Leslie van Houten is all over the news channels today.
Her 14th parole hearing.
She was let out in about 78 for a new trial.
She has been in for over 30 years.
She has been a model prisoner.
WHy not let her out?
I believe she is no threat whatsoever.
The public was so shocked by the murders back then that the guilty parties are seen as inhuman monsters.
Well, even if they were back then, they’ve changed.
They are not under mind control anymore.
Haven’t people with lesser sentences been paroled?
Lets hear from the opposing viewpoints; i assume there are many.
If she can bring those two people back to life, i say let her out. But the reality is she participated in a horrible murder, and in my books forfieted all of her rights to be free at that point. She should count herself lucky she wasn’t killed for her crimes. Even if she is “reformed”, she shouldn’t be left out becasue that may send a message to others behind bars that all they have to do is pretend to be sorry and they can get out. She may very well be reformed and be sorry for what she did, but there is no way to know for certain, so i am happy with the status quo.
Then, why exactly is there such a thing as parole. She was not sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, has been a model prisoner, never caused a problem while in prison, educated herself, and now educates others in prison. In essence, she is a model prisoner. If she isn’t eligible, who exactly is?
She was 19, amazingly drugged up, and brainwashed by a lunatic. I would say she has done a remarkable turnaround.
I, personally, do not see how society’s interests are served, or any penal goals are accomplished, by keeping Leslie van Houten in prison for any additional length of time. As musicguy said, if she is not the type of person for whom parole is designed, who is? She is unlikely to pose a further criminal threat, and has served thirty years in prison. I say parole her.
In my opinion, Van Houten shouldn’t be eligible for parole. I think we should sentence people who commit the crimes she committed to life imprisonment. As for her apparent reformation, I’d say, first, her remorse hasn’t resurrected her victims and, second, it may be a show for the purpose of winning public sympathy and release. In my opinion, once you’re convicted of the Big M you lose the benefit of a doubt on the assumption of your future good behavior.
As a practical matter, it’s an obvious choice to let her out–she can’t possibly be the same person after 30 years in jail that she was when she committed the murders, and her behaviour in prison couldn’t have been better.
But as a moral matter, the severity of her crimes warrants her dying in jail. There were no mitigating factors in her crimes (of which I’m aware) to suggest that she did anything but commit the most evil, cold-blooded act imaginable. It was a thrill-killing, an act of pure maliciousness. Brainwashing is a myth; she was a willing convert to Manson.
I can believe that she is as reformed as any criminal can possibly be. I don’t see how that changes anything in this case.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by musicguy * Then, why exactly is there such a thing as parole.
Because of weak willed people in this country who don’t have the nerve to actually punish someone.
**She was 19, amazingly drugged up, and brainwashed by a lunatic. I would say she has done a remarkable turnaround. **
And you call her brainwashed? Many, many convicts have conned people into believe they have “made a turn around”. And I don’t care if she did. her, and Manson, and the rest of the tribe, should have died gasping and wheezing in Californias gas chamber. But that didn’t happen, I say, let her rot in prison!
What astounds me is the black-or-white attitude of Americans towards the criminal justice system. (And for the record, I think Leslie Van Houten deserves parole.)
Yes, she did participate in two gruesome murders. However, there were several dynamics in play. First was the controlling nature of Manson himself. Brainwashed or not, these girls were under his strict control and could not and would not extricate themselves from it. It took prison to get them out from under him. Since being in prison, Ms. Van Houten has managed to do very well for herself, according to the CNN link above.
There is also the issue of how much she participated in the murders. Essentially, she was along for the ride, so to speak. She was not a direct participant. However, under California law, she’s just as guilty of murder as if she planned the murders and stabbed the LaBiancas herself. That it took the state three attempts to get a conviction says something, especially since the second trial was a hung jury.
I think the parole board is simply looking for a way to keep from having to release a Manson Family member under their watch. One more argument for de-politicizing the criminal-justice system.
I do not belive in parole for murderes or rapists. There are certain people i don’t want rehabilitated, i want them gone. When you kill someone or rape someone, you cease to become a member of society and should never be allowed back in. (this refers to good ole fashioned murder, not self defense or accidental stuff). Those are my beliefs.
Maybe she should be paroled. She’s been a model prisoner for over 30 years, she appears to regret her actions, and it seems unlikely that she will prove to be a threat to society.
But the OP’s not asking what the law should be. It’s asking whether she should be paroled, in light of her original sentence.
If she was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, as seems to be the case, the argument that you disagree with that law is irrelevant. Even if the members of the parole board disagree with that law, they’re not entitled to deny her parole because they don’t like the law. They have to administer the law as drafted.
So, since the Legislature at the time allowed for life sentences with the possibility of parole, which we have to take as a given, should she get parole?
I don’t know what it costs in California, but where I live, it costs taxpayers over $20k per year to keep someone in jail. Are we willing to pay that to keep someone like Leslie in prison?
These statements just make no sense to me. It’s correct that letting her out isn’t going to bring back the people she killed, but I don’t see how this is an argument for keeping her in jail. It’s not like that’s going to bring back these two people to life either.
Yeah! Those yellow-bellied namby-pambies. If you commit a crime, you should never be allowed the opportunity to be rehabilitated. It isn’t “punishment” if you have the chance to actually learn from it! Death penalty for parking violations!!
By that argument, she shouldn’t have even been imprisoned. They should have just found her guilty and then released her thirty years ago. It’s not like imprisoning her then brought anyone back to life either.
My point is that when you take someone’s life you should forfeit your own. I’m not talking ten, twenty, or thirty years; I’m talking all of it. Sure, imprisonment for the remainder of a person’s natural life is a harsh sentence. But murder is a harsh crime and deserves a severe punishment.
So to those who say Leslie Van Houten has suffered enough, I’d say no she hasn’t.
I’m not sure where exactly you’re going here Monty. Is this a reference to Paul the Apostle? If so, could you explain the relevance.
I did see that. So much of what happens during a crime is, and will always be, unknown. Basically, the prosecution says she stabbed Rosemary LaBianca; Leslie has always maintained that LaBianca was already dead, and the autopsy did show that she had been stabbed after death. That much is known.