By Lloyd Billingsley
Former Davis resident Daniel Marsh, 18, has moved to 14901 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710. That is the address of the California Institution for Men, where Marsh is now inmate AW081. Chino Prison, as it is also known, is a far cry from the Yolo County Juvenile Detention Center, where the Davis teenager resided as a “detainee” since being convicted of murder in 2014. Based on the brief experience of this writer, Marsh won’t like it much.
I visited the California Institution for Men in 1996 to interview inmates for a Heterodoxy magazine story on criminal violence, which some scholars, including Princeton’s John DiIulio, then saw as on the rise. As it turned out, the inmates wouldn’t talk to me, but I did learn a few things. In Chino Prison, everybody has to walk with their hands behind their back, at all times. Signs on the wall read NO WARNING SHOTS WILL BE FIRED, and everyone appears to take that seriously. No shots were fired when I was there.
Chino Prison dates from 1941 and includes four facilities with different levels of security. Facility D houses Level 1 inmates with a low security level, those least likely to misbehave. Facility C includes Level-II Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY) inmates, as the prison website explains, “many of whom are serving life sentences.” The California Department of Corrections website does not explain which facility Daniel Marsh will occupy, but in the California Institute for Men he can do more than sit in his cell.
The opportunities include High School/GED, Pre-Release, English as a Second Language, Literacy and Adult Basic Education, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Criminal Gang Anonymous, Celebrate Recovery, Veterans In Prison, Prison Fellowship Pre-release program, Center for the Empowerment of Families Fatherhood Group, Victim Offender Education Group, Toastmasters, Global Youth Connection, Alternative to Violence, California State University San Bernardino Visual Arts, and National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI).
The work programs include the PIA laundry, Juice Processing and packaging plant, Marine Technology Training Center deep sea diver training program, Janitorial services, Landscape design, automotive and Electronics repair. If he is willing, the 18-year-old can pick up a skill or two, and he has strong motive to do so.
For the murders of Oliver “Chip” Northup and Claudia Maupin, Daniel Marsh drew a sentence of 52 years to life. The enhancement for torture, though found true, added no time to his sentence, so the convicted murderer will be eligible for parole when he is 42 years old. At that time, the parole board will hear from relatives of the victims, so it remains uncertain if Daniel Marsh will walk free at that time.
On the other hand, it is certain that Daniel Marsh’s victims rest together in Davis Cemetery. And it is certain that Claudia Maupin, will not be able to reprise her stage performance as Esme in The Elephant’s Graveyard. She was 76 at the time of the murders. Chip Northup was 87 but still going strong with the Putah Creek Crawdads folk and bluegrass group.
Music fans might recall that in 1979, when he was 96 years old, pianist and songwriter Eubie Blake appeared on NBC’s Saturday Night Live and performed “Low Down Blues,” “I’m Just Full of Jazz,” and “I’m Just Wild About Harry,” with Gregory Hines. In similar style, Chip Northup could easily have performed well into his nineties. He might have delivered a final rendition of “I’ll Fly Away,” one of his favorites, or perhaps “Who Will Sing for Me?” It was not to be.
On April 14, 2013, Daniel Marsh murdered Chip Northup and Claudia Maupin. He killed, tortured and mutilated the couple because it gave him pleasure. A Yolo County Jury found him guilty and sane. That’s why Daniel Marsh is now inmate No. AW081 at the California Institute for Men in Chino. If he never gets out of there it won’t bother me.
Lloyd Billingsley writes for City Journal California and is the author of Exceptional Depravity: Dan Who Likes Dark and Double Murder in Davis, California.
I am offended by this piece. I understand freedom of expression and believe in it however the tone and flippancy disgust me. I wish I had realized earlier and not continued. Am back East so read it before Davis was awake.
I do not see anything wrong with this article. The evidence showed that “Dan of the Dark” derived a sadistic pleasure from the murders and I for one hope that he never sees the light of day outside of a state prison. If paroled he will be a ticking time bomb to do something like this again. I applaud the DA for proving torture as I hope that determination by the jury will help any parole board decide to deny parole. I do not believe that he can ever be rehabilitated to the point where it is safe to release him from prison.
” I do not believe that he can ever be rehabilitated to the point where it is safe to release him from prison.”
how do you know? he was 15 when he did this – people mature and change over time. i don’t think a psychiatrist who had studied him for years would be able to give as definitive an answer as you did.
Hi SODA
I was writing the following just as your post dropped in.
I am about to do something that I have never done before. I am going to write an apology to the readers of the Vanguard for the unintended consequences of a policy that I helped to form. There has been intermittent discussion about whether or not to post all submissions of articles that a meet a very basic standard of civility and do not include “hate language” or profanity. As a discussion space for community members, I felt it extremely important that we hear from the broadest range of voices possible. What I did not foresee is that any author would use this forum as a promotional venue for their own lurid and vengeful vendetta ( to say nothing of book sales).
Unless you care what prison inmate number Daniel Marsh has been assigned, or the configuration of buildings at the Chino prison or the work and educational opportunities there, there is no need to read this article. There is no other new information, just a rehash of Mr. Billngsley’s vile attempts to engage attention ( and more interest in the likely flagging sales of his book) by making up stories of a potential future taken from the victims and his lack of caring about Mr. Marsh both of which he has expounded upon previously in detail without shedding any light on the subject.
I apologize sincerely to anyone who sees this article as a tasteless rehash and a waste of Vanguard reader’s time.
I come down with you Tia – my thinking is generally to err on the side of submission and allow the readers to decide and argue against a particular viewpoint. I will have a response to this piece at some point to clarify my thoughts, but truly the views here do not represent the views of the Vanguard.
David
“my thinking is generally to err on the side of submission and allow the readers to decide and argue against a particular viewpoint.”
And that is an excellent and succinct way of stating why I still support our policy, even while loathing this particular “side effect”.
There is nothing vengeful or lurid in the article. Tia’s and other particular posters’ unflagging compassion for an unrepentant murderer, dismissal of the value of two murdered neighbours’ lives and slanderous expressions of dislike for someone shining a light into the dark side of Davis is far more vengeful than anything in Mr. Billingsley’s contribution.
;>)/
It could be argued that whatever the cause or motivation, murder is an insane act. For this person to be judged as sane, in any context sometimes suspends belief. But my feelings toward the person does not change. They have no redeeming value once they pass that threshold.
Many Vanguard Supporters are not of that mind. They think a bear in the forest can be reasoned with, even after the bear has eaten their children.
my view is not that we don’t need to punish people who murder, but rather that we don’t necessarily need to punish them for their entire lives. crime is remarkable age specific – people usually grow out of committing crimes. there are exceptions to that, but we punish to the exception rather than the rule.
here’s an example – a kid who committed a horrible rape and murder at age 14. by the time he was in his thirties he was literally a different person and has been released from custody (in texas no less and by all accounts has become a productive citizen –
https://davisvanguard.org/2013/01/meeting-face-to-face-with-daughters-killer/ )
All the people who take things (thieves) and take drugs are still doing it. Some of them have quit smoking, but remain firmly in possession of their bong. 🙂 They claim that is not smoking.
Miwok
How comfortable it must be to be so sure of your own righteousness that you feel it is up to you to make judgements of the worth of others. I know of no one who comes even close to your ludricrous position of thinking that a bear an be reasoned with. This is not to say that the bear is free to roam, but what is gained by torturing the bear even if it has eaten your children. Isn’t the most important thing to prevent it from eating someone else’s. Or is your sense of satisfaction and revenge what matters most to you ? If that is the case, then you are right and we would never agree.
Tia, you think everyone can be reasoned with, even the insane. I cannot understand that, and my comment about bears is that people act like animals at times, sometimes all the time.
But at what point do you pull the plug, after the pain and killing they do? They do not behave even after being sent to prison, as you know. I don’t want pedophiles in my local daycare, you seem to advocate for it.
I don’t have much of my life left to waste watching people who have little hope of accomplishing anything except more pain. I also do not want to spend the rest of my life enabling them to do it.
I guess asking you a question is meaningless, sorry to bother you. This article has had you on edge all day.
Tia, I apologize for my above post. I thought about it overnight and am really just offended by your post. If anyone does not agree with you, you respond by ridiculing and calling names.
Well done, you have called me ignorant and self-righteous, ludicrous and revengeful. So much for Vanguard Editorial Values, like respect.
Biddlin
“dismissal of the value of two murdered neighbours’ lives and slanderous expressions of dislike for someone shining a light into the dark side of Davis is far more vengeful than anything”
I am going to call you on this one. Please quote anything that I have ever written that was in anyway dismissive of the victims of this crime ? By all reports then were wonderful, delightful, engaged members of our community and I have written nothing ever to suggest otherwise.
As for “shining a light into the dark side of Davis”, please provide one quote from this article ( with the exceptions of the information regarding Chino which I already noted) that brings to attention any new information or provides any new information either about the victims or Mr. Marsh.
And “slander”, really ! How so ? If you are talking about my comments about book sales, I will draw your attention to Mr. Billingsley’s personal information attached to the bottom of the article. Lloyd Billingsley writes for City Journal California and is the author of Exceptional Depravity: Dan Who Likes Dark and Double Murder in Davis, California. While it is true that I do not know, I doubt that Mr. Billingsley is providing free copies of his book for research purposes. If he is, I humbly apologize for and retract that portion of my post.
I’m appalled to see this hidiious man’s name on the Vanguard. …and YES, an apology is needed.
Let him have all the freedom of speech, press on his own paper…this only muddy up the Vanguard, to put it mildly!
Just saying. ..
I found the host of opportunities for inmates interesting and useful, of course if I had cared to I could have found this info elsewhere. It is good to know that there are opportunities for self improvement in prison for those who care to make use of them. As far as I am concerned Daniel Marsh is mentally ill and unless that illness can be addressed effectively (and how does one measure that?) he must be prevented from access to anyone else he could hurt.
I do agree the article’s tone is utter disdain with a touch of almost sarcasm.
I don’t understand why revenge porn is appropriate for publication in the Vanguard.
Tia, Antoinette, et al.:I have tried to be tolerant of the blindly rabid boosterism that pervades every bit of your commentaries on Davis life. I am bemused by the religiosity that Antoinette wears like a flack vest, when challenged on her legal, grammatical or journalistic skills. I am angered and slightly nauseous to realize your gross insensitivity to neighbours’ suffering and deep concern for their savage murderer.
Tia, you show me where you have expressed any compassion for the victims?
Antoinette,”Let him have all the freedom of speech, press on his own paper…”
Execrable sentiment, for a would be journalist or whatever you call yourself this week.
This guy has done nothing “wrong,” other than write a book that some of you don’t like because it casts your town in a less than flattering light. (Perhaps forcing some of you to take a look at your “community values” ) I frequently find articles by local environmentalists and financial types quite erroneous and occasionally offensive. I don’t feign some slight or demand apologies.
If I were close to Chip and Claudia, though, I might feel the need to turn and walk the other way, if I saw some of you at the Nugget.
;>)/
Biddlin
I don’t have access to the effective search engine for quotes by individual poster. I know they are there, perhaps Don or David have time for your nonsense attacks. I will not waste any more time on your egregious comments about my lack of compassion while showing none yourself.
This is a well done piece and it is an interesting read. I agree with Biddlin above.
There is this weird reactionary twitch in some people that cast victims of actors that victimize while discounting or dismissing the damage done to true victims. It is weird. It is irrational. It is troubling.
I also think it is indicative of some cognitive dissonance. Once remedied a person should be able to incorporate a comprehensive perspective for the entirety of the situation… a rational assessment that weighs the overwhelming physical and emotional damage wrought by the crime with the ongoing physical and emotional pain of criminal punishment. Neither are happy considerations. But the writer didn’t have any hand in causing this. He is only a messenger.
i find it interesting reading the comments (more so than the article itself which basically tells us one thing we didn’t know – this young man is now at chino where he will likely be repeatedly victimized). for those who complain about it’s posting – i’m one of them – i asked david about it this morning and he says let billingsley hang on his own words (okay my phrasing). he really believes that this site should be a market place of ideas even when he 100% disagrees with those ideas.
“He killed, tortured and mutilated the couple because it gave him pleasure. A Yolo County Jury found him guilty and sane. That’s why Daniel Marsh is now inmate No. AW081 at the California Institute for Men in Chino.”
Anything in that statement that you disagree with, counselor?
;>)/
i’m not sure we know that he did the killing and mutilation because it gave him pleasure. i’m also not convinced that the jury was correct in finding him sane. but the issues i would be more interested in seeing raised revolve around juvenile culpability and the trauma he is likely to suffer as an undersized youth at chino. whereas the author himself seems to derive pleasure from the downfall of a 15 year old kid.
” whereas the author himself seems to derive pleasure from the downfall of a 15 year old kid.”
I see no evidence of that in what I’ve read here. He is, no doubt, astounded at the speed with which some of the community took up the cause of “poor Daniel,” with little more than,”they were nice folks” for the true victims.
;>)/
the community didn’t so much take up the cause of daniel as they were concerned about making sure that his rights were respected, agonized over whether the system could have prevented this, and questioned how a 15 year old should be treated. billingsley sees him as a monster based on conjecture and partial psychological analysis.
“i’m not sure we know that he did the killing and mutilation because it gave him pleasure”
Well, we have Daniel’s statements, on the record, to that effect, so I guess I’m convinced.
” but the issues i would be more interested in seeing raised revolve around juvenile culpability and the trauma he is likely to suffer as an undersized youth at chino.”
Please research and write the article, perhaps consulting Tia.
I will look forward to it. I despise the corrections system in California. The conduct of correctional officers and their complicity in prison crime is notorious. The unwillingness of the wardens and officers to adequately protect their charges is deplorable. Anyone else willing to house Danny at their place, under lock and key, 24/7/365, for $31K and change? Me either.
;>)/
“Well, we have Daniel’s statements, on the record, to that effect, so I guess I’m convinced.”
on the record means he testified – he didn’t. he made those statements after a lengthy interrogation and under duress.
“Anyone else willing to house Danny at their place, under lock and key, 24/7/365, for $31K and change?”
i wouldn’t have a problem with it – but i don’t think that’s the best alternative either.
Biddlin’
Ok, apparently we are not quite done. Especially now that Frankly has chimed in with his usual pseudo psychology. My reference about lurid and vindictive was not to this article. It was to his previous articles on this subject. Some samples for you to consider after considering the definition of lurid “presented in vividly shocking or sensational terms, especially giving explicit details of crimes or sexual matters.”
“in way that manifested exceptional depravity.” He tortured the victims, stabbed them more than 120 times and eviscerated the bodies. “
“he “stabbed the hell out of them” but “lost count” of how many times. “I cut open their torsos,” he also said, an inserted a cell phone and drinking glass to confuse the investigators.”
While I did not hear Mr. Billingsley speak in promotions of his book, I understand that the excerpts that I have quoted above are quite mild compared with what is in the book. There is no doubt that these are quotes from Mr. Marsh. The quotes were already available in multiple venues and Mr. Billingsley did nothing above and beyond to “shed light” on the dark side of Davis.
As for the idea of hypersensitivity that Frankly seems to trying to pass off, I doubt that you will find anyone less concerned about frank discussion and portrayal of the insides of the human body. I have been in many different bodies ( too many to count through the years, so none of this shocks me. But if any of you are trying to pretend that Mr. Billingsley’s intent was not to “shock” and therefore hopefully stir up more interest in the sale of his book, I think it is you who are fooling yourselves.
Also of note, what you think or I think is of much less importance to me than what the victims and the family members thought. For some direct quotes and some of their assessments of Mr. Billingsley, I refer you to the article with numerous quotes by a son of the victim posted on the Vanguard October of last year. If those closest to the victims can express compassion for this young man, who are the rest of us to judge.
Passing through Denver on way west and I stand by my first post.
I do not think This story has any value and my disgust has NOTHING to do with any lack of compassion for the victims and their families. It is tragic in every which way. I have compassion for all involved.
Why would you want to read the sarcastic and flippant way this article was written.?
Does your reading of it and the author’s writing of it increase anyone’s compassion or decrease any of the tragedy?
What exactly is sarcastic or flippant? “Based on the brief experience of this writer, Marsh won’t like it much.” doesn’t really rise to the level of sarcasm I find offensive. Artistically, I find it a bit dry, actually, but there is nothing flippant on this page except the lip serviced paid to “compassion for the victims.”
;>)/
I find it interesting that some of the vile comments made against the author have not been deleted. I thought it was Vanguard policy to respect guest authors as the Vanguard wants more people to submit and treating them badly will act as a deterrent. In fact some of the very people who have complained in the past about comments made about an author are now the very same ones doing the complaining. Personally I didn’t find anything all that over the top in this article that would rile people up. The article really didn’t add much and the author did some venting but it’s not like I haven’t seen this before on the Vanguard. I’ve seen far less belligerent comments made about articles and authors in the past that were deleted so why are these comments allowed to remain up today? Is it because the people now complaining are coming from a different political slant? Come on Vanguard, let’s be fair, you either have rules or you don’t. The same should apply to everyone.
I was thinking the same thing BP.
BP and Frankly
I believe that you are referencing my comments. I don’t know what you feel is “vile”. He made no secret of the fact that he was actively promoting his book here in Davis. I said that he was self promotional and probably trying to increase his book sales. Is that “vile” or only an accurate observation of which I do not happen to approve. You will note that I said nothing at all that is not demonstrable about Mr. Billingley. I made a number of comments about statements and actions of his that I find reprehensible. Please, just one quote where I said anything at all about him as a person given that I have never met the man.
So I will be happy to tell precisely what I find so distasteful about the activities of Mr. Billingsley. The way I see it, he has chosen to profit from a tremendous tragedy that struck our town. It wasn’t as though there was a dearth of information out there. The local and regional newspapers provided extensive coverage of the events surrounding the discovery, the time period before the arrest of Mr. Marsh, the pre trial, trial itself and post trial events. We were not lacking for information at all. What Mr. Billingsley chose to do in my opinion was to sensationalize this event for his own financial benefit. Whenever possible instead of careful analysis and reporting, who chose to belittle, and demean those experts and witnesses with whom he did not agree. Had he been doing this because of some kind of cover-up, or to raise money for future victims, I would still dislike his style, but an argument could be made for his good intent.
I have seen no indication that this is the case. Again, if I am wrong and he is donating his proceeds, I would be happy to reassess my position and make my retraction public. Until then, as far as I am concerned his actions are crass, self serving and opportunistic.
Don, if you feel that this crosses the line between uncivil commentary about a contributor as opposed to opposition to his actions, please feel free to edit as you will.
Tia Will, you stated:
I’ve seen comments deleted that were far far less aggressive than these about contributing authors.
Then we have Antoinnette:
Yet these comments were allowed to remain posted.
BP
Yes, I will own those quotes. I do not feel mine met the criteria for being pulled. And I am going to explain what I see as two critical differences, and why I do not see these very strongly worded comments as breeching the Vanguard principles.
1. The comments are demonstrably true. By publishing again at a time of trauma for both Mr. Marsh and his family, and what is likely a re opening of trauma for the families of the victims to present minimal new, and according to Dr. Canning erroneous “information” and attaching a reference to his authorship of a book on the topic is to me a fairly clear attempt to exploit this very sad situation. hpierce made a good point that the title of the article may not have been specified by the author, but the personal information most assuredly was thus removing the argument that maybe that was just the Vanguard.
2. I made no comment whatsoever about the character of the man, whom I have never met. I called him no names.He may be a lovely individual who has made a series of regrettable errors in judgement for all I know. I cannot judge that which I do not know. My comment “just a rehash” certainly stands. I even pointed out the the new material that he had included, which by the way according to the expert was 3/4 wrong. As for the word “vengeful” with regard to his writings, Mr. Billingsley has made no secret that he does not mind the thought of harm inflicted upon Mr. Marsh specifically because of Mr. Marsh’s actions. Bear in mind the definition of vengence “retribution for an injury or wrong”. Based on his writings, does anyone doubt that Mr. Billingsley has promoted this concept in this case ? Vengeful was not used as a slur, it is what Mr. Billingsley has advocated.
I do not speak for Antoinette. I do speak for myself . Criticism of ideas and actions is not the same as criticism of the person. It would seem that there are some here who cannot differentiate the two when it is the position that they hold that is under attack. I will stand by the principles of the Vanguard. Don does a real service to us by being willing to moderate. There is a venue for expressing opinions to the contrary and that is directly through Don and/or David.
[moderator]I am not going to pull or edit any comments at this point, but would like everyone to please take a moment to read the Vanguard Comments Policy:
https://davisvanguard.org/about-us/comment-policy/
Please be respectful of each other and of the guest authors, and keep your comments to the topic of the article.
As a former member of the Vanguard Editorial Board, I have found the discussion of this article interesting to say the least. For me the tone of the article was somewhat problematic, but it never reached a point where I thought it deserved to be pulled.
I’ve always seen the Vanguard as a dialogue space, and my personal rhetorical style is to ask questions that promote the dialogue in that space, sometimes by throwing out into the discussion a concept/approach that I believe is worth considering, but is not my personal choice as the optimal approach. In the end, more often than note, a consensus comes from the dialogue, although in some cases the only option is to agree to disagree.
Bottom-line, since I chose to step away from the Editorial Board, I can read the content of Lloyd Billingsley’s article and hope that the psychiatrists are extremely thorough in their treatment and assessment of Daniel Marsh over (at a minimum) the next 52 years.
I think this article and the responses illustrates a gap in reasoning that is reflective of much that divides us. That gap is projected victim mentality.
From Wikipedia…
“In the most general sense, a victim is anyone who experiences injury, loss, or misfortune as a result of some event or series of events.[1] This experience, however, is insufficient for the emergence of a sense of victimhood. It has been suggested that individuals define themselves as a victim if they believe that:
they were harmed;
they were not responsible for the occurrence of the harmful act;
they were under no obligation to prevent the harm;
the harm constituted an injustice in that it violated their rights (if inflicted by a person) and/or in that they possessed qualities, strength or goodness of character) making them persons whom that harm did not befit they deserve sympathy.”
The projected victim mentality for Daniel Marsh is:
– He comes from a broken and dysfunctional family
– He has psychiatric problems
– His punishment was too harsh given these things and his age
In consideration of these beliefs, It is easy to see how this article would cause such a strong reaction. Seeing phrases like “new digs” is just like rubbing salt in their wounds of concern for Mr. Marsh.
However, if you don’t believe that Marsh was a victim, and believe harsh punishment was justified, it would be satisfying to read that he will face hardship for his crimes. And a little insensitivity would be acceptable… especially given the heinous nature of his crimes.
These differences might be considered acceptable. Except for the fact that many of the same people that hold Marsh as a victim would demand that someone else shouting hate speech be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
So, then we understand that the projected victim mentality is really just a strong biased individual emotional response. I would hate to develop VG policy around strong biased individual emotional responses. That would be a mess
” He has psychiatric problems”
that’s legitimate mitigating factor at worst and a potential game changer in terms of insanity defense. the jury rejected that defense, but that doesn’t eliminate it as a legitimate point.
“His punishment was too harsh given these things and his age”
that’s also a legitimate point. the age factor comes with brain development and there’s a lot of research on there.
i know you have this thing about victimization, but i do think you need to distinguish between legitimate mitigating factors and illegitimate ones if you’re analysis is to carry any weight.
The problem here is that this was not an ordinary under-developed kid making a bad decision. This was premeditated for a number of weeks or months. This is/was an older kid that was near enough to adult age that it was clear that he knew what he was doing was henious and a crime that could be punishable by death.
So your arguments don’t make the case you want them to make.
I can accept that a young man with Daniel Marsh’s circumstances would act out… maybe vandalize something or do something to get attention… but it is rediculous, given the facts of this case, to assign so much victim status to him given what he actually did.
I trust a jury that heard all the testimony and wrestled with the enormity of the decision to put him away for most of his adult life.
The ‘title’, “New Digs for…” is certainly dismissive… had it been titled “Marsh transferred from CYA to Chino”, I’d not take an issue with it. The listing of the address, is a cute touch. Guess I should do the same for Topete.
Who wrote the title? Billingsley? At least he didn’t use the article to advertise a book-signing event at Avid Reader. Yet.
1. Billingsley got his CDCR number wrong: it is AW0819
2. He doesn’t understand why Mr. Marsh was sent to CIM. It’s a reception center where he will not be held for more than 60-90 days. He won’t be able to participate in vocational programs or other programs that Mr. Billingsley lists. RC inmates are processed and then transported to other prisons.
3. When he leaves Chino sometime in the next few months he will probably be transported to one of CDCR’s High Security prisons because of the crime and sentence he has. He will be in “close custody” for a number of years and will probably remain in a high security prison for about ten years. He may have the opportunity for a job in the prison but it depends on a variety of issues.
4. When he does go to the Board of Parole Hearings for the first time he will be more than sixty years old. His risk of violent reoffending will probably be close to zero.
Those of you who think you can predict what he will be like in ten, twenty, or thirty years are fooling yourselves.
And one can have compassion for both the Northrup’s plight, AND for Daniel Marsh, who committed a heinous crime.
And for an “informational” article – he sure did get a lot of his facts wrong.
good points robert. one correction, the maximum sentence that marsh could have as a juvenile is 25 years, so that’s when his parole eligibility comes up. so that point, billingsley got right.
He had 25 for each, right? Maybe they are running concurrently rather than consecutively. Thanks for the correction.
obert – Judge Reed ruled that under the California constitution the maximum they could sentence him was 25 years before he was eligible for parole.
Miwok
“Tia, you think everyone can be reasoned with, even the insane.”
I have a different perspective on why we cannot have a conversation here. It is not about the futility of asking me a question. You haven’t bothered to do that in a true, inquisitive fashion. It is about the futility of telling me what I think, when what I think is quite the opposite of what you post.
I have no delusions about the ability to reason with the insane. If you want to make a case for that please provide the quote that leads you to that belief. As a matter of fact, having worked a number of ER’s, my guess is I have had much more experience working with the insane than most posters here with the exception of the psychologists.
Who amongst you has stood in the ER with a schizophrenic’s hands around your neck, or talked a paranoid schizophrenic into putting the knife that she was wielding down on the table next to you, or watched helplessly as the more advanced members of your team tried desperately and unsuccessfully to save the life of the 10 year old whose mother had believed that she was saving him from a demon as she stabbed him to death ? If you have not had these experiences all three of which I have had, then please do not tell me who I do and do not believe that I can reason with.
I do not believe that even the most heinous of acts, as this certainly was, preclude the perpetrator from compassion. Reasoning and compassion are not the same. Attempting to reason with the insane would be very costly. Compassion costs us nothing and deepens and enriches our own humanity. Compassion is not about the object, it is about the humanity of the individual who opens their heart to experience it. From everything that I have read about these two wonderful people, Chip and Claudia, I believe them to have shared this philosophy.
The article has negligible value. The somewhat gloating tone I don’t like. I don’t know why the vanguard would publish this drivel, but it does generate clicks. An editor or editors of respected publications don’t just publish whatever is submitted as it is submitted.
Mr. Marsh’s behavior was such that I don’t think he should ever be released. However, I do have compassion for him and hope he is able to adapt to prison life.