How it should be isn’t how it is though. She was not sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Murderers and rapists are let out quite frequently due to factors such as overcrowding (gotta make room for those evil drug users, ya know). Some of these people haven’t made a tenth of the effort that she has to rehabilitate themselves. Isn’t there just a little bit of hypocricy in releasing a child molester or rapist, who more than likely will re-offend, yet not releasing someone who most likely won’t? That doesn’t strike me as fair. Until the law does away with the idea of parole (and I’m not necessarily saying it should), it would seem that there needs to be some consistency.
Little Nemo: Paul, the Apostle, admitted to being a murderer. AFAIK, his victim was still dead during Paul’s ministry.
We’re talking about murder here, not a minor violation! I don’t believe cold blooded killers should have the option of “learning from their mistakes”. The manson murders were some of the most ruthless, bloodest, cruelest ever commited in this country. She should have been executed!
Equating this kind of murder with a parking ticket is the most liberal horseshit I’ve heard all year!
I am surprised that even one person has agreed with me here.
Oh well, its moot now.
It was denied.
Unlike Leslie Van Houten, Paul supposedly had the power to raise the dead. So if his victim stayed dead, then we have to assume Paul was not only a murderer but was an unrepentant one as well.
No, he didn’t.
You must be listening to the voices in your head, because nobody in this thread has done any such thing. Perhaps you should, instead, listen to actual people.
Can someone provide a cite where someone convicted of the same charges as Leslie ‘Hey lets chop people up!’ Van Houten, spent time in prison, and was ‘rehabilitated’?
Like, yesterday this fucking witch decided to help kill some old guy and a pregnant woman, but today, thanks to the stunning powers of liberal thought, she is all better? Bullshit.
Start spewing up some statistics showing that 1st degree murderers can be rehabilitated. Until then, let her and her ilk rot in prison. (Although the chair is a much better option.)
She’s been before the parole board how many times now? 15?
That to me does not constitute “No chance of parole”. All it means is that she has been denied. If the judge is questioning the integrity of the parole board, he should do so, and not allude to it through innuendo and what is more or less defamatory comments.
Frankly, I think ALL murderers should be put away forever, with absolutely no chance at parole. Period. Rather Draconian, I admit, but if these animals have killed, the should be caged like the rest.
There is not a single person alive who does not know intuitively that murder is bad, and you’ll never convince me otherwise. We are taught from the outset that murder is wrong. That killers can ignore those feelings just shows me that they have no place in society at all.
I would think that someone who, over the course of thirty years, went from being a drug-addicted, unwashed, free-lovin’, personality-cult-joinin’ hippie to earning a couple of college degrees including a masters degree might be reasonably judged to be a different person, murderer or no, but that’s just me. I sure hope that, when I am 50, nobody assumes I am the same person I was when I was 20.
Leslie Van Houten was not even on the property the night of the Tate murder, but thanks for playing.
Brutus, her sentence was life with the possibility of parole, period.
She has gone through every rehabilitaton program with flying colors, and her prison record is above reproach. Nobody claimed that she was all better, including herself, but I can walk down any city street and find 10 people easily that are worse threats to society than her. Others have committed worse crimes and been paroled with worse records-why your abnormal hatred for this worman? Is it her ties to Charles Manson?
Shodan: Well, if you take his words as written by him, then, yes, he did in regards to Stephen’s death.
Oh, she was just in on the murder of the LaBianca’s.
What the hell, you are right. Stabbing someone’s wife 14-16 times isn’t a reason to jail someone! Since she was only in on 2 of the 3 murders, (conspiracy on the third, but who’s counting), she is obviously a model citizen.
I have no particular hatred for her; I am of the opinion that 1st degree murder should earn you a swift death sentence, no ifs, ands, or paroles about it.
I may be wrong, but wasn’t she actually sentenced to death? The sentence was changed to life with the possibility of parole when California outlawed the death penalty. She is lucky they couldn’t reinstate the original sentence when they resurrected the death penalty. I think she should be happy to be alive. That said, I really am glad i am not on the parole board-I think they really had a tough decision to make.
Unless, of course, the victims are Jewish children, in which case we should try to understand the murderers. :rolleyes:
Are you really that much of a hypocrite? :mad:
I agree. Oh, and you guys who keep mentioning about her earning those college degrees, I say, so what?! What else did she have to do while in the joint? I suppose if I didn’t have to work 8-10 hours a day, then come home, take care of my kids, take care of my house/yard, take care of other matters, etc., and still get my room/board/food, then hell, I suppose I too would have time earn several more degrees.
But, I’ll tell you what. I’ll go on with the one degree I have, and I won’t brutally kill anybody. In the mean time she can rot in prison.
Oh, and by the way. Who paid for those college course she took anyway? I’m willing to bet it was us!:mad:
Um, since I didn’t argue that she should not be jailed, I cannot possibly be “right” about that assertion, so I expect a retraction for that cheap shot. Otherwise, you can just argue with a ventroliquist dummy, so you can make it say whatever you’d like it to and disagree with it as vehemently as you’d like.
There were seven. Five at Tate and two at LaBianca. Van Houten was convicted of two counts of 1st degree murder for the two LaBianca victims and of conpiracy in the Tate killings.
This thread isn’t about what your opinions on penal policy are. The thread asks if, given the fact that California has a parole system for 1st degree murder, does Leslie Van Houten’s prison record make her the kind of person who should be paroled.
Are any of the “don’t let her out” people capable of arguing that on the merits, or are we all going to hear about what you think the law should be in California.
Since I have questioned the possiblity of ‘rehabilitation’, as did the parole board in this case, I leave it to those of you who want to let the murderers back on the street to prove that she will never kill again. (Or stab dead bodies, whatever.)
Until it can shown that there is NO possibility of her killing again, the parole board did the right thing and kept her psycho ass in jail.
And are any of the ‘let her out’ people capable of bringing fact to the debate, or are we all going to hear about what you think the parole board should have said?
Actually, the “let her out” people have not only provided nearly all of the facts offered so far in the thread, they’ve had to correct you on a couple of points as well.
Still waiting for that retraction, by the way. I suspect you don’t have the integrity to offer it, so please prove me wrong.
It’s a moot point…They denied the parole anyway