Well, i disagree with life with possibility of parole for first degree murder cases, but i will disregard that for my answer to this post. The possibility of parole doesn’t guarentee that one will get parole. Parole is a privilige, not a right. That is why Manson and his followers get up for it every few years and get repeatedly denied. Also makes good filler news stories for slow weeks. As for the definition of rehabilitated, i guess that is up for the parole board to decide (i am not a lawyer). They seemed to deem her unfit. The fact that they are allowing her to be up for parole is all the county (or whoever is in charge of following the law) is required by law to do.
I don’t think the woman would commit anymore crimes.
But her crimes were so great, so heinous, that I believe releasing her would be a mistake. An insult to the memory of her victims and an injustice.
I, for one, view prison conversions and ‘model prisoners’ with a great deal of skepticism. Yeah, she kept her nose clean while under the constant supervision of correction officers. That is what she was supposed to do. She shouldn’t get extra credit for it. She got some schooling. Good for her, but that doesn’t make her a good person. I think she just had a lot of time to pass. She is not being abused or her rights violated.
Maybe the parole board just got creeped out by her presence in front of them. An understandable reaction, IMO. Some folks deserve to do every last minute of their sentence. She is one of them. She owes a debt to society that can never be repaid.
Then the system should just be upfront about it and say that it lied when the judge gave her the sentence, and that it lied every damn time she came up for parole, and that it lied every damn time the parole board told her that she just wasn’t good enough for parole but that she should just keep trying.
As far as I’m concerned, the parole board has unlawfully superceded the ruling given to her by the judge, and they have unlawfully superceded the ruling of the other judge that told them to fairly consider her parole this time.
I don’t recall a law that says a judges ruling must be obeyed unless we feel icky about it, or unless it is politically incorrect to do so, so let’s take a little poll.
How many people believe turning a blind eye to duty and the law is fine as long as they agree with the outcome(i.e. the ends justify the means)?
I saw them interview a relative of the laBianca’s (maybe a nephew, it was a guy) and he said she should be released!
I think this is a misstatement. * Her * crime was not that heinous…all the crimes taken together, the crimes of the others lumped with hers, Charlie’s crime of manipulating and orchestrating the whole horrible scene…that was heinous.
Leslie stabbing a dead woman’s buttocks is nasty, and being part of the big ugly picture is nasty, but really, her particular crime doesn’t deserve more punishment than she’s already received. Especially since her real crime was being young, stupid, and easily manipulated. The woman she is today, I’m sure, shares nothing more than DNA with the girl who committed those crimes.
stoid
Respectfully, I think that is her version of events, and it sounds a little self serving. Regardless, she was an active participant and IMO undeserving of such sympathy. She was an adult, with free will, and she chose her path.
I must disagree.
She did Not have free will.
Charlie was known to have given his followers (who were cut off from society and other influences) lsd and then taught them “his” philosophy.
What do you think the CIA intended LSD for? To give citizens happy trips? or mind control?
Charlie apparently figured it out and used it.
Dimished capabilities is what i say the murderers had.
Legally.
If I recall, the autopsy showed that the stabbings were post-mortem, so it is not just her version.
And she did choose her path, and she has paid the price. I don’t think she needs to keep paying until she dies. The price she has paid has been enough.
stoid
What about Linda Kasabian? She was present at both the Tate and LaBianca murders. She confessed, became star witness for the prosecution and was never prosecuted herself. AFAIK, she has never commited another crime. Leslie Van Houten, (I think we have agreed here) participated in post-mortem desecration in one murder. Her crime was only slightly greater than Linda’s. (Back to the OP) If Linda Kasabian has been living free all these years, shouldn’t the rehabilitated Leslie have a chance as well?
stoid I agree that LVH has met all of the goals that were set for her by the parole board. However, I feel I must point out to you :
She claims that RLB was dead when she personally stabbed her.
The post mortum finds that there were, in fact, stabbings after death.
THis does not prove that LVH was telling the truth, it merely shows that (like the others IIRC), stabbing went on for quite a while even after the people were dead, no way to determine which person did which stabbings, and spooje’s objection that it’s a self serving statement is correct.
That being said - the crimes were horendous, yes. Certain people involved have shown no remorse (Charlie himself for example), no effort at rehabilitation etc. LVH has.
And I’d also like to point out that the statement that she’s not been a disciplin problem in prison, is actually a powerful one. Yes, I know it’s a regulated atmosphere and doesn’t prove how she’ll act/react when unsupervised, but it’s no small achievement to go that long and still not be a disciplin problem. That’s a whole lotta years, in a very challenging environment, where there’s people paid to watch and note any aberrant behavior, and a whole host of other people who like to geek people off just for kicks.
Charlie took LSD too. Did HE have diminished capacity? I took a lot of LSD in my formative years, and could still have not been convinced to brutally stab anyone. And they cut themselves off from society. She was NOT a prisoner.
That she found Charlie a charismatic leader does not speak well of her.
Well, if she didn’t have free will, then she shouldn’t have been punished at all, huh?
spooje: And what do you think would’ve happened had she tried to leave?
They would’ve given her a going away party?
As for Linda kasabian, she didn’t stab anyone, she was appointed look out.
Hence, her “deal” was easier for the public to take.
Besides, they had to have the info from someone who was there, and Linda K was the least guilty, though she was guilty of not helping stop murders.
Yes, Monty she had free will, but itwas dimished.
People keep saying this, but I am confused. Others have claimed in this thread that CA allows parole for 1st degree murder, period. So, could the judge have given her a sentance of life without the possibility of parole? Or did the judge give her the maximum sentance? This would have a huge effect to how much I would be swayed by Czarcasm’s arguements here.
Also, doesn’t parole exist mainly to limit prison over crowding? Meaning, if crime rates dropped all of a sudden, freeing up ample room in prisons, they could stop parole-ing prisoners. Because they no longer have a need to.
Qwerty, this post is just out there.
Retribution: 33 years is not enough. Only if she were sentanced to 33 years it would be.
Removal: How much of a risk she poses has been debated in this thread. What we need to consider here is not whether she is likely to murder again, but whether she is more likely than the general population to murder again. Which I believe, statistically, murderers would tend to be.
General Deterants: Do you think It wouldn’t have “effected the general population in any way” if she hadn’t have been imprisoned at all for this crime? The public would have reacted very strongly if the judge gave her a lenient sentance, or no time at all.
Individual deterants: Even if she is “deterred as any prisoner can be”, she may still be more statistically likely to murder again than all of us non-murderers. That’s a good enough reason for me to keep her in the cell.
And finally, your %50 comment. WTF? If she meets any two of your four criteria then she can go free??!? So, if she has a model record (rehabilitation) and "doesn’t seem to be a risk (removal) then she’s %50 there, so lets let her go. :eek: The prison’s would be empty using these standards.
Parole exists for a number of reasons (all very good, IMHO )
-
with an indeterminant sentence (“10 - 20 years” or whatever), it is an effective management tool, giving the inmate an incentive to behave properly.
-
It provides for a more gradual transition from total imprisonment to total freedom.
-
IT provides not only a means to view how the person is rehabilitating, but a way of assisting that rehabilitation.
Stoid said,
If you look at it as ‘suffering = actual amount of time in pain or terror,’ sure. But how about the fact that she also suffered the theft of her life. Every moment that she may have had, every joy, every thought, ripped away so a handful of twisted people could get their jollies. The victims life was stolen, it seems perfectly fair to me that the thieves pay for it with theirs.
Ummm, actually, I think her real crime was participating in a murder.
If a 19 year old frat-boy gets drunk, drives around, and plows into somebody on the sidewalk, I think you would be hard-pressed to find somebody (especially on this board) who would say that his real crime was simply being ‘young and dumb.’
All that said though, if the state did agree to let her go free if she fulfilled certain requirements; and she has indeed met those requirements, then the state should let her go.
It’s not a terribly appealing thought to me, and speaks volumes about failures of justice within our system, but to bend the rules in certain cases and not in others sets a precedent that I think is a touch on the scary side.
that’d be easy enough for you to find out, but I doubt that you’d like the results.
-
Count how many people commit murder as their first offense
-
Compare to the number of paroled murderers who commit another murder.
The first number would include all those horrible stories you hear about men killing their wives, moms killing their kids etc. The second number probably has already been found out for you if you look at an ‘pro death penalty’ site (they collect stories of paroled murderers who go out and kill again).
Actually, wring, the numbers we are looking for have already been posted on this thread…
I would agree with Brutus’s sentiments. Anybody know what the overall murder rate is? It must be point zero, zero something percent. But, until that 1.2% murder recidivism rate drops below the rate for the rest of society I say let 'em all rot. 