Leslie Van Houten up for parole again

[LinasK]

She may only be 66 but have you seen her picture? She looks at least 76 now. I don't think she's a further threat to society, which is the most important thing for any felon being considered for parole. Her sentence was changed to Life with the possibility of parole in 1976. Were it not the infamous Manson family, she probably would have been paroled by now. The notoriety of the murders helped keep her incarcerated longer than any other woman. I doubt Krenwinkel will ever see the outside of prison walls.

This is how you need to remember her, not as she looks today! http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...ten-recommended-for-7249954.php#photo-9806012

 

[RANCH]

She may only be 66 but have you seen her picture? She looks at least 76 now. I don't think she's a further threat to society, which is the most important thing for any felon being considered for parole. Her sentence was changed to Life with the possibility of parole in 1976. Were it not the infamous Manson family, she probably would have been paroled by now. The notoriety of the murders helped keep her incarcerated longer than any other woman. I doubt Krenwinkel will ever see the outside of prison walls.

The sentence she was given did allow for the possibility of parole. I don't know if it's possible to guarantee that she will never harm anyone if released no matter how improbable that seems to be.

Governor Brown recently denied parole to 73 year old Bruce Davis who has also turned into a productive person while in prison.

He has said he became a born-again Christian behind bars, earned a doctoral degree in philosophy of religion, and ministered to other inmates.

Does that mean the Governor will not look at Leslie Van Houten's accomplishment's while in prison and concentrate on her murderous behavior from many years ago when making his decision?

Personally I'm conflicted on whether Leslie Van Houten should be set free. I respect and understand the Tate and LaBianca families wish's. They want the people responsible for these terrible crimes to never be free. So do a lot of other people. They feel that's how justice is served in this case. I have a hard time arguing with that at all.

On the other hand she was given by law the opportunity for parole. Should her parole be denied solely on the notoriety of the crime? Is that fair and just? Should Leslie Van Houten be treated the same as other California convicts or should she be considered a special case?

JMO

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/us/manson-follower-denied-parole-again-in-california.html

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Although in general I'm all for people serving their sentences in full, in real life that almost never happens. So why should she be held to a stricter standard simply because her crime was so notorious?

I would really like to see some statistics regarding the percentage of people who were under the age of 21 and convicted of equally heinous yet unpublicized murders in 1970, without being deemed an irredeemable threat to society, are who are still in prison.

I'd be willing to bet that percentage is very small.

Let her out.

 

[RANCH]

Life with parole no longer means life term

Legal ruling causes steady rise in parole for California's lifers

Not so long ago, the conventional wisdom in legal circles was that any violent criminal sentenced to life with the possibility of parole in California wasn’t likely to ever walk out of prison.

In California, life meant life.

More than 2,200 inmates who had been serving life sentences in California have been paroled over the past five years, which is more than three times the number of lifers paroled in each of the previous 19 years combined.

Authorities say the higher numbers are primarily the result of a state Supreme Court decision in 2008 that set a new legal standard for the Board of Parole Hearings and the Governor’s Office to use when determining who is suitable for parole.

That standard is focused not just on the circumstances of the inmate’s offense, but whether he or she poses a current threat to public safety. If not, the inmate may be released.

Looks like the statistics show that a lot of California "lifers" have been paroled in the last few years and it's because of a Supreme Court decision.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...ifornia-prison-inmates-crime/2/?#article-copy

 

[LinasK]

Dear Governor Brown, I am a big supporter of yours. I voted for you this time around, but I was too young to vote in 1975. The reason I am writing to you is to please block the parole of Leslie Van Houten. She has no remorse. I was a little girl growing up in the San Fernando Valley, not far from the Manson ranch at the time of the Manson murders. You couldn't not know about them and the heinousness and the depravity. Leslie was an active participant in the murder of Rosemary LaBianca. She's even admitted that fact. If it were not for the abolishment of the Death Penalty in 1972, she'd still be on Death Row where she belongs with Charles Manson and Patricia Krenwinkle. Please don't be swayed by the recommendations of the parole board, and instead listen to the wishes of Cory LaBianca and keep Leslie Van Houten locked up for the rest of her natural life. Thank you,

 

[wfgodot]

That's a good letter, LinasK.

 

[LinasK]

Life with parole no longer means life term

Legal ruling causes steady rise in parole for California's lifers





Looks like the statistics show that a lot of California "lifers" have been paroled in the last few years and it's because of a Supreme Court decision.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...ifornia-prison-inmates-crime/2/?#article-copy

This shouldn't apply because her crime was committed long before 2008!!! Are we going to let Charlie out next??:stormingmad::behindbar:behindbar:banghead::banghead: And yes it is GUILT by association!

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Oh and another thing.

I've been reading a lot recently about brain development, and latest research indicates the brain is not fully developed until early, maybe even mid twenties. Far later than was believed to be the case when she was convicted.

And the part of the brain that influences decision making and impulse control is the last to completely develop.

Which explains why otherwise exemplary teens (like Van Houten was before she met up with Manson) still make insanely bad decisions.

Add to that her brain being messed up on powerful hallucinogenic drugs as well.

I am not excusing her for what she did. But I do think she's paid her dues and can safely be released into society.

 

[RANCH]

This shouldn't apply because her crime was committed long before 2008!!! Are we going to let Charlie out next??:stormingmad::behindbar:behindbar:banghead::banghead: And yes it is GUILT by association!

I'm not so sure about that.

But that’s not the case anymore. In 2009, 221 lifer inmates were released from prison on parole, more than twice the number from the year before, according to the Governor’s Office.

I don't think that the 2009 release figures where from 2009 crimes. I read the new law as affecting all parole hearings after it went into effect.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...alifornia-prison-inmates-crime/?#article-copy

 

[LinasK]

Oh and another thing.

I've been reading a lot recently about brain development, and latest research indicates the brain is not fully developed until early, maybe even mid twenties. Far later than was believed to be the case when she was convicted.

And the part of the brain that influences decision making and impulse control is the last to completely develop.

Which explains why otherwise exemplary teens (like Van Houten was before she met up with Manson) still make insanely bad decisions.

Add to that her brain being messed up on powerful hallucinogenic drugs as well.

I am not excusing her for what she did. But I do think she's paid her dues and can safely be released into society.

BBM. I don't! Tell that to Rosemary LaBianca and her survivors.

 

[RANCH]

Oh and another thing.

I've been reading a lot recently about brain development, and latest research indicates the brain is not fully developed until early, maybe even mid twenties. Far later than was believed to be the case when she was convicted.

And the part of the brain that influences decision making and impulse control is the last to completely develop.

Which explains why otherwise exemplary teens (like Van Houten was before she met up with Manson) still make insanely bad decisions.

Add to that her brain being messed up on powerful hallucinogenic drugs as well.

I am not excusing her for what she did. But I do think she's paid her dues and can safely be released into society.

BBM

Apparently that's what the law says is the basis for a lifers release. Whether they are a danger to fellow citizens and not if the crime was heinous.

According to Schwarzenegger, Davis-Lawrence’s crime demonstrated “an exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering…This was a cold, premeditated murder carried out in an especially cruel manner and committed for an incredibly petty reason.”

The 4-to-3 ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning Schwarzenegger’s decision has allowed for meaningful judicial review of parole decisions by the Board of Parole Hearings and the Governor and, since 2008, has been the basis of hundreds of constitutional challenges by parole-eligible inmates. The Lawrence decision was the first time that the state’s highest court ruled in favor of a prisoner in a parole case.

This ruling by the California Supreme Court shows that the emphasis is on rehabilitation and the release of convicts into society.

On August 21, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Davis-Lawrence, allowing her to remain free after nearly 24 years in prison.

“This case is significant on so many levels – for Sandra, who has paid for her crime and earned her freedom through exemplary efforts to educate and reinvent herself in prison, for so many clients of the clinic and other life-term prisoners who now see that their hard work toward rehabilitation in prison can lead to their freedom, and for all the students of the clinic who work so hard for their clients in every other case,” said Rummel, who worked on the original petition as a visiting professor.
In the ruling, the justices said there was “overwhelming” evidence of Davis-Lawrence’s rehabilitation while in prison, demonstrating her suitability for parole.

Davis- Lawrence committed her crime in 1971 so this affects people convicted way before 2008.

http://uscpcjp.com/meet-our-clients/sandra-davis-lawrence/

 

[SuzDuJour]

I remember the girls laughing and giggling and getting swasticas carved into their foreheads in support of Charlie after they were done butchering the victims. That's when they should've been remorseful. This is when I'm supposed to be forgiving? Sorry, I'm not...

 

[Lilibet]

This is my general opinion about anyone who kills someone, not just about Leslie Van Houten. In my opinion, when someone deliberately takes a life, they need to accept that their own life no longer belongs to them. Out of respect for the victim and the family, they should not presume to ask for mercy, prison privileges or parole. Feeling entitled to those things indicates to me that they really don't acknowledge the magnitude of their actions and the pain they have caused. I hope they would do their best in prison to help others, not with expectation of eventual parole, but to give back a small part of the life they took. A murderer can never bring back the person they killed or make it up to the victim's family. Any legal relief they receive is a gift, not a right, and not something to request. If I killed someone, accidentally or on purpose, and was remorseful, I'd like to think that is how I would show it. Anything less cheapens the life that was taken. JMO MOO

 

[rainwater]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...killer-leslie-van-houten-approved-for-parole/

" Before the panel, Van Houten recounted how she held Rosemary down with a pillow and lamp cord as Charles “Tex” Watson, another Mason Family member, stabbed her. Then he passed the knife to her, and Van Houten proceeded to stab Rosemary 14 times, later using the blood of the slain La Biancas to write messages on the walls of their home."

Sharon Tate's sister has started an online petition to oppose Van Houten's parole. :jail:

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...killer-leslie-van-houten-approved-for-parole/

" Before the panel, Van Houten recounted how she held Rosemary down with a pillow and lamp cord as Charles “Tex” Watson, another Mason Family member, stabbed her. Then he passed the knife to her, and Van Houten proceeded to stab Rosemary 14 times, later using the blood of the slain La Biancas to write messages on the walls of their home."
(RSBM)



Horrible, horrible woman.

 

[Emi]

Hope she doesn't get paroled, she is a convicted killer

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

 

[KMouse]

This woman should never breathe fresh air ever again. If she does get parole she better slip away quietly and not try and profit by writing books or giving interviews.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

BBM. I don't! Tell that to Rosemary LaBianca and her survivors.

I understand what you are saying. But the reality is that survivors of murder victims routinely have to face the knowledge that the murderer of their loved ones, having being sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, is being paroled.

That being the case, I really don't understand why LVH deserves less mercy than those other killers that we will never hear about because their crimes were less sensational.

 

[Lilibet]

I understand what you are saying. But the reality is that survivors of murder victims routinely have to face the knowledge that the murderer of their loved ones, having being sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, is being paroled.

That being the case, I really don't understand why LVH deserves less mercy than those other killers that we will never hear about because their crimes were less sensational.

BBM

I'm all for mercy where it is warranted. But I think what sets the participants in these particular murders apart from other killers we will never hear about is the very fact that this crime was so sensational and so shocking to society as a whole...to this very day. All murder is wrong, but these murders were depraved and rocked people to the core. It wasn't "just" an offense against the victims and their loved ones. It was a horrendously terrifying offense against civilized human society (their intention)...or at the very least, against those of us who were living in California at that time. It may not seem fair, but IMO to parole Manson family members minimizes what they did. I don't believe they should expect legal mercy or expect to be paroled. JMO

 

[LinasK]

I understand what you are saying. But the reality is that survivors of murder victims routinely have to face the knowledge that the murderer of their loved ones, having being sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, is being paroled.

That being the case, I really don't understand why LVH deserves less mercy than those other killers that we will never hear about because their crimes were less sensational.

She was originally sentenced to Death, which was commuted to Life when CA abolished the Death Penalty in 1972. I don't see why that entitles her to parole. She could've been executed by now. It didn't make her crimes any less harsh.