Orenthal James “OJ” Simpson, the Hall of Fame NFL running back who was once lauded for his speed and ability to escape defenders on the field is now equally as recognizable for his ability to escape lengthy prison sentences.

On Thursday, a Nevada Parole Board unanimously voted 4-0 in favor of granting OJ Simpson an early release on his 33-year sentence for a bizarre incident that took place in a Las Vegas hotel in 2007. Simpson, along with other armed men, attempted to reclaim sports memorabilia items that he claimed were stolen from him. Simpson was convicted of armed robbery, attempted kidnapping, and assault in 2008 and is set to be released as early as October 1.

But Simpson is far more notorious for his involvement in what was known as “the trial of the century. ” He was accused and eventually acquitted of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in Nicole’s home in Brentwood, California in June of 1994.

Tony Corda, one of the parole commissioners on the hearing, cited as his reasoning that Simpson was at “low risk to re-offend” and the board felt that he had served enough time based on his criminal actions as well as his good behavior in prison.

During his hearing Simpson expressed remorse for his actions, saying: “I am sorry the things turned out the way they did…I had no intention to commit a crime.” But Simpson also expressed that he felt that he had served his time and that he deserved to become a free man.

So what are the legal ramifications for Simpson’s parole? His parole will likely be set to expire on September 29, 2022. Based on Nevada law he must submit written reports to his parole officer every month, and he will be subjected to random drug and alcohol screenings. If he violates the terms of his parole in any way he can be sent back to prison.

He did indicate to the parole board during his hearing that if granted parole he wished to return to his home state of Florida, saying: “I can easily stay in Nevada, but I don’t think you guys want me here,”

Whether this request will be granted or not depends on a couple of factors. Florida has to first confirm that Simpson is eligible to complete parole in the state, and he needs to have an approved place to live. The home that he bought in Miami in 2000 was foreclosed upon in 2012, so that seems like an unlikely destination for now.

But money shouldn’t be a big problem for Simpson, despite the fact that he is still responsible for paying damages from a multi-million dollar lawsuit to Ron Goldman’s family. He is still receiving his NFL pension. Based on his time in the NFL, ESPN estimated that OJ could have made up to $600,000 while in prison.

Simpson had managed to live a relatively media-free life since his conviction, but after the release of two enormously successful television series based on his life, he has been thrust back into the pop culture news scene. So when word broke that Simpson will be getting out of prison, social media exploded:

OJ Granted Parole! @RealDonaldTrump, You got a position for OJ in your Administration. This Murderer is gonna need a job! #OJSimpsonParole pic.twitter.com/7nF6si1Izx

— stacey roberts (@1sroberts) July 20, 2017

OJ Simpson has been granted parole. As awful as it is, the board had to follow the law + not consider past behavior he wasn’t convicted for

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) July 20, 2017

POLL: Should OJ Simpson be granted parole? 888-788-9910 #ToddStarnesShow #OJSimpsonParole

— toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) July 20, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post OJ Will Be Free: Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

O.J. Simpson received renewed attention over the past year, thanks to the miniseries “American Crime Story: The People v. O.J. Simpson” and the Oscar winning documentary “O.J.: Made In America.” And now it seems like things are good for the former NFL star and accused murderer; TMZ reports that many reality TV producers are scrambling to sign him if he is released early from prison in October. According to TMZ, some production companies reacted with disgust to the suggestion, while some were pretty eager to capitalize on Simpson’s fame.

Simpson is currently behind bars for armed robbery and kidnapping, which he was convicted of in 2008. He was supposed to serve 33 years, but he is now scheduled for a parole hearing in July that could lead to an early release. Simpson is not new to the reality show sphere; apart from starring in some movies and TV shows, he also participated in an early prank show called “Juiced.”

The talk about a new reality show is only speculative for the moment, and it is far from certain that he will be released in October, but the reports have already created some mixed feelings on social media.

@TMZ @vibe ESPECIALLY IF HE’S BEHIND YOU BUYING SOME GLOVES

— Morris Corley (@avenger2000es50) March 10, 2017

@HOT97 WTF i just woke up what is going on here

— Princyboy (@princyboy71) March 10, 2017

@CNN just let him out. Who really cares, #Trump is President, and the @Cubs won the @WorldSeries. The end of the world is clearly near.

— The Politcal Pulse (@Politicalpulse1) March 8, 2017

A reality show with Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson called “Killin It”

— Ryan Broems (@ryanbroems) March 2, 2017

Simpson also wrote a memoir, called “If I Did It,” which bizarrely went through how he would have killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, if he had been the perpetrator. The book was ghostwritten by writer Pablo Fenjves and according to reviews, it read like a confession. Simpson also took part in a TV special for Fox, but it never aired. According to TMZ, the TV episode featured Simpson reading a passage from the book in which he seemed to confess to the murders. Public outcry led to Fox killing the show.

This would probably also be the problem if a new production featuring Simpson became reality–even if someone produced it, there’s the risk that broadcast and cable networks would refuse to air it and it could be hard to find advertisers. But given that these reports appear to be for real, you can never say never when it comes to reality tv.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Would You Watch an O.J. Simpson Reality Show? appeared first on Law Street.

Every year starting in 2006, the Justice Department has announced that the aging prison population is one of its “top management challenges.” Major newspapers cover the issue, discussing the build up and consequences of this phenomenon. The ACLU and Human Rights Watch produce detailed reports on the topic. Many advocacy groups campaign for the release of elderly prisoners, and even prominent “tough-on-crime” politicians became concerned about rising healthcare costs in the prison system.

It has become common knowledge that the elderly are the fastest growing population in America’s prison system. Read on to learn about the magnitude of the problem, as well as reasons for, solutions to, and ramifications of the aging prisoner population in America.

How many elderly people are in prison now?

The number of men and women age 55 years and older has grown dramatically, from roughly 32,600 in 1995 to about 124,400 in 2010. That’s an increase of 282 percent in comparison with a 42.1 percent increase in the total prison population during the same years. In 2000, elderly inmates accounted for only three percent of the total prison population. In just ten years, their numbers increased by five percent. Now they account for approximately 16 percent of the total prison population.

It’s projected that the aging prison population may increase by 4,400 percent if you consider numbers from 1981 to 2030.  With this forecast, by 2030 prisoners 55 years and older will approach one third of the total prison population.

Across the states, the proportion of prisoners 55 years and older range from 4.2 percent to 9.9 percent. The highest rate is found in Oregon, and the lowest in Connecticut. In southern states, the elderly prisoner population increased by 145 percent just during the ten-year period from 1997 to 2007.

The majority of America’s elderly prisoners are male; elderly females constitute only six percent of all aging prisoners. In addition, 42 percent of aging prisoners are white, 33 percent are black, and around 15 percent are Hispanic.

Not surprisingly, older prisoners comprise the largest share of all prison deaths. From 2001 to 2007, 8,486 elderly inmates died in prison. The number of deaths increased 11.8 percent, from 33.9 percent in 2001 to 45.7 percent in 2007.

Those numbers are likely to increase as inmates continue to age and newly admitted middle-aged prisoners transition to older age.

Why are so many elderly people in prison?

Opinions differ on this matter, with some people pointing fingers at the “tough-on-crime” policies of the American government, while others cite the overall aging of the American population and those who commit crimes. Most likely, it’s all of the above.

Starting in the mid-1970s, the United States government enacted laws that allowed for longer sentences and restricted early releases. Among the most notorious policies were the mandatory minimum sentences, the “three strikes” laws, and the elimination of federal parole. The majority of now-elderly inmates entered the system at a much younger age and stayed there for decades, primarily due to the laws that mandated minimum sentences even for non-violent crimes. For example, 65 percent of aging prisoners in Texas are there for non-violent offenses, including drug-related and property crimes. In North Carolina, 26 percent of elderly inmates are habitual offenders, sentenced mostly for drug crimes, while 14 percent are sentenced for fraud, larceny, burglary, breaking and entering, and even traffic and public order violations. “Three strikes” laws for repeat offenders, truth-in-sentencing conditions, and technical parole revocations are all cited as contributing factors to the increase in the aging prison population in America. As a result, from 1986 to 1995, the number of prisoners serving 20 years or more tripled.

In addition, the number of prisoners who are serving life sentences has increased dramatically, including those with no possibility of release. It’s estimated that between 1984 and 2008, the number of life sentences increased about four times, from 34,000 to 140,610. Some of the prisoners can be eligible for parole in around 25 years depending on the jurisdiction, but only a small fraction of those will actually be released.

The increasing age of the prison population in America can be also attributed to the increased age at which offenders are entering prison. In recent years, people in their thirties and forties are getting arrested and sentenced to prison at higher rates. One study suggests that the driving force behind it is the growth in re-arrests of those who use drugs and have already spent some time behind bars.

How is the country affected by aging prisoners?

The most profound effect of the aging prison population is probably seen in the increased costs of housing and care for elderly inmates. Older prisoners are two to three times more expensive than younger offenders. It costs around $24,000 a year to house a young prisoner, but the expenses for an aging prisoner can be up to $72,000 per year. The reason for the jump, not surprisingly, is medical costs. As people grow older, they naturally have more health issues than their younger counterparts. Older prisoners with significant medical needs have to be housed in specific facilities that most prisons don’t have, or, if they do, cost them a fortune to maintain. Thus, prisons for aging populations increasingly resemble nursing homes more than correctional facilities.

Inmates are not eligible for federal health insurance programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, but by law are required to receive medical treatment. State and federal prisons cover all the costs. No matter whose responsibility it is to maintain prisons, taxpayers are the ones who pay for it. And as an aging prison population increases, healthcare costs will require more of the taxpayers’ money.

Watch the video below to understand the magnitude of the aging prison population problem.

What can be done to address the issue?

Investing in Prison Medical Care

Inmates are aging faster than the general population. Their physiological age is seven to ten years older than their chronological age. That means that if an inmate is 55 years old, he may have the medical needs of a 65-year-old person on the outside. The reasons for this phenomenon are lack of access to health services prior to incarceration, poor diet and exercise habits, and drug and alcohol abuse. At the same time, stress, lack of a support system, and depression while in prison add to the odds of faster aging.

No matter how you look at it, if we choose to keep elderly inmates in prison, we will have to provide adequate medical care and conditions, including appropriate housing and training for the staff. As of 2005, only 20 states had special housing for geriatric prisoners. Providing that the occupancy rate of these facilities may vary from 13 to 100 beds, it’s not nearly enough to care for all those who cannot get out of bed without assistance.

Releasing Elderly Inmates

Many state prisons have compassionate release and medical parole programs, but they are rarely used and often exclude violent or sex offenders. It can be granted for those inmates who have significant health problems, and those who are no longer considered a danger to society. Prisoners 55 years and older are often those who serve longer sentences for drug, violent, or sex crimes, meaning few of them will ever be eligible for early release.

In 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged the issue of the aging prison population when he announced a new compassionate early release program for elderly inmates who pose no danger to the community and served more than half of their sentences. Since 1992, only 381 inmates were released under this condition in New York state. Other states have even lower rates of compassionate release.

The process of medical parole or compassionate release is a lengthy and sometimes difficult one for elderly inmates, as it may take many years and require demanding paperwork and evaluation. Release Aging People in Prison (RAPP) is one of many organizations that advocate for the rights of aging inmates and help them to go through the application and evaluation process. The group supports early release programs for elderly New York state inmates, claiming that these individuals pose no threat to society and served considerable time behind the bars.

Watch the video below to learn more about current efforts to release elderly inmates.

Outsourcing to Nursing Homes

Some states are considering public-private partnerships with nursing homes as they can reduce costs by transferring elderly inmates to more age-appropriate facilities. In 2010, California passed Penal Code 6267, which allowed a variation of medical parole for certain inmates. Those who need 24-hour care and are no longer a danger to society can be sent to private nursing homes. They will be assigned a parole agent for this time, but should be returned to prison if and when their condition improves; however, many have conditions that are terminal.

Scrapping “Tough-on-Crime” Laws

Those who worry about the aging population suggest relaxing current “tough-on-crime” laws, including mandatory sentencing and habitual offender laws. As a result of these laws, violent and non-violent offenders alike are aging in prisons, even though some of them have potential for rehabilitation and pose no threat to the public. Lessening terms of incarceration and using other methods of punishment instead can reduce the overall aging of the prison population.

Arguments For Releasing Older Prisoners

Low Risk to Society 

The advocates for release argue that elderly and ill prisoners pose no threat to society, as most of them are physically incapacitated and mentally impaired. Prison experts agree that only a very small portion of older inmates come back to prison facilities, including those who are still in a good health. The reason for it is age itself, as older people generally commit fewer crimes and are less likely to relapse after serving time in prison. In fact, the number of people 55 years and older who enter the prison system for the first time is relatively low (3.5 percent) and declining.

Recent studies conducted in Florida and Colorado reveal that an older age at release–50 years and older–is the most important predictor of lower recidivism rates. At the same time, many now-older prisoners were sentenced for non-violent offenses. If they have never committed violent crimes in the first place, there is a very low risk of them committing violent offenses when they are old or sick.

Medical release is for geriatric inmates–those who have considerable health issues, are bound to a wheelchair or bed, and are generally incapacitated. The argument is centered on the notion that even if such prisoners wanted to go on a crime spree, they wouldn’t be able to pull it off due to health and mental problems.

The Right Thing To Do

Another supporting argument for releasing elderly inmates is that it’s simply the right thing to do. According to this argument, elderly prisoners with serious medical issues, who were incarcerated for non-violent crimes and served a significant part of their sentences, should be shown some mercy. In this view, age and sickness should be considerations for release, and, at this point, continuing imprisonment is viewed as cruel and inhumane punishment.

What are the arguments against releasing older prisoners?

It Wouldn’t Be Fair

The argument against releasing elderly and sick inmates is centered on the belief that punishment should be carried out to its fullest. It’s understandable, as some older prisoners have committed violent crimes, and therefore deserve to be punished. The supporters of this approach often refer to the victims’ rights. Not only do victims deserve justice through punishment of offenders, but also this punishment shouldn’t be conditioned on age or health. In this view, the costs of crime are believed to be much higher than those of housing and caring for older prisoners. As society pays for keeping criminals locked up, it also pays for medical treatment and counseling for crime victims, replacement of stolen items, and other expenses associated with crime. Even though victims advocates don’t oppose early releases for sick and non-violent offenders, many politicians employ this argument in the discussion of aging prison population.

What if they commit more crimes?

Another reason why elderly prisoners are not being released is fear of bad publicity coupled with unwillingness to take responsibility in parole decisions. If even one of the elderly prisoners who was released as a result of a state’s parole decision committed a violent crime, state officials could be denounced or blamed for it. Most of the parole board members are not corrections professionals but rather political appointees who often want to appear as protectors of public order.

Watch the video below to learn more about the most common arguments against releasing elderly inmates.

What will happen to elderly prisoners after release?

Some prisoners could go back to their families, while others could be released to nursing homes or assisted-living facilities; however, private nursing homes can be expensive, and, as elderly inmates have no assets, they can be placed in only government-approved facilities. Even in this case, most of these nursing homes don’t want to accept formerly incarcerated individuals, especially if they served time for sex crimes. At the same time, those nursing homes that are willing to take elderly inmates in may not have beds available, resulting in prolonged waiting periods.

Conclusion

The aging prison population has increased dramatically and will continue to grow at an even more rapid pace. Multiple reasons contribute to the aging population of prisoners, including “tough-on-crime” sentencing policies, increase in age of offenders, and the general aging of the American population. Inmates are also more likely to age quickly due to prior lifestyle and prison conditions. All in all, some correctional facilities have become reminiscent of nursing homes with bars. Even as opinions differ on how to resolve the issue of aging prison population, policymakers should provide solutions soon, as further failure to act can result in negative ramifications for the American economy and society at large.

 Sources

Primary

State of California Legislative Analyst’s Office: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade

North Carolina Department of Correction Division of Prisons: Aging Inmate Population Study

Additional

Nation Inside: RAPP (Release Aging People in Prison)

Human Rights Watch: Old Behind Bars. The Aging Prison Population in the United States.

ACLU: At America’s Expense: The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly

Al Jazeera: Old Age in the Big House

Correctional Association of New York: Compassion vs. Safety: Should Aging/Ill Prisoners Be Released?

FAMM: What are Mandatory Minimums?

Graying Prisoners: States Face Challenges of an Aging Inmate Population

National Real Estate Investor: Aging Prison Population Calls for Nursing Care Partnerships

The New York Times: Graying Prisoners

Psychology Today: Aging Prisoners. The prison system is a Cemetery of Hope

Stateville Speaks Blog – Loyola University Chicago: The Elderly in Prison and Recidivism

Wall Street Journal: New Research Challenges Assumptions About Aging Prison Population

USA Today: Aging Prisoners’ Costs Put Systems Nationwide in a Bind

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aging Inmates: A Prison Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Early last week the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that for the first time since 1980 the federal prison population in the United States has dropped. In the last year alone, the federal prison population decreased by roughly 4,800. With new counts projecting the number of federal inmates to continue to fall by just over 2,000 in the next 12 months and by nearly 10,000 the year after, I ask the questions how, why, and what effect will this change have?

Over the past few years the Justice Department has revealed that crime rates have been dropping. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder aimed to change policies to reflect the belief that increasing the number of people behind bars does nothing to improve public safety. An example of such policies includes The Smarter Sentencing Act — which essentially seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for defendants found guilty of first-time drug offenses — and the more recent Clemency Act, which seeks to release offenders from prison who were unfairly sentenced by mandatory sentencing guidelines. Holder has worked in the last year to reduce a prison population he says is costly and bloated. He was not wrong: in 2014 the country spent approximately $60 billion to incarcerate offenders.

Even as someone who has completed a masters in criminal justice, including a core required course in statistical management (which let’s be honest, was as horrific as it sounds), I still struggle to understand the relevance of the numbers the media is throwing at us. I agree that it is a real achievement that fewer people are being sentenced to time in prison, but I really want society to understand why it is such an achievement, and what this really means.

The decrease in prison population is certainly an incredible start to the potential success of community supervision and its benefits. The one thing these articles fail to point out is just how much further we have to go to protect us as a society, and those who enter into the system. You may be thinking at this point that I am out of my mind for considering the safety and well being of convicted offenders; however, the majority of individuals arrested and convicted are non-violent drug offenders. What the article praising the decrease in the prison population failed to acknowledge is that although certain convicted offenders will not be sentenced to prison, the conditions of their sentence lived in society carry a higher risk of future incarceration than if they were placed behind bars in the first place.

Just because these individuals are not physically locked behind bars does not mean they are not locked behind the transparent bars of social isolation. Rates of unemployment, difficulty securing housing, and loss of family are just some of the hurdles most of these individuals  contend with. Why? Because they have been stigmatized by society with their criminal label. Virtually everyone on community supervision is at risk of being detained or incarcerated upon failure to comply with the conditions of supervision. Would you be able to follow a list of conditions if you felt like no one supported you? In order to support alternatives to incarceration, we really need to welcome the culture of supervision and understand the positives it can bring us. Not only will we be spending less money on the safekeeping of these individuals, but intervention and supervision can be accurately given to each offender to prevent re-offenses, interrupt the cycle of crime in families, and shake up the social disorganization within communities.

Regardless of whether you believe crime is a choice, crime is inherited, or crime is learned, the solid facts are that crime happens. By locking individuals up without any guidance, or even attempting to work on understanding the cause, the likelihood of reoffending is just as high if not worse than it was before that person was put in jail. Legislators clearly have been able to understand the reality that sending people to prison does nothing for public safety, so now it is time they invest money into supervision agencies to aid offenders in the right way. In order for this to happen, well-trained staff, evidence-based programs, and support from others is essential.

It is essential we maintain a safe environment for everyone in our communities. The notable decrease in the overall American incarceration and crime rates is something that hasn’t happened in more than 40 years. This hopefully marks the start of a revolutionary change for the U.S. criminal justice system.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Viewminder via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Incarceration Figures Drop, But Community Support is Essential to Public Safety appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Just the other day I was standing in line at local grocery store, waiting patiently for the people in front of me to finish purchasing their groceries, when I glanced over to the magazine rack and was startled by the image on one of the covers. People Magazine is best known for its celebrity trash, something I’ve outgrown for the most part, but the cover was something I would never have expected. It was a full on, black-and-white picture that took up most of the space and the face looked so familiar but I couldn’t remember who it was until I saw the tagline: “Chilling New Details, Murdered By Manson.” The black-and-white photograph was of a beautiful Sharon Tate,and it turns out this is the 45-year anniversary of the slayings. Sadly, on the left side of her gorgeous picture was a hideous picture of Charles Manson and to the right the usual celebrity gossip photos. Way to bring tragedy and gossip together, People!

Most of us are too young to recall or even know about the Manson Family murders, but it was a subject that had always intrigued me since I saw an interview with Charles Manson and Barbara Walters in the early 90s.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with these iconic slayings, here is a quick run down of the events. On August 8 and 9, 1969 at the command of Charles Manson, a small group of his followers brutally murder five people at the Benedict Canyon home of director Roman Polanski. The victims were actress Sharon Tate (Polanski’s pregnant wife), coffee heiress Abigail Folger, celebrity hairstylist Jay Sebring, writer Wojciech Frykowski, and Steven Parent, who was a friend of the family’s gardener. These murders were committed by Manson followers Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, and Patricia Krenwinkel, with Linda Kasabian accompanying them as lookout. Unsatisfied with the murders, Manson and his group — this time including Leslie van Houten and Steve “Clem” Grogan — went out in search of more victims. On August 9 and 10, 1969, the group murdered supermarket executive Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary.

Eventually all of the murderers were caught and convicted. In 1971 Manson, Krenwinkel, Atkins, and Van Houten received the death penalty, and Charles “Tex” Watson was found guilty of the murders of seven people and sentenced to death. In 1972, the state of California abolished the death penalty and all sentences were converted to life imprisonment; however, the state reestablished the death penalty five years later, only reverting 68 of the original 107 sentences back to the death penalty.
The Manson Family murderers were not among those whose sentences were reverted to the death penalty, and they have all been eligible for parole at some point. April 12, 2012 marked the twelfth time Charles Manson was up for parole, as well as the twelfth time it was denied. Just last month one of his associates, Bruce Davis, who murdered the owner of the ranch the Manson Family was living on as well as a stuntman, was denied parole by the Governor of California despite his third recommendation for release by the parole board.

It’s a scary thought that these people are still alive and going through the processes of even being considered for release on parole and it bothers me. I am a true Texan, I believe in the death penalty. Sometimes it’s a joke how much Texans love our death penalty, but I think that sometimes the world needs to be rid of evil. Manson is the epitome of evil. I have to wonder what California was thinking when it selected those 68 people to be put back on death row in 1977 and decided to exclude Manson and his followers? Wouldn’t the most heinous of people be at the top of your list?

Forty-five years ago people lived in fear because of the Manson Family, but most of us seem to have either forgotten about it or never knew about it in the first place. Every now and then some news outlet has to remind us all of a moment in time that knocked the socks off of the entire country. When I picked up the People Magazine to read the startling new details of this 45-year-old case I was curious to see what new information had been brought to light. Unsurprisingly, People lied. There was no new information, it was a puff piece in which someone interviewed Sharon Tate’s sister and she gave her recollection of that day and then promoted a new book that is all photographs of the late actress.

I may be disappointed about the article in People and will not encourage anyone to waste five dollars buying it, but it is an interesting way to remind everyone that there are horrible people out there in the world doing unthinkable things to innocent people.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 45 Years Later, a Reflection on the Manson Family Murders appeared first on Law Street.