationally rail against liberals. A person with "truthatallcost" as a name should probably not work so hard inventing a truth.

Click to expand...

I can supply more cases where absurd liberal nonsense pervaded the criminal justice system during that time period, if you'd like. How about the 'Cultural Defense', whereby guilty parties were virtually let off the hook because they came from non-American cultural backgrounds, and therefore weren't held up to the same standards as Americans?

Immigrant gets probation for killing wife

Justice Edward Pincus of Brooklyn cited cultural differences in ordering five years' probation for Dong Lu Chen, 51, who the judge convicted of manslaughter following a non-jury trial.

Chen was charged in the September 1987 death of his wife, Jian Wan, 40, who was hit in the head with a hammer at least eight times after she admitted she had a lover, according to trial testimony.

'Marriage is a sacred institution in China,' said Chen's lawyer, Stewart Orden. 'When there is this kind of situation, the attendant shame and humiliation is magnified a thousandfold.'

Pincus, in ordering probation, cited the 'cultural aspects, the effect of his wife's behavior on someone who is essentially born in China, raised in China and took all his Chinese culture with him to the United States.'

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1989/03/31/Immigrant-gets-probation-for-killing-wife/6456607323600/

It's too bad Mr Chen wasn't also high on cocaine when he'd bludgeoned his wife. That would have been enough for the liberal idiot judge to spare him even having to do probation.

truthatallcost said:

In most cases, I'd agree with you. But Christopher Thomas has a history of violence. It's irresponsible to society to release a 10x killer, under the assumption that older people aren't likely to commit violence. Here's a small sampling of cases that also weren't very likely, yet occurred nonetheless:

Stephen Paddock- 65 years old, killed 59 people.

Bruce McArthur- 66 years old, suspected of killing at least 7 in Canada.

Dorothy Puente, 82. Killed 9-16 people when she was in her 60's.

More importantly, the issue is whether 34 years of incarceration is a fair price to pay for killing 10 people. He ended up serving just a little over 3 years per life he snuffed out. Is that fair?



Norway's low crime figures have less to do with lenient criminal sentences, and more to do with the overall wellbeing of the country as a whole. I could list 5-10 reasons that are more significant than sentencing guidelines.



Have you bothered to look at where the poll stands? 10-2 in favor of my position.

Click to expand...

Managing to exceptions is rarely good policy. Anecdotes are only arguments where there is an "all" or "none" proposition, which this is not. It is rare for someone over 65 to be involved in a violent crime.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251884/murder-offenders-in-the-us-by-age/

The recidivism rate for violent crime among those convicted of murder is very low (15%), although the overall recidivism rate (any crime) is a bit higher (52%),

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

the latter might be explained by the institutionalization of the convict (see Shawshank Redemption).

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

I get that most Americans like to lock people up for a long time (as you pointed out that I was "outvoted"). Right and wrong is not typically held to popular vote. The fact the Americans like to lock people up AND lock them up for a long time doesn't make it right. Our per capita prison population is the highest in the world. Our crime rates do not prove that such strategy works. In fact, they suggest we are doing something very wrong. I offered up the Norway example as something to think about. After all, I am the pragmatic idealist.

Again, you keep arguing they should not have released this guy. Well, he is guilty of manslaughter, not murder. He is entitled to the sentence and rights commensurate with the crime. You can not "re-try" him in you mind because you don't like the 1985 verdict. This is a 1985 matter that you want to revisit in 2018. Not fair.