Memories are so short!!
Even Nazi war criminals try to come off as gentle old grandpas!!
But of course, Leslie Van Houten was “just following orders”, wasn’t she?
She deserves NO PAROLE!!!
There’s a saying that goes “There’s no law against killing a mad dog!”
NO PAROLE for poor, sweet, helpless little Leslie!
Not No, but HELL NO!!!
She deserves to serve the rest of her un-natural life in prison!!!
If you put whipped cream on dog shit it may look “prettier” but way deep down inside its still dog shit!
Well, maybe deep down inside, she forgives the people she murdered!!!
I’ll disagree quite strongly with you, as well. First and foremost, rehabilitation. I see that it’s not an easy task, but having the attitude of just locking people away doesn’t help them adapt to society. And most prisoners do come back. Actually, if prison was all for keeping dangerous people away from society, every prisoner should get a life sentence, because if they are at any point too dangerous for society and don’t get rehabilitated from that, they’ll…
I find this almost too obvious to say, and I’m hoping you’re only saying locking people away is the most important thing about prison because the rehabilitation thing currently isn’t working too well.
So, the next best thing is still better than the third best, but keep aiming for the top. I don’t think rehabilitating most prisoners is all too far-fetched a dream, but as everything else, it starts with the attitude.
I remember seeing interviews with the women on television several years ago – 60 Minutes or 20/20, something like that. I don’t recall who was interviewed, but I clearly remember being so very, very sad at how those lives had been wasted.
I don’t know whether keeping the Manson girls in prison this long really serves any good. But if California is going to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives, they could at least be used as a real deterrent. People should be reminded that these women have never had and will never have children of their own, will never know the love of a good man, will never have homes of their own, will never have anything close to a normal life, and will probably die younger than most people. I think it’s wonderful that some of them have found ways of being useful in prison, but let’s face it – they destroyed their own lives the day they hooked up with Charlie Manson. Maybe they can’t “contribute” to society (the way so many lifelong welfare recipients apparently do) but we should at least get some sort of cautionary tale use from them. Maybe the California DOC can run TV ads every year on the anniversary of their conviction reminding people that they’re still alive and still imprisoned. Perhaps a brief recap of all the things that have happened, the lives that might have been if they’d … I dunno, maybe listened to their parents. (OK, that was just pathetic, but I guess I’ve made a point in there somewhere.)
Having also seen her during a TV interview, she most definitely comes across as remorseful, insightful, and accepting of whatever fate she’s handed.
I’d like to emphasize one aspect of her ‘case’ that has received scant attention in this thread although it’s been mentioned. Specifically, she was part of a “cult”. She was “brainwashed”. At the time of her crimes, though, those terms were unknown and used only to refer to Korean War POW, respectively. If her crimes were committed last year, say, I’d bet that with people’s current understanding of the influence and power that a cult has over its members, she wouldn’t even get a life sentence.
Do you have any statistics on how many paroled murderers repeat their crimes vs. how many go on to live productive lives? With the Leopold and Loeb case, Loeb was freed after serving 33 years in prison. He felt remorse, admitted he was screwed up, and upon his release worked toward helping others. He’s not the only one. Rehabilitation is possible.
Ditto. Patti Hearst didn’t do nearly the time these people did, and someone was killed in one of the confrontations the police had while trying to capture her.
I’ve never understood the “they were under Manson’s control” argument. Charles Manson was a man of diminutive stature (what is he- 5’3 or something like?), clearly deranged and into drugs, penniless, half-literate and he’d spent literally more than half of his life in correctional facilities, often for violent crimes (including crimes against women, homosexual rape, armed robbery, etc.). He lived off the charity of others and of his followers and what he made stealing and orchestrating thefts, and he lived in total squalid cess pools. HOW could anybody fall under this man’s control? He was ignorant, he was unwashed, he was violent, he was nuts.
Van Houten was a girl who’d wanted to be a nun and who was well educated in private schools and had a family that, while dysfunctional, loved her. How did this happen? I have to side with Bugliosi in believing that either the Manson followers had something others don’t or lacked something others have because I honestly cannot envision what would lead me in a peacetime (affluent even) country to do what she did and the others did to strangers who had never done me any harm, who I didn’t even know. LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people did promiscuous sex and megaloads of drugs in the 60s and very few butchered people. (A homicide detectives who had worked for LAPD for 20 years threw up while at the Tate house.)
If she’s reformed and repented and truly “over it” then I’m glad and that’s great. It makes her a reborn woman who’s rightfully convicted for participating in a horrendous murder. Let her do her good deeds behind bars- crochet doilies and sell them on e-bay and give the money to soup kitchens or whatever. If she wants to apply for a space in another correctional facility maybe I’d hear her plea, but I would never, I don’t care if she’s a sweet old 90 something woman who brings macadamia cookies to the parole hearing, she needs to die in jails. The fact that others have commited worse crimes and didn’t (e.g. the rentboy brothers who murdered Ramon Novarro were both out in 7 years- and both returned to prison for violent crimes) is the flaw in the system, not Van Houten’s incarceration.
Wanna see something work-safe but eerie? Charles “Tex” Watson is a minister now and has a web-site in which he talks about God’s love and how he ain’t killing folks no more cause that was wrong and doesn’t know what he was thinking now and of course only did it cause the much shorter Manson corrupted him, but he also on that site reviews the remake of Helter Skelter. There is something so freaky to reading a run of the mill movie review about a crime so horrible they couldn’t reproduce it on film without an NC17 rating and the review is written by the man who did the crime- who repeatedly stabbed Sharon Tate and her unborn baby and who as punishment was sent to prison where the state paid for him to have conjugal visits and for the welfare of his three children (who grew up on state aid and contributions) before he “found Jesus”.
No, kill the bastards, or if you can’t do that lock them in solitaire. I don’t care if it was 37 years ago- Patrick Polanski had he been allowed to be born would be younger than I am now. As long as he and the LaBianca’s remain dead no Manson should be free, I don’t care how repentant. Cold blooded murderers have no rights.
<nitpick>
You’ve got it backwards: Loeb was killed in prison. Leopold was the one who was released after 33 years inside. Upon release, he moved to Puerto Rico and worked as an ornithologist - not exactly a career that fits the definition of “helping others”, but your point is still valid.
I don’t see why someone who behaves well in prison should be paroled. The fact was they killed strangers with no mitigating circumstances, not angry at them, just wanted to!
Even if they weren’t considered able minded enough because of brainwashing, they should still be in a mental instituiton forever then.
Even after they’re back to normal mentally? You can’t be serious. They had a disease (possibly induced by someone else), get treated, are cured, and you’d still keep them locked up in a “mental institution forever”?
Conjugal visits. And I was wrong- it’s four children. He’s been in maximum security prisons since before the first was conceived for the most horrifying non-wartime crime in common knowledge, but to quote Buddy from Night Court, he’s “much better now!”
To those who would free the “girls” I ask this: would you free Charles Manson? He isn’t guilty of participating in ANY of the murders- he’s not even a suspect. He was present at the LaBianca house and tied them up, so that’s aiding and abetting, but few would serve 37 years in prison for that, and in his 70s and just over 5’3 he’s hardly that dangerous and with psychotropic drugs in a halfway house would probably be no threat.
Personally I think it was a sad day when he was taken off death row and the same is true for the others. I have mixed views on the death penalty in most cases but not with these pieces of subhuman exrement- they should have been killed. Failing that, they should never be free, and if they’re truly repentant then that’s great because it means they should be tormented daily by what they did and that is totally justified. If they’re not tormented daily by it they’re not repentant and shouldn’t get out (stabbing innocent helpless people dozens of times is not something about which you say “I’m not gonna beat myself up over it…”). Manson, who supposedly held them under such tight control they were terrified to move, was nowhere around when Tate/Sebring/Folger/Parent/Frykowski were killed and left before the murders of the LaBiancas- these people could have left at any time. They could have walked out the back door of the house, kept walking, Manson would never have found them (it’s not like he had access to an intelligence network or unlimited resources) but they didn’t. Worst case scenario is they’d have been shot in the back, but who of us wouldn’t risk dying ourselves rather than repeatedly shooting and stabbing people who are tied up and innocent?
I’m sorry but if they live to be centenarians they need to be incarcerated centenarians. They should have died 30 years ago. (Van Houten, incidentally, actually has been free in the past 30 years- she was released while her case was on appeal in the late ‘70s and yes, she was a model parolee- caused no problems before they returned her to prison. So what? To paraphrase Chris Rock, "You ain’t supposed to commit a bloody hate crime against another person for the glorification of a drugged up hippie with delusions of divinity you low-expectation-havin’-mutha-f&cka! What you want, a cookie?")
PLEASE stop comparing the Manson girls with Patricia Hearst. I’ll say it again: Patty Hearst was kidnapped at gunpoint, kept isolated, and truly brainwashed into believing she had to go along with the SLA or be killed. She did not kill anyone. At no time did she join the group. When she was arrested, she denounced them immediately.
Leslie Van Houten joined Manson willingly, and supported him for years after her convinction.
Hear, hear!
(I know less about Patricia Hearst’s case than I do of the Manson family, so I wasn’t about to speak up - but you’re supporting the thoughts I’d already had.)
When Helter Skelter came out ,I saw a review . It was written by a woman who ran into a Manson protegee earlier at a party. She was took a drink that had apparently been tamperered with . The Mansonite talked to her with subtile psychological talk about her family and zeroed in on her dad. She was asked after a while if she would like to go along with her into the desert and meet the family. She said it took all the will power she could muster to refuse. She was amazed at how her will had been subjugated so easily.
Is it justice when some serve 10 or 20 year terms for murder and others ,because it was a public trial serve much longer sentences. It was a horrible crime committed many years ago. If she is not a threat she should be out .
The disconnect I’m seeing in this thread isn’t so much that people are really in favor of other thrill-kill[sup]1[/sup] murderers serving only 10-20 years, while only the Manson ‘family’ and their ilk are kept for longer terms because of the sensationalism of their cases: Rather I think that most of the people who have spoken up for the 'keep ‘em in jail until the people they’ve murdered are paroled from their unjust fates’ are adamant about making these people serve what they’d like to see most similar murderers serve for their respective crimes.
I’m going to use this quote from Sampiro, because I think it’s the most elequent in the thread:
(The fact that Sampiro’s ‘skirts’ would be rather armor plated from the POV of most posters in this thread never crossed my mind. Really. If you believe that I have a bridge I’d like to sell you…)
As for Karl Gauss’ very cogent point about the cupability of the various Manson family members, I’d like to state explicitly that I disagree with his conclusions. I don’t disagree that it should be considered, both with respect to sentencing and now with respect to parole, but I do think that there’s a difference between being influenced, or brainwashed, by a cult, and the exact pathology of what happened with the Manson family.
I don’t think that it’s quite proper to label the Tate-LaBianca murders as thrill-kill murders, but I’m equally unwilling to label them terrorism, either. It’s a category that serves to separate this kind of murder from a less incomprehensible, personally-motivated murder which I can see a more lenient sentence as being reasonable.
However much it may be decried I don’t think that all first-degree murders are created equal. To find a murder, in the past several years, that shocked me as much as the Tate-LaBianca murders did the public at the time, I have to nominated this gem.
If you believe that I have a bridge I’d like to sell you…)