not so fast. Brutus’s figures use a 3 year window. you have to compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges.
Still think you won’t like the results (and pointing out again that 1.2% over 3 years is very, very small, the annual rate would be even smaller)
You make excellent points. I don’t nessesarily disagree with the concept of parole. I still think we should find out here, though, if the judge intended parole for leslie. Some have posted that California allows parole for first degree murder. Czarcasm points out that she was sentanced to life with the possiblity of parole, so we should give her the option of parole.
Did the judge give the maximum sentance he was allowed, which in California law must have the parole option? Or, did the judge have the harsher option of “life without the possiblity of parole” available to him and not choose to use it?
If it was the former than I don’t think we as a society owe anything to her regardless of her behavior in prison. California, should however, change their laws to allow for the official “life without the possiblity of parole” sentance, because it looks like that is what Leslie got.
I don’t know the answers to your question Debaser I posted the reply about parole in answer to some one’s speculation that parole exists to empty the prisons.
But re: judges’ original intent - I’m not convinced that is the issue. The law under which she has been sentenced and is governed by, says ‘with possability of parole’. She’s been asked to do list of things. She’s done them. at this point the parole board has asked again that she go to counseling so she understands the ‘enormity of what’s she’s done’. The counselors think she does. So, what sense is that decision? They’re ordering her to be evaluated by the same crowd of folks who’ve already said she doesn’t need more counseling.
I understand people’s reluctance to let any of the Manson folks out. But it bothers me that the response is some version of ‘let’s break the rules so we can prove to her that we were unhappy w/her breaking the rules’.
tolyri: I believe many people at the time wanted Linda Kasabian jailed, but I don’t have a cite on this. I just remember reading an old news article very critical of the LA Prosecutor’s office. In “Helter Skelter,” his account of the Manson Murders prosecution, Vincent Bugliosi noted that Kasabian did not participate in any of the murders beyond driving the car and helping hose blood off the others. If I recall “Helter Skelter” correctly, and I admit I couldn’t find it last night, Kasabian was jailed and charged with murder, but the charges were dropped after she testified. I don’t know about the wisdom or fairness of this, but I guess maybe such a sweet plea deal was worth it to get Charlie & his loonies behind bars.
Also, I remember reading a news article years ago that said Kasabian had been arrested on some minor charges, possible public intoxication and public indecency, at a biker rally somewhere in New England (apparently she flashed her tits). I don’t have a cite and couldn’t find anything on the 'Net. Maybe some New Englander dopers remember seeing the article.
As for my opinion on Van Houten, let her and the rest die behind bars.
Good Lord.
Why is so easy to believe that Charlie Manson was evil fuck, but so difficult to believe it of anyone else? Do you have knowledge that she attempted to leave? Or even wanted tp leave? Evidence not based on her own self-serving statements? Can you not see that she may have found his evilness (if that is a word) attractive? That she could have sought someone like him out? Are only men truly evil?
Yes, Charlie led them. But they were willing to be lead. She participated in a gruesome and horrific crime. She is not a victim here.
Not if it was this guy.
Bolding mine.
I don’t know that any rules are being broken. I really don’t know anything about California’s parole system, and what the state of California considers legitimate reasons for denial of parole. I can say, however a couple of things
It appears that parole in California is a discretionary release, that is, someone has to make a decision to release the prisoner.It doesn’t happen automatically.
California lawmakers could have provided for a mandatory early release. Either they didn’t provide one (or at least not one that applies to LVH) or she’s not eligible for it yet.
Now I have a question (for anyone). When I see or hear discussions about some infamous prisoner being turned down for parole multiple times, in spite of their good behavior in prison, degrees, etc. I get the impression (and I could very well be wrong) that the people arguing in favor of parole believe that it’s uncommon for people with good prison records to be denied parole every time they have a hearing. Is my impression correct?
I understand what you’re saying, but do you really think people should not be punished if they pose no further threat?Most parents who neglect or abuse their children (even to the point of death) aren’t a threat to anyone who is not their child. Some aren’t even a threat to all of their children. I’m thinking of one in particular who left her severely disabled two year old alone in an unheated apartment with open windows for three days, causing the child’s death due to either hypothermia or the lack of food and water (I forget which). The other children were safe at grandma’s. I’m not sure she posed a threat even to her other children, and I’m certain she didn’t pose a threat to anyone else. Should she not have been punished at all? There is another function to incarceration beside rehabilitation,“revenge” and specific deterrence - general deterrence.
doreen when I refer to ‘rules’ being broken, I’m saying that the sentence ‘life with the possability of parole’ means that parole should indeed be possible. Now, I cannot prove that the parole board in CA are breaking that rule, but you should certainly see that select posters in this thread are in fact advocating that she should never be paroled.
And, as far as the Parole Board itself, I believe it was noted that a judge ordered them to give consideration/give a reason, (other than the heisousness of the original act, which is something that cannot change), so it seems clear to me at least that judge didn’t really believe that the parole board were giving real consideration to the parole.
and, since they referred her back to get more counseling, even after the counselors she’d be able to see had already indicated that she didn’t need more, it does in fact seem to me that they don’t intend to give her a parole.
and that is, simply in violation of her sentence.
As far as data on how many people get turned down over and over for parole, I’m not sure that info is routinely gathered in a way easily assessible. However, IME, watching the Michigan Dept of corrections for over a 25 year span, generally speaking, those who went before the parole board and were denied parole, there was a clear and succinct reason for the denial - failed to complete required substance abuse treatment or other rehabiliation plans, misconduct during incarceration, inadequate plan for post release (ie no place to live, no means of potential support etc.). None of these applied to LVH (her plan post release was to live w/and care for her aged parents IIRC) there was a parole code “57” which meant “further demonstration”, but again, IME, it wasn’t used as a means to keep some one in time after time.
So, while it’s not unusual generally for some one to be denied a parole, it is considered pretty damned odd that they continue to be denied, even after completing all of the things they were directed to do.
In effect, what they’ve said to her is: We won’t parole you until after you’ve done A- Z.
LVH : Ok, here I’ve done A-Z.
Parole Board : Oh. well, we want you to do C.
wring. I’m not going to dispute your experience in Michigan, but my experience in NY is different. Certainly, people convicted of violent offenses get paroled,but it’s not at all unusual for those with homicide or attempted homicide convictions to be denied parole every time based solely on the heinousness of the crime. Most of them do get released before the end of their sentence,but that’s because NY sentences provide for a mandatory early release, not because someone granted a discretionary release…
And according to this, it appears that the judge didn’t actually say the nature of the crime couldn’t be the reason for the denial, but rather that
I read that to mean that the panel can find the gravity outweighs the positive factors, but has to provide their reasoning, not only their conclusion, before the judge can decide on LVH’s appeal . If he felt that the gravity of the crime could never outweigh the positive factors, he could have ruled in her favor without a further report
spooje: No, the guy who was interviewed that I saw who said she should be let go was named LaBianca.
It appears that nobody read read my prior post 
. Van Houton was not sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, she was sentenced to death! The only reason she even has the possibility of parole is that California abolished the death penalty in 1972 before her sentence was carried out and by law her sentence was automatically commuted to life with parole (since there was no option of life without parole at that time). In short, she is only alive now because of a lucky legal quirk. Should the original sentence not be relevant in this case?
But she was sentenced with the possibility of parole meaning that she can be released. Additionally, I realize that not everyone is satisfied with 33 years. Which is why I left that as the wild card in my post.
a) Do you have a cite? Show me a cite that says that people in similar circumstances to Leslie are dangerous criminals when released. Frankly, I think that the statistics presented by pldennison have already shown that this isn’t the case.
b) By your standards, shouldn’t there never be any parole?
I think you misunderstood me. I’m saying that we cannot possibly determine what effect the sentence of this woman had on the general population. We can’t look at any muders and say “this wouldn’t have happened if she hadn’t been paroled.” There are too many variables.
See my response to “removal.”
I didn’t say 50% was the minimum. I said ABOVE 50%. As in, 3/4, or 4/4.
psycobunny’s post I somehow missed!
The “let her go folks” keep insisting that we honor her sentance of “life with the possibility of parole”. (Qwerty, wring, and Czarcasm have said this)
Well, unless psycobunny is wrong, then it looks like the best thing to do to honor her original sentance of death would be to keep her in prison until she it dead. Just because a legal technicality luckily gets her tossed in the “life with the possibility of parole” category doesn’t mean we, as a society owe parole to her. It’s a sad example of our criminal justice system when someone sentanced to death ends up walking the streets later due to a legal technicality.
she was sentenced to death, then the SCOTUS declared the DP law she was sentenced under was unconstitutional.
therefore, her current sentence is the correct one.
again, it is interesting to me that the ‘let her rot’ crowd want to circumvent the law. the ‘legal technicality’ involved was that she was sentenced under an unconstututional law.
While Ms. Van Houton may have been sentenced under an “unconstitutional law” I find the timeline interesting:
1969-1970 Murders occur, Manson participants are found guilty and sentenced to death
1972 California death penalty found “unconstitutional” and all prisoners on death row have mandatory commutation of sentences to life with parole possibility
1977 California reinstitutes death penalty
Now while “legal technicality” may not be the right phrase, I find it interesting that if the execution had been carried out before 1972 or she had been sentenced after 1977 she would have received the death penalty she was originally given. The fact that the death penalty was “unconstitutional” for five years until a new law could be passed is at minimum a “legal technicality” and at worst an example of politics creating an inadvertent windfall for the Manson family, since of course the new law could not apply to their “prior acts”, notwithstanding the fact that they originally received the death penalty.
psychobunny, it’s unlikely to the point of being irrelevant that Van Houten or any other member of the Manson Family would have been executed in the short span between their convictions in 1970 and the death penalty ruling by the Supreme Court in 1972. California has always been slow to execute prisoners; even notorious criminals like Caryl Chessman spent years and years on death row in California.
And, since Van Houten received a new trial in 1977, on the basis of ineffective counsel at her original trial, it’s almost certain that she would have not been executed prior to 1972, or even 1977.
You also seem to be arguing that it would be OK to have “reinstated” their death penalties after 1977, which is . . . frightening, to say the least. The entire point of the Court’s 1972 ruling was that the methods under which people were being sentenced to death was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Thanks for the comments-I just wanted to clarify that, as I pointed out before, I am conflicted about whether she should be paroled. I am not advocating that she receive the death penalty; just trying to clarify her original sentence and why she received the sentence of life with the possibility of parole. I agree that she has been a model prisoner and is probably not a current danger to society.
Just reread Helter Skelter by Bugliosi and Gentry.
On the last page, Bugliosi notes that Manson and he rest will be eligible for parole in 1978, but that it is unlikely any of them will get it.
He notes that the average term in California for first degree murder is ten and a half to eleven years.
Finally, he says, “Because of the hideous nature of their crimes and the total absence of mitigating circumstances, my guess is that all will serve longer periods: the girls fifteen to twenty years, the men—with the exception of Manson himself—a like number.”
So it’s been 32 years since sentencing—right?