Leslie Van Houten up for parole again

[Madeleine74]

If one doesn't like the laws, then work to change the laws. All anyone can do is apply the laws that have been passed. If you don't want killers to ever have a chance at parole, then help pass legislation that makes it so they never will be considered for parole.

 

[Lilibet]

If one doesn't like the laws, then work to change the laws. All anyone can do is apply the laws that have been passed. If you don't want killers to ever have a chance at parole, then help pass legislation that makes it so they never will be considered for parole.

Is this directed at me? It's hard to tell when no post is quoted. I haven't said that killers should not ever be considered for parole. I just don't think they should feel entitled to it. Even in the case of Leslie Van Houten, I accept whatever decision is made by the parole board and the governor, even though I strongly disagree in principle because of the nature of the crime.

 

[Madeleine74]

No that's just a general statement to all. The laws determine what can happen or what will be permissable, so the changing of old laws or the passage of new laws is the way to exert control over a system that many feel has run amok.

 

[Lilibet]

No that's just a general statement to all. The laws determine what can happen or what will be permissable, so the changing of old laws or the passage of new laws is the way to exert control over a system that many feel has run amok.

OK. Thanks. I understand what you're saying.

 

[Montjoy]

My concern with all of this is as follows: I suspect that the parole board bases their decision on only one question: "Is this someone who was associated with Charles Manson, and tied to those crimes?" I imagine that there is a fair bit of "not on my watch" and "I'm not going to be tied to releasing one of the Manson family" thinking going on. And I think that all of the usual criteria for evaluation whether someone is eligible for parole get thrown out the window, because this person, who was basically a damaged child when all of this happened, has never denied her involvement.

I am not saying that any of the things she did were defensible, but, so many decades ago, she was damaged. Anyone who has read anything about this case knows that. She has spent more than 4 decades trying to better herself and be a model member of her 'community' of convicts.

There are thousands of people who are greater risks to the public and to their friends and families (e.g., those involved in domestic abuse) who are paroled every day, and I don't see any threads about them here.

Perhaps she is still dangerous; perhaps not. But either way, I do not think that she gets a fair shake from the justice system. And I think that even considering the crimes with which she is associated, she is somewhat a victim herself. To deny this would mean one is totally ignorant of what went on with Manson and his 'family'. But it's a free country, so it's your right to believe or ignore whatever you wish.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

My concern with all of this is as follows: I suspect that the parole board bases their decision on only one question: "Is this someone who was associated with Charles Manson, and tied to those crimes?" I imagine that there is a fair bit of "not on my watch" and "I'm not going to be tied to releasing one of the Manson family" thinking going on. And I think that all of the usual criteria for evaluation whether someone is eligible for parole get thrown out the window, because this person, who was basically a damaged child when all of this happened, has never denied her involvement.
.

SBM

The parole board made the decision to recommend Leslie Van Houten for parole so they appear to not be worried about her connection to Charles Manson.

What Governor Brown decides and what he really uses to make his decision will be seen at a later time. Will his decision be based on the law or emotions? JMO

 

[LinasK]

My concern with all of this is as follows: I suspect that the parole board bases their decision on only one question: "Is this someone who was associated with Charles Manson, and tied to those crimes?" I imagine that there is a fair bit of "not on my watch" and "I'm not going to be tied to releasing one of the Manson family" thinking going on. And I think that all of the usual criteria for evaluation whether someone is eligible for parole get thrown out the window, because this person, who was basically a damaged child when all of this happened, has never denied her involvement.

I am not saying that any of the things she did were defensible, but, so many decades ago, she was damaged. Anyone who has read anything about this case knows that. She has spent more than 4 decades trying to better herself and be a model member of her 'community' of convicts.

There are thousands of people who are greater risks to the public and to their friends and families (e.g., those involved in domestic abuse) who are paroled every day, and I don't see any threads about them here.

Perhaps she is still dangerous; perhaps not. But either way, I do not think that she gets a fair shake from the justice system. And I think that even considering the crimes with which she is associated, she is somewhat a victim herself. To deny this would mean one is totally ignorant of what went on with Manson and his 'family'. But it's a free country, so it's your right to believe or ignore whatever you wish.

Fair shake? She got 3 trials, and in-between trials she was released, and her original sentence was commuted from Death to Life. How much fairer can you get??:waitasec:

 

[Madeleine74]

My issue is when hyperbole and pure emotions are used as the basis for decisions. For instance, overAndover I read on the Arias threads during the trial how if Arias didn't get the DP society would be in danger from her. There was little logic to that statement because Arias was never going to get a sentence less than LWOP and she will never get out, but even considering that, there was still this fear that she would somehow morph into a puff of smoke and come and personally attack each person following her case unless she was sitting on death row (which was, ironically, not a special 'row,' but in the same cell she's in anyway). It was an unfounded fear, right up there with being scared of the boogey man.

There are reasons for a convicted killer to stay in prison forever, but let's at least be honest about those reasons in Van Houten's case. Van Houten happens to have a sentence that does make her eligible to apply for parole. That's not the fault of the parole board. She is not a serial killer, she's no longer a 'follower' of Manson and hasn't been for over 4 decades. Does that mean she should be paroled? No, not necessarily. Is society actually in danger from her? I don't believe society would be, but that's not based on emotion, just based on her behavior over many decades and the parole board is in the position of determining that.

When someone can only consider an issue from fear and emotion, logic isn't part of the equation. At this point the reason for Van Houten to stay in prison for the rest of her life is simple: punishment & 'revenge.' People should at least be honest about that. She took the life or helped take the life of an innocent woman and even though nearly 5 decades have passed, she's 'notorious' for the group she was affiliated with, her youth at the time of the crimes, the shocking nature of the crimes, and the notoriety of the victims and the brutality of the murders. She'll never be more than the crazed killer at the LaBianca house because those crimes were shocking AND infamous. Without the infamy, she'd probably have been paroled within the last decade. Like I said, I'm fine with her staying in prison, but I know the real reason is retribution, not actual danger to society now.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

If I'm understanding California law, lifer inmates up for parole need to be judged on whether their a danger to others at time of parole and not solely on the nature of the crime that they were convicted of.

A three-judge panel of the state Supreme Court said that’s not good enough, explaining that parole could not be denied simply because the inmate’s offense was “heinous” or “cruel.” The key factor is whether that person remains a danger at the time parole is considered.

“There has to be something more than just your crime was particularly atrocious,” said Jennifer Shaffer, executive officer of the Board of Parole Hearings.

Denial can’t be based on “something you can’t change,” she said.

If the law isn't what the citizens of California want, they need to vote people into office who will change things to the way they feel is the best for California. JMO

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

 

[Deleted member 39678]

This trend appears to be motivated by prison overcrowding. I say build more prisons, or pick someone else to release- not Leslie, she's a Manson girl!!!

Governor Brown's office say's that's not the case.

The governor's office said the overcrowding crisis plays no role in the parole decisions.

Rather, the governor's office said, each case is addressed individually and Brown is bound by court orders that require state officials to ease the stringent parole requirements that have dramatically increased the time murderers spend in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/1400-lifers-released-from-california-prisons-in-last-3-years/

 

[LinasK]

If I'm understanding California law, lifer inmates up for parole need to be judged on whether their a danger to others at time of parole and not solely on the nature of the crime that they were convicted of.



If the law isn't what the citizens of California want, they need to vote people into office who will change things to the way they feel is the best for California. JMO

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

I always vote since I turned 18. The only California election I wasn't there in person for, I voted by mail, was when Gov. Davis was recalled and Schwarzennegger was elected. And it was awful, I was traveling through Arizona and Nevada with all the rednecks cheering about it at the time, I was so upset!!

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I always vote since I turned 18. The only California election I wasn't there in person for, I voted by mail, was when Gov. Davis was recalled and Schwarzennegger was elected. And it was awful, I was traveling through Arizona and Nevada with all the rednecks cheering about it at the time, I was so upset!!

Well, California has voted towards the left in statewide elections for quite awhile so it's not a surprise that we see the movement to release prisoners instead of building more prisons.

JMO

 

[SophieRose]

Well, California has voted towards the left in statewide elections for quite awhile so it's not a surprise that we see the movement to release prisoners instead of building more prisons.

JMO

Building prisons cost lost of money. Of course people think the country has unlimited resources. USA has more inmates in prison than any other country. Did you see the 60 Minutes segment on German prisons a few weeks ago? I'd rather see us go that way. I know we can't exactly duplicate it, but at least move towards it since our system is not working.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Building prisons cost lost of money. Of course people think the country has unlimited resources. USA has more inmates in prison than any other country. Did you see the 60 Minutes segment on German prisons a few weeks ago? I'd rather see us go that way. I know we can't exactly duplicate it, but at least move towards it since our system is not working.

I missed the 60 Minutes segment. I don't think that the United States has unlimited resources.

Maybe building new prisons isn't a bad idea if it keeps us safe from dangerous people who mean to harm us.

 

[KaaBoom]

I missed the 60 Minutes segment. I don't think that the United States has unlimited resources.

Maybe building new prisons isn't a bad idea if it keeps us safe from dangerous people who mean to harm us.

Right now 10% of Americans are in prison. How much do you think, that number should be increased to keep us safe from these dangerous people who mean to harm us? Would you like to see the number of prisons doubled? Would that be enough? If you think that locking up 20% of Americans would be adequate, then I would suggest that you take 25% of your after tax income and send it to the US government as a donation to the prison system, as your share of the money needed to support all these new prisoners.

Until you actually write that check for that amount and send it to the government, I don’t think anyone should take your plan for new prisons seriously. Because it’s just a pipe dream, unless you come up with the money to pay for it. From my experience most people who support more prisons, are not the type of people who would be willing to pay increased taxes to pay for new prisons.

 

[Montjoy]

Prisons have also been proven to be an excellent way of ensuring more rather than less criminality down the road. Sending people to prison for minor charges hardens them, makes them less employable down the road, and gives them a great opportunity to learn criminal techniques and form criminal networks.

In California's budget, the number of prison cells is strongly and inversely related to the number of spots at universities. How tragic that more people are in favor of more prisoners rather than more students.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Right now 10% of Americans are in prison. How much do you think, that number should be increased to keep us safe from these dangerous people who mean to harm us? Would you like to see the number of prisons doubled? Would that be enough? If you think that locking up 20% of Americans would be adequate, then I would suggest that you take 20% of your after tax income and send it to the US government as a donation to the prison system, as your share of the money needed to support all these new prisoners.

Until you actually write that check for that amount and send it to the government, I don’t think anyone should take your plan for new prisons seriously. Because it’s just a pipe dream, unless you come up with the money to pay for it. From my experience most people who support more prisons, are not the type of people who would be willing to pay increased taxes to pay for new prisons.

How about locking up all of the people who commit crimes and keep them there for a period of time that fits the severity of their crimes.

Why raise tax's? Why not use the money spent on supporting rich farm company's corn to ethanol subsides and other wasteful government programs?

Back on topic. I hope that Governor Brown looks at Leslie Van Houten and base his decision on the law and not public sentiment. I see too many actions lately by government officials that disregard the law and go with "political correctness" instead. I find those actions repugnant.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Prisons have also been proven to be an excellent way of ensuring more rather than less criminality down the road. Sending people to prison for minor charges hardens them, makes them less employable down the road, and gives them a great opportunity to learn criminal techniques and form criminal networks.

In California's budget, the number of prison cells is strongly and inversely related to the number of spots at universities. How tragic that more people are in favor of more prisoners rather than more students.

I'm not going to respond to the points you make because it's drawing the thread way off topic.

I would like hear your thoughts on what Governor Brown should base his decision on Leslie's parole. Should he factor in her connections to Charles Manson, the heinousness of her crime, or should he only look at whether she's currently a danger to others?

Do you think he will deny her parole because it will be the least objectionable action to the public? Or do you think he will go with the letter of the law and grant her parole?

 

[PastTense]

Bruce Davis was denied parole by Brown three times. I expect Brown to follow the same pattern with Leslie Van Houten.

 

[sonjay]

I'm not going to respond to the points you make because it's drawing the thread way off topic.

I would like hear your thoughts on what Governor Brown should base his decision on Leslie's parole. Should he factor in her connections to Charles Manson, the heinousness of her crime, or should he only look at whether she's currently a danger to others?

Do you think he will deny her parole because it will be the least objectionable action to the public? Or do you think he will go with the letter of the law and grant her parole?

Does anyone know exactly what the law says? Does it say that an inmate eligible for parole who is deemed "not a danger to the public" must get parole? Or does it say that such an inmate may get parole? IOW, does the law require parole, or merely allow it?