Too tough to call. On one hand, she is one of the ones who no longer is under Manson’s “spell” (unlike Squeaky Fromme) , realizes was she did was wrong, admits culpability, and appears to be truly rehabilitated and ready to rejoin society. On the the other hand, she actively participated in one the worst crimes in history. There are many many people who have commited crimes that are just as bad, but are paroled- her problem is that her case is just too well known for some to overlook. But hell, the sick fuck who raped the girl, cut her hands off and left her for dead got paroled!
That sick fuck was back in prison some time later for killing a prostitute, and died of cancer while on Death Row. BTW, the girl was 14 years old, and it wasn’t only her hands, but her arms up to the elbows, and he threw her into a ditch to die. She stopped the blood with mud and walked two miles to survival. :eek:
It’s easy for someone to say they are rehabilitated. It’s too late if they are lying, get released, and commit another crime.
Are you in favor of life sentences without parole for everyone convicted of a crime? Or just murder?
I think she should absolutely be paroled. What, is she going to do it again? Come on. The only reason to keep her is punitive. Obviously, I’m on the side that that isn’t what prison is for. This time, it seems to have done exactly what it IS for, and I think as a society we have to hold up our end of the bargain.
We say you can come play our reindeer games if you spend long enough demonstrating that you know how to play nice. At some point – and that point is different depending on the felon, but I think in this case 25-30 years is the right amount of time – we just have to decide whether we trust that it’s not an act. I don’t think Leslie is acting. I would be open to evidence that she is, but without it, I don’t see any reason to think so.
I agree. I don’t know much about the case, obviously (despite having read the link), but if the parole board thinks she’s rehabilitated, that’s good enough for me.
I also disagree 100% with the statement in the OP that prison is about punishment. I don’t think punishment (ie. instintutionalised vengeance) has any place whatsoever within the justice system- the three factors to consider should be deterrance, rehabilitation and protecting society. In this case, the woman seems to have rehabilitated, she’s spent 20+ years locked up (good enough deterrance, I’d say) and I don’t think she poses a threat to society any longer- although I am obviously not qualified to judge that in the same way as a parole board, which is who will decide this issue. I just hope they judge the case on its merits, rather than taking into account the sensationalistic aspect of the Manson murders.
Happy Clam, I’m going to address you directly, since yours is the most recent post in this thread that seems to support a position that I don’t agree with. I know that this could be just as easily directed at several other posters in this thread.
I think, honestly, given the purpose behind the Tate-LaBianca murders, that ignoring the sensationalist aspects of the crime would be a mistake. While I agree that the members of the family were being controlled, or more properly influenced, beyond the normal social influence that friends or lovers might have none of the Manson family members met the definition of legal insanity: Being unable to determine that their actions were wrong. Additionally, the long-term plan, AIUI, had been to use the murders, and others that the group intended to commit, to foster an environment of racial hatred that would allow a purifying race war to be fought across the nation.
Ergo, not only did they members of the family choose their victims for their publicity value, but they made sure that the murders were performed in the most gruesome manner that they could envision.
To say, at this point after the crime, that they’re being unfairly punished because their crimes are too sensational for them to get a fair parole hearing seems a bit odd.
If I’m wrong about the intent behind the murders, or how much the “family” knew of the ultimate plans, please correct me. But if my understanding is accurate - I can’t say that I think it’s unfair for persons who choose to perform murders for political goals, including sensationalism, to have to reap the effects of thier success.
Again - as I stated up thread, I’m not going to have kittens if Leslie Van Houten is paroled. But I don’t think she’s suffering under an unfair burden if she’s not paroled.
I didn’t say they were being unfairly punished, I simply said I hoped that the parole board would reach their decision independent of the way in which the Manson murders have become so fixed in the minds of the American public. Judging the case on its own merits would obviously include the intent of the crime- although in this case the intent was so bizarre (sliding down a helter-skelter in the desert to escape the cleansing race war? I’m suprised that none of the murderers got reduced sentences for diminished responsibility) that I’m not sure that the way you are describing them (basically, as terrorism) is necessarily right.
However, judging the case on its own merits would also include not being swayed by opinions such as, say, Clothahumps, whose beliefs are, in this case, no doubt shared by a fair segment of the population. For example, had the Manson murders not involved the wife of a famous director, I doubt whether they would have stuck quite so much in the public conciousness. Yet I don’t think the punishment for killing a celebrity should be any different than that for killing Joe Schmoe- so, in that respect for one, public perception of the murders differs from the judicial facts concerning them.
That’s what I meant when I said that I hoped the parole board would consider the case on its merits.
Its just odd to imagine. They killed at age 19-20, most of the girls. And now they’ve spent the rest of their lives in jail. I’m surprised there isn’t some absolute hatred toward the man who made them do it.
I still think it wouldn’t be shocking nowadays, crime has gotten worse and people are much more jaded.
As long as any family members of the victims are alive, I doubt they will be released.
2004 parole hearing transcript: http://www.internet.is/bret/van.houten.2004.parole.transcript.htm
The part of the decision that blocked her parole:
The report by staff psychiatrist Dr. Hu as read by the Board:
True, she wasn’t implicated in the murders. She was first sent to prison for attempting to keep Manson’s followers from testifying at his trial. After her release, she was convicted of attempting to assasinate Gerald Ford. Then she attacked another inmate in prison. Then she escaped from jail and tried to reconnect with Manson.
Not a great testimonial for any members of the Manson family, IMHO.
If she’s a “model prisoner,” then prison life must agree with her.
It would be a shame to take her away from the one thing she’s good at.
I think imprisonment is cruel and unless of short duration tends to ruin people so that they cannot function outside of total institutions. I say we rehabilitate those we can (and quit trying to punish them) and if that doesn’t work we put them down humanely, not as vengeance but to protect the rest of us.
I don’t believe that every killer should be in prison forever. Leslie Van Houton hooked up with Manson of her own free will, took place in savage bloody murders not once but twice, killing seven people and an unborn child, pled innocent and went through a sensation trial, and defended Manson for years afterwards. Patricia Hearst, who was kidnapped, keep isolated and brainwashed, and when finally rescued denounced her captives immediately is a better example of someone under another group’s influences, yet she had to apply for pardon several times before being released.
At some point, society has to realize that nobody who does something like this deserves their freedom ever.
Will Van Houten have a better shot at parole if/ when Manson dies? The hold he had on his followers seems incredibly strong and maybe the worry is that it is still there in some form.
Not true. She was not at the Tate house, and hurt no one there.
She was only at the LaBianca house, which is why she was charged with less murders than the others. It was Charles Watson who killed Sharon.
Let’s remember that Van Houten et al were originally sentenced to die. Only after the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was being applied arbitrarily were the convictions backed to life in prison.
Perhaps the question should be “should Van Houten be put to death?” rather than “should Van Houten be paroled?”
According to Bugliosi in his book Helter Skelter, and apparently reaffirmed in the parole tesimony linked by Muffin; the stab wounds administered by Van Houten could have all been post-mortem
I can’t find a cite, but I recall reading that the youngest male juror in the original Tate/LaBianca trial had a crush on Leslie Van Houten and had wanted lesser charges for her. Trial testimony implied the non-fatal stab wounds administered by Leslie were all in Mrs. LaBianca’s buttocks.
FTR, I agree with the poster who believes that Van Houten will only be paroled after Manson’s death. Could be wrong, but as long as he is alive, his specter looms over them all.
How long did Van Houten “defend” Manson after the murders? Anybody?
Thanks again for the replies.
Sir Rhosis
I agree that in general imprisonment as implemented in the United States is cruel. I also believe that if a goal of our system is rehabilitation, prison isn’t a good way to do it. I’m not sure rehabilitation is a serious goal of our system, though.
I don’t believe we should put anyone down humanely, in fact I think that’s an oxymoron. It is immoral to kill someone who is not a threat, period.
I believe some crimes are so heinous that the person who commits it does not deserve a chance at being released ever again. In general, though I won’t derail this thead with extensive discussion about my views on crime and punishment, I think that a crime with a serious and permanent* result should be punished in a permanent manner. Namely, by life imprisonment of the person who committed the act.
I think providing equitable results should be the primary goal of a legal system (whether it be criminal law or civil affairs) and it is inherently inequitable to punish someone who has wronged another person in a serious and permanent manner with a temporary punishment.
*One can argue all crimes have permanent results. I primarily mean, in this sentence, that it is a crime that does damage from which one cannot recover/regenerate. IE, if someone steals my computer, I can never get that computer back, but I can recover the loss by getting a new computer. If someone cuts off my hand I can’t get that hand back, nor can the hand be regenerated, so someone who has done something as heinous as mutilate someone should be punished permanently.
Patty Hearst states in her book that the Manson “girls” tried to recruit her when she was in prison. This was 1979, about ten years after the murders.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Van Houten started bad mouthing Manson right before her first parole hearing.
Except that Lawrence Singleton never claimed to be rehabilitated. In fact, IIRC he swore he would do violence against women if they let him out. And he did.
Apples and oranges, I’m afraid.