Should Leslie Van Houten (Manson Family) Be Paroled?

My first Great Debates Thread started ever:

The wife and I watched the DVD of the old Helter Skelter (the one with Steve Railsback’s uncanny performance as Charles Manson) movie last night, and afterwards I (being a bit of a sponge for trivia) filled her in as best I could remember in the area of “whatever happened to…” This evening I’ve been scouring the net for the lastest info on her.

Leslie Van Houten, for those who don’t know, was one of the people who killed the LaBiancas. She along with Tex Watson (and another girl) stabbed Mrs. LaBianca to death. Imprisoned since her guilty verdict (with a brief six months out while she was awaiting a retrial in '78 or '79) she has, from all appearances (and I emphasize “appearances”), accepted responsibility for her crimes, gotten a college degree, and works in prison in a variety of programs to help women there dependant on drugs, alcohol, etc.

In other words, what one would consider a model prisoner.

I recall seeing one of her parole hearings (she has had fifteen, and I think is eligible again in August '06) on Court TV back in the 90s and she came off as incredibly intelligent and regretful of her past, in other words she appears to be rehabilitated.

Yet, one wonders, is it all for show? Prison is first and foremost a place for punishment; rehabilitation is secondary.

Many things pass through my mind. She was without doubt the prettiest of the Manson “girls,” and is now a handsome middle-aged woman. I wonder if people have sympathy because compared to Patricia Kenwinkle and Susan Atkins, she is a beauty queen. Compared to them (I saw Krenwinkle ramble and bluster through a parole hearing on the same program), she is an intellectual giant.

Vincent Bugliosi always figured the women would serve fifteen-twenty years each, then all be paroled. A judge has even expressed discontent with the way the parole board continually turns her down based on the notoriety of the case, iirc.

Do you think if this had been the Smith-Whatshisname murder case from Thusandsticks, Kentucky inestead of the Tate-LaBianca case Van Houten (and many of the others) would have long since been paroled?

I’m rambling, so I’ll stop and ask for a debate.

Based on what I have seen and read, I tentatively says “Yes, parole Van Houten.”

What say you?

Sir Rhosis

I don’t much care about her parole one way or the other, but I wanted to disagree strongly with this statement.

Prison is (or should be) first and foremost for separating dangerous people from society. Other motives figure into imprisonment, but protecting the innocent should be the paramount one.

^^^You and I don’t disagree, really–I just didn’t state it well. Punishment and separation from society are pretty much the same to me, go hand in hand.

Sir Rhosis

No, I don’t think she should be paroled. As you said, she participated in the brutal murders of two innocent people. The fact that she’s still in prison because of the fame these murders garnered is her tough luck.

As far as coming off as intelligent and having given up drugs and reformed or what have you, I don’t really buy that she’s fit for society. In situations like this, dangerousness is situational.

A really good example of this is Jack Henry Abbott. Imprisoned for crimes including stabbing a fellow inmate to death and bank robbery, he garnered the attention of Norman Mailer and other literary luminaries by writing the brutally honest yet poetic book In the Belly of the Beast. He was paroled in 1980 due to the influence of Mailer and just six weeks later killed a man in a restaurant over the use of a restroom. We can’t assume Van Houten can be a model citizen just because she was a model prisoner. Prisons provide a much more controlled environment than society at large.

I say let her rot.

I never actually understood why the Manson girls haven’t been paroled yet. Not that I think they should, but I’m just surprised that they haven’t.

My limited understanding of the case is that Manson masterminded the plan, and the girls carried out his orders. I’ve also heard that he had cult like control over them.

Obviously, these women needed to serve time in prison, but haven’t they been in for 25 or 30 years now?

For Manson, I say let him rot. For the women, based on my rather limited understanding, I don’t think parole would be unreasonable. However, I’m totally open to having my mind changed if someone has a compelling reason.

Things worked out so well for

I hit Submit too quickly.

Things worked out so well for Squeaky Fromme .

What Linty said.

Parole is an abomination and should be abolished. If someone is convicted of a felony and sentenced to hard time, they should do every damn second of it.

I don’t recall the details, what was the charge she was convicted of and what was the sentence. Those should be the primary considerations.
I think we should also consider that if we have a parole system, w/ the possibility of early release, then it must be a real possibility. If inmates have nothing to look forward to then what’s their incentive to try to improve.

I’m not going to suggest that she should be paroled immediately. I can’t judge that, really. That’s what the parole board is for.

I don’t think I’d have kittens if she were paroled, while I would if Manson were.

But I’m not exactly going to cry a river for her, either.

36 years, I believe. Yes, he did. I truly believe that all the killers had, at the time of the murders, diminished capacity. I feel they were totally legally responsible for their acts, as mind control was definitely at work there.
That being said, back then, the case was shocking. Nowadays it would be just another yawn of a mass murder after others since which have bene more extensive. The whole United States was afraid.
I believe she has served her time, and one cannot keep up an act of normality and decency for 36 years. The guards would notice any abberant behavior.

I think all the killers; Atkins, Krenwinkel, Van Houten, and Watson even, should be given a fair appraisal by the parole board, without Manson in mind.
If they stay in, well, they stay in. I would not be afraid to live near any of them.

I meant to say not totally legally responsible for the murders.

Many thanks for the compelling honest answrs so far. My getting my feet wet in this forum is thus far a positive experience.

IIRC, Van Houten (and the other women) were not sentenced to “life without parole,” but rather “with possibility of parole” (sorry, I don’t know the technical terms).

Also, from memory, isn’t Squeaky Fromme in prison for attempting to assassinate President Ford? IIRC, she had nothing (in a legal sense) to do with the murders of Tate and friends or the LaBiancas. My memory could be faulty, though.

Sir Rhosis

Actually, they were sentenced to death. Then, the death penalty was ruled illegal in California, thusly sentencing them to life. I don’t know the legalities of what that entails.

Yes, I should have said their sentences were to commuted to X or Y after the 1972 abolition of the death penalty in California. As I briefly mentioned, Van Houten actually won a new trial due to something like “lawyer incompetence” (two, actually–the first one deadlocked, the second one sentenced her to whatever she is serving today), so her sentence may be different than Manson, Watson, Krenwinkle and Atkins. Didn’t dig that deep into the specifics.

Sir Rhosis

IIRC, the death penalty as it was determined at the time throughout the US was declared unconstitutional. That declaration is what commuted the sentences to life.

I’d thought her sentence was lesser than the others, since she only went to the second house with the LaBianca’s, and wasn’t also involved in the Tate house killings, giving her less bodies to be charged with.

But isn’t the situation that led to her committing these murders kind of a one time deal? I assume she committed the murders because she was so devoted to Charles Manson and it’s not something she would have done on her own. Since Manson isn’t a part of the equation anymore (I haven’t seen any indication he still influences her) then her chances of murdering again are slim.

Realistically speaking the only reason to keep her locked up is the punishment aspect.

Maybe not, Bugliosi claimed something was wrong inside these people that let them go along. Linda Kasabian was there at the Tate house and didn’t kill anyone.

I’ve seen some indepth interviews with Van Houten and have been impressed with her comprehension of her past actions and of her current situation.

Sir Rhosis, she is a pleasant-looking woman, but her attractiveness should have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she is released. I’m wondering if her intellect should either. But I see no reason why she should not be placed on parole. She was not an habitual criminal and she has served a long time and is seemingly genuinely rehabilitated.

To put into perspective how long it has been since the murders, within about a three week period, the Tate-LaBianca Murders occured, Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, and a Woodstock Nation was born – not in that order.

I have known two convicted murderers who were released on parole and I did not feel uncomfortable around either of them. (It was a surprise to me that I didn’t feel uneasy.)