I did answer the question. Van Houten herself is the cite. You are free to take it or leave it. There’s also the fact that she was convicted of it.
Having said that, it really doesn’t matter who specifically did what at the scenes. They are all equally guilty of every crime that was committed.
Eh OK I won’t ask then why you say she said the opposite, nor ask if you are talking about trial testimony or what?
Because you are right, she was convicted.
What we are wondering really I guess from you, or at least I am, is, what is your understanding of the legal purpose of imprisonment in California? Might it be different from other states? Given that, how does the action of the Parole Board in this case meet its mandate as it is reflected in implementing the goals of the overall system?
In this articleon the release of Sara Jane Moore (the other woman who made an abortive attempt on the life of Gerald Ford) it states that in federal prisoners sentenced to life who serve 30 years or more with a satisfactory disciplinary record must be paroled. I’m surprised this hasn’t been copied by more states.
I wonder how many male prisoners have been incarcerated for more than 40 years; I’ll check on BoP or whatever.
The pity with Moore is that while she was in for 30 years and while she had a good disciplinary record, judging by her interviews she’s still batshit crazy. Of course she was also pushing 80 when released so perhaps senility is a bit of it, but in one interview she’s glad she shot at Ford and in the next she regrets it.
So if she tells you what you want to hear, you believe it, but other than that you just can’t believe a word she says, right?
Talmadge Hayer, aka Thomas Hagan, was one of the assassins of Malcolm X. He was released earlier this year after serving 45 years in a combination of prisons, jails, and work-release programs. He’s the longest serving parolee I can find. The two other men convicted of the Malcolm X assassination were released in the 1980s; both maintain their innocence, and though Hagan concedes his own guilt he also maintains their innocence.
I didn’t say she said the opposite.
I couldn’t care less. I am quite content to keep seeing her get sham parole hearings until she dies.
I think that when she says something against her own best interest it’s more believable than when she tries to exculpate herself. I think she probably did more than what she admitted to, but at the end of the day it’s really immaterial. Her culpability is the same as everyone else’s.
Do you feel bad about Kasabian getting immunity then? Without her testimony, they may not have gotten a conviction.
Yes, I feel bad about her getting immunity, and I don’t think they needed her for a conviction.
So you don’t share the American concept of justice and jurisprudence?
Justice = this bitch dying in jail.
That is the meaning of Justice in America sine the beginning of the country until now for everyone? Or is it somehow different in this case? If so, what makes it so special that it is worth deviating from our fundamental principles of justice for?
If a sham parole decision can happen to her, perhaps the same could happen to you, or someone you care about? Should a parole decision be political, or based on rule of law. Excerpts from elsewhere: "Should we be open to the notion that people can change and that prisons should serve not just to punish criminals (at a tremendous cost to society) but also to rehabilitate? Perhaps one of the most interesting questions is “should taxpayers continue to keep someone behind bars when they clearly are no longer a threat to society”
“The parole board has shown a clear unwillingness, or political inability, to move beyond the crimes and their publicity in evaluating Leslie’s suitability for release”
Actually, no. Reading the quotes from the transcript of Leopold’s parole hearing in 1958. (It was Leopold who was paroled, not Loeb. Loeb was murdered in prison in 1936.) Most of what Leopold felt remorse for was himself. He talked about his wasted life, and the friends and family he had lost. He did mention “the torment of my own conscience”, but you have to remember that this was his second attempt at parole, and the parole board had turned down his first attempt in 1953 because they did not find him contrite enough. He had five years to practice expressing remorse, and he still insisted that Loeb bore more fault in the murder than he did.
Once freed, he sued Meyer Levin, the author of the book Compulsion for 1.4 million dollars for misappropriation of his name. The case was dismissed. Guess Leopold wanted to make a stab at getting that ransom money after all.
Just a little note to the Mods on my Leopold and Loeb screed. I wasn’t aware at the time I posted that the post I took issue with was more than four years old. My apologies.