Leslie Van Houten, Manson Family member who participated in the LaBianca murders in 1969 and had her parole rejected four times by the governor of California, could be out of prison soon. Or not.
Coincidentally I was just reading about Van Houten in Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter and looked her name up online.
“You couldn’t meet a nicer group of people.”
After 50 years, people change.
There were 2 other nonfamous women on death row with the 3 manson women, both murderers. They were paroled long ago.
If a prisoner does everything that the state requires to qualify for parole and still has it denied, then why maintain the fiction that the state has parole? Either the state has parole in which case she seems to have qualified, or it doesn’t, so drop the pretense.
Question: If she gets out, can she make money off her notoriety?
When did she say that?
And they had dune-buggies. Dune-buggies! Where do I sign up?
That quote is printed in a lot of books, usually without a cite. Those that do provide a cite say that it was said in an interview with Police Sergeant Michael McGann. From what I can find poking around online, Sergeant McGann interviewed Van Houten twice in late November of 1969. I couldn’t find the quote in the transcripts of those interviews that I was able to find on a google search, so it might be paraphrased.
Here is a typical quote:
Another version (note the wording is slightly different):
Youtube has the audio from the interviews here. I personally am not going to listen to several hours of crappy audio tape just to see how accurate the quote was.
Does qualifying for parole guaranty parole in California? If not, then how is this not a breach of the separation of powers overruling the Governors executive power?
This seems to be the relevant part of the article covering this:
Hadar Aviram, a professor at UC College of the Law, San Francisco, said that for many years, some criminals seeking parole in California were kept in custody solely due to the heinousness of their past crimes, a practice that was stopped by a state Supreme Court ruling.
Since then, state officials have made other arguments to block parole, such as claiming defendants lacked sufficient insight about their crimes, said Aviram, who wrote a book about the parole process in Manson-related cases.
Van Houten, in particular, has largely stayed out of trouble since being incarcerated and has an advanced degree, Aviram said, adding that the law also requires that her young age at the time of her crimes be taken into account.
It sounds as if the Court decided that the governor can only use certain grounds to keep someone off parole, and so the defendants can now appeal to argue that the law was not followed. Basically, the Legislatutre decide if the Executive followed the law.
In other words, it’s not Separation of Powers but Checks and Balances that are being invoked.
Maybe Gov. Newsom figures paroling Van Houten wouldn’t look good on his CV when he runs for President.
Like Mike Dukakis and Willie Horton?
LOL you can tell I am way freaking different - if I were a governor on my way out and deciding not to run for any other offices, on my way out I would bang the gavel [or whatever] and yell PARDONED [or COMMUTED! depending]
I mean, 50 years - you are right, people can change over 50 years [some won’t, but many people will] and if paroled, she will STILL have to finish her assigned term under the control of the parole board, see a parole officer once a week or whatever schedule she is assigned. Life on parole isn’t easy for anybody, just easier in many cases than life in prison [I temped with legal offices after I got my paralegal cert while job hunting for a permanent job] and if given the option, many people might not go for parole - think about it, you have to get a job to provide for residence, food, random purchases and people dislike employing excons, can you imagine the flack you would get hiring a Manson Girl?!
Parole is not as simple as “check all the prisoner behavior / compliance boxes and be paroled”.
It’s more like “check all the prisoner behavior / compliance boxes to be eligible to have your case reviewed by a parole tribunal to consider not your past prisoner behavior, but your potential future parolee behavior.”
Granted, California hasn’t covered themselves with glory in using consistent well-founded principles when evaluating parole cases. But it really isn’t, and should not be, a simple exercise in box-checking followed by opening the gates and letting them out. Otherwise a baddie could readily game the system to, in effect, escape.
She was released from prison for six months back in 1978, pending a new trial. She didnt get in trouble then, probably wouldnt now. I believe she has a support group.
Perhaps they inspired the Banana Splits.
She was 19 when she committed her crimes a half century ago. She has been a model prisoner who has taken an active role in her rehabilitation. If parole isn’t for her, then it isn’t for anyone and we should drop the fiction.
It’s been done before. 
He’s not nearly on his way out though. He has Presidential ambitions. She’s in her mid 70s so she isn’t looking for a job. She has people willing to take her in.
I don’t understand how a court can intervene in this case? A governor has executive powers to grant or deny pardons of people that committed state crimes.
Seems pretty cut and dried.
Is granting parole any different? I understood the state parole boards serve as advisors to the governor. They screen candidates and make recommendations.
I agree Van Houten is a good candidate for parole. But I can’t see voiding a Governor’s executive powers by a court.
I think this should be appealed by the state.
It’s already been very clearly explained in this thread. The Governor’s powers aren’t absolute.