Van Houten’s case was a little bit different, she won the right to a new trial, and was briefly out on bail or whatever in the 1970s. Her conviction for the new trial was a life sentence with possibility of parole. Maybe she’ll get the banned back together again. Spahn ranch burned down long ago however, and Baker ranch as well, the lands have been subsumed and are administered by the park service now.
Quoting myself from upthread
Not only was she just 19 when her crime took place, but she committed it in large part because she had been brainwashed by a cult and its leader. Nowadays, not only would she get a much more lenient sentence, she’d be considered a victim too. She would have been paroled decades ago.
I’d say that society now owes her.
There’s coherent arguments that Van Houten’s parole is justified. (Life with the possibility of parole being what her death sentence was commuted to.)
But to say that society owes her is rank liberal bullshit.
And I’m a proud liberal.
I can’t go along with the idea that society owes her more than continuing to feed, clothe her, and see to her basic needs as with any other indigent person. I’m sure society can do better in dealing with these circumstances but that doesn’t equate to a debt we owe her.
The cynics are claiming that anyway, releasing geriatric prisoners saves the state from expensive end of life care. That theory did hold true for Susan Atkins, though.
As long as she doesn’t kill anyone. I mean, can you imagine it: “Hey, you know that Manson family member we let out of prison? She killed someone.”
“Oh get the fuck out of here, we thought she was cured!”
She was a teenager in a cult, for Dogs sake. Wtf
Well sure, but unlike some teenage cult members she was actually out there slicing people up. I wish her well. I hope her slicing days are behind her.
That, honestly, was my thought. Does she have any source of income? How is she going to pay for rent, let alone medical care?
She will be on Medicare. People have agreed to take her in after she is out of the halfway house.
What should have been done with her? At what point could the public know for sure that she was no longer a danger to anyone? Every person in prison says they’re a changed person and they’ll never do it again. She ended up with parole which shows the system has a relief valve. Maybe we can do better, but this person is makes a poor poster girl.
A lot of people at the time seemed to think the green room in the lethal gas chamber at San Quentin was a pretty good place.
I can easily see a book deal. Maybe a story of oppression of women; don’t let this happen to you.
I can’t imagine she has met the minimum employment history requirement for Medicare. Or is that just for social security?
She is over 65 years old so she qualifies.
That’s why I asked earlier if California has “Son of Sam” type laws, preventing convicted criminals profiting from their crimes.
Would a “self-help” type book qualify? What if she didn’t discuss the crimes, but the “lessons she learned along the way”, or a cookbook based on her favorite recipes “using just five ingredients you can surely find at your local commissary”, or a fictional account of a murder cult and the young heroine who sneaks into their midst so she can stop their reign of terror?
Charles Watson and Susan Atkins wrote books.
I have a cousin who works for the Chicago equivalent of the district attorney’s office (it’s called something else). He is actually a death penalty supporter, but Illinois doesn’t have one, and his opinion, which he explained at length (my fault, I asked), is that people doing life without parole in a state with no death penalty have nothing to lose.
They can kill guards or incite riots, and the most that will happen is solitary confinement, loss of privileges, and the things that are done to other prisoners for much more minor rule infractions.
He says that “lifers” need EITHER death or parole dangled in front of them, and better both.
I don’t personally support the death penalty (although I do think people sentenced to life ought to be offered cyanide pills as a choice), but I think my cousin’s point about people having nothing to lose is valid, and so people in for life should be able to apply for parole.
Or even better, maybe no “life” sentences, but rather the superlong ones-- the 400 years, in places where good days can get you credit for two, and other things, like completing educational programs, can get you credit, working in-prison jobs can get you credit, going to AA meetings can get you credit.
Unless you are 20 when you are sentenced to 400 years, you may never work that off, even with maximizing you double, triple, quadruple, whatever credits, until you are 70, but it’s essentially the same result as Van Houten got.
One does wonder if someone that susceptible to Manson’s charms, and who does so well in the prison structure is possibly someone who needs A LOT of structure. I hope whoever has volunteered to take her in can provide it.
FWIW, I’ve seen interviews with Van Houten (who got a master’s degree in prison, IIRC), and she comes across as very intelligent and thoughtful-- much more so than Krenwinkel, or Atkins (albeit, Atkins probably already had a brain tumor at the time of the interview I saw, it just hadn’t been diagnosed), and Lynette Fromme comes across as howling at the moon.
That could mean that Van Houten is just more manipulative, but I’m sure prison teaches that, and sometimes being bright, however it manifests in one situation, can be channeled into something else in another.
Honestly, it is what it is, and therefore, I wish her the best.
I’m in no way qualified to judge Van Houten’s rehabilitation, but I am opposed to parole standards being applied capriciously on the basis of political considerations.