They do not.
Atkins’ baby was supposedly Manson’s, by the way. He’d be in his 30’s now, and I wonder if he knows that.
If the parole board shows on TV are any indications, they usually ask things like what they would do for employment if released, where they would live if released, whether they have a support system of family and friends on the outside, what they have done to address issues like anger management, drug abuse, etc.?
When the Manson family members go in for a parole hearing, there must be questions to be answered. If there’s something wrong with the answers they’ve given, that’s what they need to work on. Prison records would indicate that they’ve been in trouble or model prisoners, psychologists may have input, yadda yadda yadda.
I can believe that there may be good reasons for keeping them in prison, e.g. if they don’t think they did anything wrong, don’t seem sincerely contrite, all that. But there should be a way to pinpoint where they’re lacking, in the eyes of the parole board.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
I thought it was the 1972 suspension of the death penalty throughout the nation by SCOTUS that necessitated that modification.
California’s court decided earlier the same year that the death penalty was unconstitional per the state constitution. A referendum later that year changed the constitution, but the Furman decision played havoc with that, of course.
Some years ago Inside Edition did one of the shittiest things ever done by a TV tabloid (I don’t know if this was before or after O’Reilly left)- they tracked down Manson’s son by another of the cult members, Mary Brunner. Luckily, the guy- then in his 20s- knew who his father was; he’d been raised low key, middle class style by his mother’s family, and thus it was no great shocker to him, but he agreed to an interview in exchange for which they promised not to give his name, location, or any identifying info about him. IIRC they did show him on camera without a disguise or anything like.
He’s never had contact with his bio father, barely knows his bio mother, and lived a law abiding life with wife/kids/job/etc… He had absolutely no insight into the murders or his sperm-father and there was absolutely no reason to interview him. I thought it was a disgusting violation of privacy.
Nevertheless the episode was a hit and spawned follow-ups such as these, on which Mary’s son, evidently to the “fuck it” point of hiding, even let them use his real name.
Manson’s oldest biological son, Charles Jr. (his son with his first wife) changed his name several times and never had any contact with his father or the “Manson Family”. He committed suicide in 1993. At the time friends said that his father’s identity was definitely a factor in his depression and drug abuse that led to his death.
First I think they need to be judged separately on their crimes and not as “The Manson Family”.
Unlike anyone else on earth, Susan Atkins was on-site for all three murders that summer (Hinman, Tate, Labianca) and was the “most guilty” of anyone except Manson himself. I would make the argument that she is in a different class (Manson’s) and must never be released under any circumstances.
Van Houten and Krenwinkel are ones I would “hear” the argument that they have been in prison for 40 years and that it is the notoriety of their crime and not the crime itself that keeps them from being granted a heavily supervised parole. I would consider that:
**
Krenwinkle** brutally stabbed Abigail Folger, almost certainly still stabbing her in a frenzy after she was dead. The next night she stabbed Mrs. Labianca repeatedly. She stabbed the corpse of Mr. Labianca and left a fork in him. She was clearly a dangerous woman and I do not think I could be persuaded someone who committed these crimes in this manner can ever be safely left back into society even on compassionate parole.
**
Van Houten** was 19 at the time (the youngest of the family) when she stabbed Mrs. Labianca 16 times in the abdomen. The government never alleged that she present for Hinman or Tate. Theoretically, lets say I bought she was reformed and not a threat. I would still need to weigh the danger to society Manson Family fanboys and girls and what kind of message her release would send. If I thought that there was little or just vague amorphous danger on this score I would probably grant a compassionate parole if she were truly and surely terminal like Atkins today. On “real parole” it would depend on how she came across- if I got any kind of crazy vibe or nutty unrepentant stuff off her I would not - if the police said there was 100 Manson fans holding a candlelight vigil outside for her I would not - I am just talking about theoretically considering it. I do not think on the face of it parole for Van Houten is the same level of outrageous as that of Manson, Atkins, or really Krenwinkle.
Not that it should matter, but without being a groupie or anything, I’ve just happened to tune in twice over the years when Leslie Van Houten was up for parole (iirc, I even started a thread on her years ago). Let me tell you, honesly, the woman comes across as very very thoughtful, remorseful and intelligent, and it does not hurt her that she was probably far and away the most conventionally “attractive” of all the Manson girls.
Please note the bolded portion. I don’t pretend to know anybody by simply seeing them on television. I’m just commenting on the “image” she projects, true or not.
Do I think Van Houten is, of and by herself, a threat if she is released? No. Do I think she should be released? No.
Sir Rhosis
Probably too late to edit, but in each parole hearing I saw (probably on Court TV, the last one was probably a few years ago), the commentators stated that if any of the Manson murderers are ever released, it would be Van Houten. The last time I saw one, one “talking lawyer head” predicted she’d probably be released when she was in her seventies. I think she’s in her late fifties or early sixties now.
SR
He lived pretty damn well in prison, too. As did Richard right up until he accidentally fell on a straight razor thirty-seven times in the showers. Course, bad as Bobby Franks’ death was, and not to trivialize that, but it didn’t really match the Manson family’s antics in terms of brutality and insanity.
Not entirely a hijack because Darrow’s famous defense of the boys is relevant to the question; for twelve hours he argued against the death penalty on the grounds, aside from those stemming his opposition to its use in general, that they were young, naive, spoiled, crazy, and genetically defective.
Most people here seem to think it doesn’t matter if the Manson girls have changed; Dio says it’s an affront to their victims if they breathe free air ever again. Well, I don’t think the application of law should be decided by the victims. That doesn’t sound like a great way to achieve true justice in the long run, especially if you don’t think lex talionis ought to be synonymous with justice.
My opposition to their release is simply based upon the brutality of their crimes. If Joe Blow, an otherwise average, decent man commits an unpremeditated murder in a moment of blind rage, I can see his serving a ten or twenty year sentence and being paroled. Same if Jane Blow commits a similar murder.
It’s just the fact that these people drove to these locations fully knowing they were going to murder someone (and yes, I seem to recall that a couple of them said they really weren’t sure why they were out and about those nights, but it’s hard to believe).
And yes, I know, probably people have been released who committed far more brutal murders than Van Houten, Krenwinkle, Watson, etc. Well, they shouldn’t have been.
So, I don’t care that they have changed. Honestly, I do feel (in my opinion, YMMV, etc., etc.)that Leslie Van Houten is truly remorseful. Good for her. Continue to live a good life in prison, ma’am, and do the best you can to help other prisoners in the programs in which you volunteer your time. I don’t care that these cases are nationally famous. I would keep anyone in for life who committed such acts, regardless of the fame of the victim or the perpetrators.
And I have to admit that victim family statements make me uncomfortable, but that is simply based on a feeling that emotions should not sway the scales of justice, but, Christ, I can’t say I would not allow them. Fuck, I hate being human and having such conflicting viewpoints, sometimes.
Sir Rhosis
I don’t think she was paroled. If I remember right, she served her entire sentence, and may even have been denied parole at some point. The problem is that many people thought her sentence was insufficient, especially given the nature of the crimes.
I think they all should have been in the gas chamber 30 years ago.
That being said, since the law did not allow for a sentence of life with no possibility of parole, they should be judged with the same conditions as any other prisoner up for parole.
Just because they are members of the Manson family should not mean that their sentence in now a de facto “life without parole” which is an illegitimate sentence.
Some have stressed that possibility of parole does not equal certainty of parole. Of course, but possibility is not construed in a legal sense to mean any number greater than zero. It is possible that the earth could crash into the sun tomorrow, but legally we require some type standard greater than that…
Contact the proper authorities and let them know how you feel. Because talking about it here is not going to get anything done. All we can give you is our best guesses as to why things are not happening the way you ,and the otheres who feel they should be released, think they should.
The people who feel they should be released have shot down every argument and reason posted stating why they should not be released.
But the fact is, every time the parole board has heard there cases, they turned them down for parole.
I don’t know if I had a point, I just wanted to say that. And PS. I have no problem with them rotting in prison till the stars burn out.
A big “oh HELL no” on early release of a psychopath. No, uh uh, no way. Death is a natural part of life and a terminal disease changes nothing in this respect.
Seems a little low, actually. 24 x7x365 guards would be about 4.5 individuals. That’s $66,666 a year each - I’d assume that includes all employment costs, insurance, etc.
Personally, there are things I’d rather see the government spend its money on that the incarceration of a bedridden psychopath. Can’t come up with a cost benefit analysis on that one that makes any sense to me. At this point it sounds like she’s imprisoned in her own body - cell walls are overkill.
Well, I’ve never been a fan of “scared straight.” Having some tattooed lummox screaming in your face about being butt-raped isn’t conducive to much good of any kind, I don’t think. And maybe these women aren’t the right ones to tell their own stories. But I do think that every time they come up for parole (they do come up for parole, don’t they? Manson does.) their stories should be told in the media again. And again. And again. MTV, VH1, BET, whoever is out there grabbing kids’ attention should be making these women impossible to forget. I think that’s the only way people “learn” from their “example.” Otherwise, we’re just taking revenge, and if that’s what we’re going to do, we’d may as well stone them to death.
We really, really needed a Coventry for these types of criminals. Maybe we can buy St. Helena from the Brits. Mine the shit out of the surrounding waters, station a satellite overhead to keep an eye out for approaching boats, and then just drop all the Death Row and Life without Parole prisoners onto the island by parachute and forget them. Remove them from Society without having to take the karmic hit from executing them. Heck, there ought to be a number of countries who would like such an arrangement.
Ah, I see you’ve met my dad . . .