Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Van Houten gets parole after over 45 years in prison.
- Thread starter Munjibunga
- Start date
J/K, I think he's talking about one of Charlie's disciples.
Leslie Van Houten, one of Charles Manson's "girls".
I have mixed emotions about it. Their crimes were hideous, horrible butcheries. None of them deserve to be freed. OTOH, I think she was the youngest of the bunch. We've all done stupid things when young, although very few of us have done anything near that sort of savagery.
I've seen interviews with her over the years, and it APPEARS as though she has genuine remorse for her actions. My gut reaction though, is none of them should ever see the outside of the prison walls.
Filmmaker John Waters befriended Leslie many years ago and has offered extremely sympathetic portrait of her in his books. What moved me to literal tears was Waters's portrait of Leslie's family as faith-driven and deeply committed to the idea that despite her grave sins, Leslie deserved the redemption of a second chance. One cannot but be impressed by such deep and abiding familial devotion, at least I couldn't, coming as I do from a gene pool of vile scum who would sell you out for a nickel, particularly so my late mother, may she rot in hell.
What was the question?
What was the question?
I feel for you. Familial devotion is the norm, particularly parents toward their children. You missed out on that, understandably colouring your outlook.
According to all reports I have seen, the victim she stabbed was already dead, killed by her associates in her presence. She was 19 and into drugs. I think if they feel she has expressed remorse, 45 years is a not unreasonable time for parole. I understand the victims family disagrees.
Sentences tend to be much shorter here, and life imprisonment doesn't exist because it assumes the person can never be rehabilitated, and that it makes no allowance for improvements in treatment and advances in medical knowledge that mean people can be treated in the future.
After a certain point you have to ask what good it is to keep someone locked up their whole life, for society, the person and even the victims and their family.
But prison here is not seen as punishment or a way to avenge the victim, it's goal is to protect society and rehabilitate the offender.
After a certain point you have to ask what good it is to keep someone locked up their whole life, for society, the person and even the victims and their family.
But prison here is not seen as punishment or a way to avenge the victim, it's goal is to protect society and rehabilitate the offender.
Wow, let her out already. She's about 65 years old and missed her entire adult life because she got mixed in with some major criminal action. She needs/needed rehabilitation not punishment. A lot of places understand this.
Exactly why some should never see the outside again. (Not referring to the subject in the OP.)
Just the other day a news story about a parolee, within a week of release raped and murdered a young college student here. You guessed it, he was serving time for rape. Yep, he was rehab'd just fine...
Totally depends on the crime and the individual.
After a certain point you have to say "this person is too dangerous to be let loose on innocent law-abiding citizens. He had a million chances to decide to be a decent person and he chose to be a bad guy. Sorry, no sympathy for rapists and murderers."
She's been recommended for parole by a parole board panel but not yet paroled. The full board and governor still have to approve.
Given that she was the young, pretty one of the group, it's been a long time, she has expressed remorse and been well behaved I can see why people think she should be released.
She helped hold down a lady while her friend stabbed her to death. Here's what the daughter of the victims had to say:
"Maybe Leslie Van Houten has been a model prisoner," Cory LaBianca said. "But you know what? We still suffer our loss. My father will never be paroled. My stepmother will never get her life back. There's no way I can agree with the ruling today."
Given that she was the young, pretty one of the group, it's been a long time, she has expressed remorse and been well behaved I can see why people think she should be released.
She helped hold down a lady while her friend stabbed her to death. Here's what the daughter of the victims had to say:
"Maybe Leslie Van Houten has been a model prisoner," Cory LaBianca said. "But you know what? We still suffer our loss. My father will never be paroled. My stepmother will never get her life back. There's no way I can agree with the ruling today."
Consideration for the families of victims of murder far outweigh any regard for the murderer.
Killing someone, from a legal perspective, is one of the most complex crimes on the books. There are all kinds of things to consider.
When you rob a bank it's not like you did it by accident or you only meant to scare them. There isn't much gray area when it comes to other crimes. But killing someone is unique in that regard.
I'm not trying to suggest an outcome for Van Houten, as I don't know all the facts in the case, but the common knowledge, as mentioned in this thread, is that she was young and on drugs. She was also under the influence of an evil person, further ingrained by the drugs. The crimes were horrible, no doubt about it, however Van Houten's participation was not as the orchestrator but rather as a manipulated servant.
What gets lost in the emotion of a situation like this is that the Constitution isn't set up to protect the victims, it's to protect the accused. The victim's rights were already violated. That's why someone was accused and brought to trial. Even after conviction, the accused is protected against cruel and unusual punishment.
It could easily be argued that given Van Houten's role in these crimes, 45 years is punishment enough.
You can call it a slap in the face of the victim's families if she is let out, but this isn't about the victims or their families. It's about Van Houten and her Constitutional rights, even as a convicted murderer.
When you rob a bank it's not like you did it by accident or you only meant to scare them. There isn't much gray area when it comes to other crimes. But killing someone is unique in that regard.
I'm not trying to suggest an outcome for Van Houten, as I don't know all the facts in the case, but the common knowledge, as mentioned in this thread, is that she was young and on drugs. She was also under the influence of an evil person, further ingrained by the drugs. The crimes were horrible, no doubt about it, however Van Houten's participation was not as the orchestrator but rather as a manipulated servant.
What gets lost in the emotion of a situation like this is that the Constitution isn't set up to protect the victims, it's to protect the accused. The victim's rights were already violated. That's why someone was accused and brought to trial. Even after conviction, the accused is protected against cruel and unusual punishment.
It could easily be argued that given Van Houten's role in these crimes, 45 years is punishment enough.
You can call it a slap in the face of the victim's families if she is let out, but this isn't about the victims or their families. It's about Van Houten and her Constitutional rights, even as a convicted murderer.
And it's apparently four months before the ultimate decision gets kicked up to the governor. I don't like waiting a day for big news. Four months has gotta suck and this is pretty big news.
Even Jerry Brown knows this is a political decision. Does he really want to be that guy that let out a Manson family member?
The Constitution may not address victims and their families but it leaves the nuts and bolts of justice to be determined and executed by the government and does not preclude their consideration. She received Constitutional due process.
I'd have more sympathy if she was convinced by an older person to rob a liquor store and one of her partners shot the clerk. The particulars of this crime were heinous and unusual. Premeditated and conspiratorial. She was up close and personal in a nasty murder for murder's sake as part of a group on nonsensical murders. Life without parole doesn't seem cruel and unusual. IMO the whole group should have been executed in the 70's and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
At this point in the game black is white and up is down. Anything could happen.
Roland GR 88
Commercial User
Read the book......there wasn't any mistake or doubt about her active participation in these murders. Seven people were killed at 2 different locations on 2 different days for no more reason than an easy opportunity. They showed no mercy for any of them and none should be offered in return.
