FRONTERA, Calif. (AP) - Former Manson disciple Leslie Van Houten pleaded for her freedom Friday, telling the state parole board she will always bear the sorrow of the cult murders that landed her in prison 33 years ago. “My heart aches and there seems to be no way to convey the amount of pain I caused,” the 52-year-old Van Houten said. “I don’t know what else to say.”
Charles Manson, his chief lieutenant Charles “Tex” Watson, and three women - Van Houten, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkle - were convicted and sentenced to death for their roles in the 1969 murders of actress Sharon Tate, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca and four others. The sentences were later commuted to life when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty in the 1970s. Van Houten was 19 when she participated in the stabbing deaths of the LaBiancas in their home. She was not present the night before when Tate and the others were slain at the actress’ Beverly Hills mansion. Van Houten said she stabbed Rosemary La Bianca 14 to 16 times.
“Each day I wake up, I know why I’m waking up where I am,” she said. “The hardest part about my contribution to the murders is I know there’s no restitution, there’s no making it right.” During the parole hearing, Van Houten said she has tried to live a worthwhile life in prison. And if she gets out, she said, “I look forward to living quietly and to help take care of my mother.”
—Hmmm . . . Wonder what she means by “taking care of” her mother . . . So, what do you all think? Should she get out of jail?
Well, I read a story in yesterdays Las Vegas Review Journal about this and I’ll recount what I can from the story. (The paper went out in todays trash or I’d quote it directly)
The story reported, IIRC, that a judge involved in the case was very critical of the parole board. The reason for the critism was that, A)Leslie Van Houten has completed all of the prescribed thearapy etc with flying colors B) has been a model inmate and C) shrinks have found her not to be a threat to anyone. The story also meantioned that she was young and impressionable at the time (Charlie was good at corrupting people) and did not actually commit the murders. The judge basically said that the parole board denied her parole due to the nature of the crime and not on her behavior-rehablitation while in prison.
If the story, or my memory of it, is correct I see no reason to keep her in jail until she dies.
FWIW, I usually believe that if you kill someone you should rot in jail forever.
Always hovering in the background on this matter, or anything to do with the Manson Clan is this old chestnut - “It’s one thing for justice to be done, but it’s just as important for justice to be SEEN to be done…” - and it seems to me that such a mindset is often adopted on anything to do with Manson. Rightly or Wrongly, but that’s how it seems to me.
I think that as long as Manson is alive, none of those people will get paroled.
Fair? Maybe not, but “visible justice” as mentioned above is very important.
I am pretty conservative, and I am favor of the use of a death penalty in certain cases. But I believe that they can let Leslie Van Houghten out of prison now. She’s done 33 years for stabbing a dead body and havng the friends. She was 19 and loaded, for Christ’s sake.
I know I have greatly simplified things here, but the fact remains that she was probably overcharged, and convicted because of the outrageous nature of the crime, not to mention the outrageous nature of Manson himself.
If not for the Supreme Court’s meddling Van Houten would have been dead of asphyxiation in the gas chamber long ago. The fact (if it’s a fact) that she stabbed Rosemary LaBianca only after she was dead in no way reduces her responsibility for the death. She took part in a conspiracy to commit murder. She was nineteen, not a child, and she knew when she went to the LaBianca home what had transpired the night before and what she would be expected to participate in. She should have been executed.
Her crocodile tears don’t impress me. No more the “rehabilitation” that is alleged to have taken place. Because of a flaw in the law she was not made to suffer the punishment of death. Let her suffer the punishment of life in prison for as long as Rosemary LaBianca remains dead. Redemption, if any such thing exists, is for another world.
Just call me DesertDraco. That’s how I feel about it.
DG, how do you know that she isn’t genuinely remorseful? The question of whether she is paroled or not aside, what insight do you have that her remorse is not genuine? I certainly am not capable of telepathy, and I don’t think you are either.
Once can believe that she is remorseful, reformed and no longer a threat to anyone without believing that she should be paroled, I would think. It seems to me that the arguments against paroling her, given her eligibility, amount to “There shouldn’t be such a thing as parole” and “People never, ever change.” The former might be defensible, but the latter certainly is not.
I hate this arguement the most. It sounds so much like my teenage kid saying “But Joe’s parents let him stay out until 2 a.m.”
I don’t really care if other people have served less time. Just because punishment was cut short in other cases is no justification to cut it short in this case!
We’re not talking about a “heat of passion” killing here, or even a killing that resulted while committing another crime. We’re talking about planned, calculated, cold blooded murder!
She should have died a miserable death herself, caughing and wheezing in the gas chamber!
And I don’t care how “good” of a prisoner she is! It’s ones behavior on the outside that counts, and her behavior while free was the ultimate violation against another human ther is: she stole somes life! Let her rot!
You’re right, pld, I don’t know whether or not her remorse is genuine. I’m afraid I tend toward the melodramatic, and the phrase “crocodile tears” was probably the wrong choice of words.
That’s exactly the way I feel about it. There should be no parole on a murder. The only reason Van Houten is even here to protest her changed character is that the USSC outlawed the death penalty briefly, causing her sentence to be commuted, and once the Court reversed itself, the sentence couldn’t be re-commuted.
I appreciate your sentiment, but in the end, Van Houten is serving a punishment for the crime of murder. Rehabilitation is all very well, and Van Houten may be a better person than she was, but she committed murder. That crime has the most terrible finality. Van Houten with her cohorts deprived Rosemary and Leno LaBianca of the rest of their lives. And the perpetrators should forfeit as much. That can’t happen under the system the way it is, but something at least approaching justice may be served if the killer stays in prison. To parole Van Houten is to say to the family of her victims that her life is worth more than those of their loved ones. It is not.
It was inevitable, I suppose, that pro- and anti-death penalty advocates would line up on opposite sides here. Even though the death penalty argument is moot in this case, those who favor the death penalty want the commuted sentence to be as near as possible. It should be final. Death is.
Yes, she is serving a punishment for the crime of murder. Her punishment was life with the possibility of parole. This means that the parole board must honestly look at the nature of her crime, her efforts at rehabilitation, her prison record and determine the chances of her reoffending. The factors they are not supposed to be considering are political pressure and the infamous name Charles Manson. It is illegal for them to automatically deny her parole.
I agree that the sentence was commuted with the possibility of parole, so from a purely legal standpoint you are right. But legality and justice seem seldom to coincide in our system. It is still my opinion that, in murder cases at the very least, the punishment should be as final as the crime. If it were up to me, parole boards would be disbanded and judges would decide on paroles…of non-violent offenders only. Guess from your point of view it’s a good thing it’s not up to me. You’d probably be right there, too.
I can only say that in my 3 short months working in a state prison, I’ve seen quite a few examples of egregious murderous behavior in excess of Leslie’s (apparent) actions dealt with far less severely. This is not to say I automatically feel she merits release for this; serious bad behavior merits serious consequences, and if society deems it merits life in prison so be it. But some consistancy in how we treat our murderers would be nice.
On a side note, in my state it costs over $25K to house a prisoner in a maximum security setting each year. Are we as a society prepared to bear that cost to punish someone in whom the majority consensus is that they pose no risk? If so, carry on. But if not, then what?
DG you just essentially proved the point. In your eyes, she shouldn’t be sentenced to ‘Life w/possability of parole’. However, that was indeed her sentence. the question isn’t ‘what do you think she should be sentenced to’, but *given that she has been sentenced to life w/possability of parole’ * has she demonstrated sufficient change, growth, rehabilitation, to warrant parole?
And, if your answer is (as it seems to be) “no, no matter what she does, the specter of what she did cannot be overcome”, then you are in fact denying her the sentence that she was given.
Denying her the sentence she was given, wring? The Supreme Court did that when they commuted the lawful sentence of a jury of her peers. That was the meddling of nine people who didn’t have the stomach for justice as a substantial majority of Americans saw it at the time (and still do, if I’m not mistaken). If justice had been done in a timely fashion, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I truly believe, as you put it, “the specter of what she did cannot be overcome.” She threw away her own life when she took that of Rosemary LaBianca. She only deserves to get it back if LaBianca can get hers back. Think that can be worked out?
She is currently serving the sentence of Life w/possability of parole. Your post is non responsive to my objection. Your position seems to be (and you again do it here) that she shouldn’t be serving the sentence that she is currently serving.