Horse puckey.
Screw her. I read Helter Skelter and the whole thing almost gave me nightmares. Let them all rot. I was sickened when people argued that Susan Atkins should have gotten “compassionate release.”
“Eternal vengeance” my ass. The Manson family murders were one of the most horrific things to happen in the U.S. in the 20th century. This is a woman who giggled at her trial when they described what happened to the victims. It’s about paying for your crimes. There are somethings that are so heinous that earn you life in prison. And I think was one of them.
It’s more expensive to try and execute criminals, apparently, than it is to house them for the rest of their lives.
Murder by anger is, at least, explainable. People aren’t thinking rationally when they’re in a rage and we’re built to attack when we’re in a rage.
But is she actually sane and remorseful?
There’s a difference between, say, a young child who kills a sibling or stabs a teacher with a knife or something. They’re not fully developed and don’t fully grok the concept of “real live people, who count towards the world just as much as you, and who have loved ones, dreams, and a future”.
At 19 though, if you can be convinced to kill someone as part of some New Age woo nonsense, it seems likely that your ability to empathize with others has not developed. And if it hasn’t developed by then, it basically never is.
But after 45 years of practice, I’m sure you could get real good at saying the right words.
What does this mean, though? Can you justify keeping her locked up in terms of her being a danger to society? Or as an effective lesson/warning to others?
If there’s no practical reason to keep her locked up, then all you got left is some vaguely karma-like reason. Maybe not vengeance, but something indistinguishable from it.
If it’s believed that she’s no longer a danger to others, I see no reason to keep her locked up. It’s not like there’s an additional deterrent of life in prison over and above 40 years in prison.
Normal brains aren’t fully developed until around age 25.
Well, she was sentenced to death, but the California Supreme Court then commuted all death sentences then pending, and her case somehow defaulted to some sort of “life with the possibility of parole” regime. So, yes, she’s eligible for parole under the law, but more in defiance of legislative intent than conformance thereto.
Certainly, though, 46 years is an exceptionally long time for a female murder defendant of that era to have served.
they’re pretty damned close. It’s not like a bell rings on someone’s 25th birthday which says “all done!”
this nonsense of pretending that means someone is a “child” until age 25 needs to end right now.
I’d make a deal with Van Houten. When the people she helped to kill can walk around outside the prison, so can she.
And what if society doesn’t want her back?
She gets out of prison when her victims get out of the graveyard.
First of all, let’s see what she actually did.
She was not present at the Shea, Hinman or the Tate murders at all. Nor other major events like the Hawthorne Shootout.
She was present for the LaBianca murders. She held down Rosemary while Rosemary was fatally stabbed and was then ordered to do some more stabbing. Perhaps Rosemary was still alive at this time.
(If you don’t believe that there are thousands of people in the US who have done far worse than this and did much less time, then citations aren’t going to sway you.)
During her first trial, she was still under Manson’s sway and so confessed to a bunch of stuff to get Charlie off.
Her second trial ended in a hung jury.
Her third trial resulted in a conviction. She only got a life sentence because of the “aggravated” circumstances the prosecution threw in of “theft of food, clothing and a small sum of money” to upgrade the charge to felony murder.
If this wasn’t a famous case, she would have done 10 years, max.
Then the problem is that other murderers walk free, not that she is imprisoned. If she wants to truly convince me of her penitence, it is not too late for her to hang herself in her cell.
My understanding is that if her murder hadn’t been associated with with the celebrity Charles Manson, then she would have been released years ago. So it’s harder to argue that it’s a “fair price” at this point since she exceeded society’s current “fair price” point a while ago.
If society really thinks that all murderers should be killed/locked up forever, then shouldn’t it be easy to introduce legislation to make it so?
For participating in a murder?
Surely you jest.
True. And at that age, 19 is a long way from 25, especially when hindered by drugs and having entered into something way over your head from a previously far different life.
I’d also love a cite that of empathy hasn’t developed by 19, that it never will. Really?
As Dr. William Petit said on the Oprah show, after the men who broke into his house, tortured him and his family for hours, killed his wife and daughters and then set fire to his house to try to cover up the crimes, when they had been found GUILTY and the death penalty was being debated and an audience member pointed out the life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty:
DO YOU WANT A SYSTEM OF JUSTICE THAT IS GOVERNED BY MONEY???
If Roman Polanski and the other family members of the murdered people agree to Van Houten’s parole, I’ll agree to it too.
As I’ve said, I’m not in favor of singling out Van Houten because her crime is well known. I believe it should be a general rule that murderers get life imprisonment.
And this is my opinion as an individual. I don’t speak for society. My views are just one small part of the whole.
my main problem with the death penalty is that it can’t be undone if exonerating evidence later turns up. you can at least release someone from prison. I suppose if there was some mechanism to increase the standard of evidence when capital sentences are on the table I’d be a bit more open to it. I just don’t think “beyond a reasonable doubt” is stringent enough to justify execution.
Right. Being locked up in prison for years or decades and then being told “Sorry. We made a mistake” and being released is totally fair. Can we add those years back to the person’s life? Can we make up for all the suffering to their family?
Or are you arguing that Van Houten is innocent? Bullshit.
When Dr. Petit was on the stand, the defendant’s attorney pointed out that he didn’t see the defendants set the fire that killed his wife and daughters. So there was reasonable doubt that after the defendants tortured them, someone else set the fire that killed them.