Is 53 Years... Enough? He Was 24 -- When "Put Away" For What Was Supposed To Be A Death Sentence...

And should it matter, that his victim was so. . . prominent? He killed the likely next President of the United States.

Thus, there is a sensible argument that his crime changed the course of US history -- if not world history. Imagine if Bobby Kennedy, and a stronger form of liberalism, more generally, had taken the White House from Nixon.

The mind could boggle -- would we have exited Vietnam by mid-1969? Would civil rights have advanced at a much quicker pace? Would there ever have been room, in serious politics, for an ex-actor from "Bedtime for Bonzo" / Ronnie Reagan (if there had been no weak handed Carter, in the White House)? [There might never have been room for Arnold as a Governor in California, if not for Reagan.]

And that in turn strongly suggests there almost certainly would never have been room for (or appetite for) a. . . Tangerine.

And maybe -- just maybe -- the first Black President would have been. . . a woman (when Barack was still in law school).

All of that said -- I am convinced that Sirhan Sirhan shouldn't be held to any greater account for that change in geo-politics, here half a century later -- than any other cold blooded murderer. And he is eligible for parole, under California's long-since changed laws.

Laws that speak of rehabilitation, and re-entry into society. In sum, to my eye, he is closer to a child-murderer -- and it counts for. . . something, that he committed this assassination when he was a very young, deluded radical. At 78, we all may agree that he presents almost zero chance of re-offending, as his last prison infraction was in 1972. So -- should he be able to die as a free man, without the state paying for his food, clothing and increasing health care needs? I think so. What do you think? Tell me in comments, as we watch Ida. . . arrive.

नमस्ते