Manson family member released

[Riders]

Leslie Van Houtan got released last week.https://www.yahoo.com/gma/charles-manson-follower-leslie-van-201000979.html

I am mixed in my feelings about this. Though she was only 19 and on drugs when she and the family killed all those people I think Sharon Tates's family and the family of the rest of the killed should have some say so in this and probably don´t agree with it. But they have spent their whole lives in prison.

 

[Stevicus]

Leslie Van Houtan got released last week.https://www.yahoo.com/gma/charles-manson-follower-leslie-van-201000979.html

I am mixed in my feelings about this. Though she was only 19 and on drugs when she and the family killed all those people I think Sharon Tates's family and the family of the rest of the killed should have some say so in this and probably don´t agree with it. But they have spent their whole lives in prison.

A lot of murderers have gotten paroled in less time, although I also have mixed feelings about this. On the other hand, the ringleader, Charles Manson, never saw a day of freedom for the rest of his life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The following is excerpted from the Washington Post article

On the one hand:

The California Board of Parole Hearings recently found that Van Houten has “shown extraordinary rehabilitative efforts, insight, remorse, realistic parole plans, support from family and friends.”​

​

This was Van Houten’s fifth parole recommendation — earlier ones were rejected by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and his predecessor, Jerry Brown (D). Previously, Newsom argued that Van Houten posed an “unreasonable danger to society if released from prison.”​

​

In May, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles overruled Newsom and found that Van Houten was entitled to parole.​

“Van Houten provided extensive explanation as to the causative factors leading to her involvement with Manson and commission of the murders, and the record does not support a conclusion that there are hidden factors for which Van Houten has failed to account,” the appeals court said.​

On the other:

Many have been critical of Van Houten’s release, including family members of Manson and of his cult’s other victims.​

Debra Tate, sister of actress Sharon Tate, who was murdered by Manson’s cult in August 1969, has criticized Van Houten’s parole decision.​

​

Tate said that she does not believe Van Houten is remorseful and that she will continue to fight against the Manson Family member’s release.​

“The California board wants rehabilitation to work. Of course, we all do,” Tate said. “But there’s a certain category of person that is unlikely for that to happen.”​

I would love to see Newsom's evidence that Miss Van Houten is still a threat. Perhaps it's compelling. If not, I prefer rehabilitation and cautious reintegration to retribution.

 

[Callisto]

So when do the LaBianca's children (and now likely grandchildren), get paroled from what she put them through?

Oh, right they don't, they get a life sentence of grief without parole.

Their youngest son was supposed to have been with them that night but they allowed him to stay one more night at a friend's. He found them when he arrived home the next morning. Imagine living through that, having to contact his older siblings and police.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So when do the LaBianca's children (and now likely grandchildren), get paroled from what she put them through?

Oh, right they don't, they get a life sentence of grief without parole.

Their youngest son was supposed to have been with them that night but they allowed him to stay one more night at a friend's. He found them when he arrived home the next morning. Imagine living through that, having to contact his older siblings and police.

And nothing can fix that. No matter what happens to her nothing changes for this guy. It's sad what happens, but the world moves on will leave you behind if you don't move with it. Retributive justice is useless and if she's not a threat or danger anymore then why keep her in? Besides, at hee age it's likely vigilantes will pose a greater threat and danger to her than what she poses to others.

 

[Callisto]

And nothing can fix that. No matter what happens to her nothing changes for this guy. It's sad what happens, but the world moves on will leave you behind if you don't move with it. Retributive justice is useless and if she's not a threat or danger anymore then why keep her in? Besides, at hee age it's likely vigilantes will pose a greater threat and danger to her than what she poses to others.

It's not retributive justice, justice was simply denied. Originally, she was to have been executed which would have been an appropriate penalty to the case. At the very least, she should have been given life without the possibility of parole. Being spared was her second chance, a second chance is something neither those she murdered or their family was granted.

She's not a threat anymore: That would have been the case 50 years ago had her original sentence been carried out.

I don't support vigilantism but I also don't give a toss if she draws someone's ire.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's not retributive justice, justice was simply denied. Originally, she was to have been executed which would have been an appropriate penalty to the case. At the very least, she should have been given life without the possibility of parole. Being spared was her second chance, a second chance is something neither those she murdered or their family was granted.

She's not a threat anymore: That would have been the case 50 years ago had her original sentence been carried out.

I don't support vigilantism but I also don't give a toss if she draws someone's ire.

She did spend her entire life in prison. What sort of life does she have left now at 73, when all she knew was prison? She did her time.

 

[Callisto]

She did spend her entire life in prison. What sort of life does she have left now at 73, when all she knew was prison? She did her time.

Not her entire life since she is being paroled.

If she has no quality of life to expect outside at age 73, what sense does it make to release her then?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not her entire life since she is being paroled.

If she has no quality of life to expect outside at age 73, what sense does it make to release her then?

I didn't mean to imply she won't have any quality to the remainder of her life, but that her life was already taken. She's at the age where you sort of just settle and take in the next decade or two. I can't see her doing anything criminal from here on out. What sense does it make to keep her in?

 

[YmirGF]

I didn't mean to imply she won't have any quality to the remainder of her life, but that her life was already taken. She's at the age where you sort of just settle and take in the next decade or two. I can't see her doing anything criminal from here on out. What sense does it make to keep her in?

This will probably sound very weird, but I think they should keep her inside for her own good. The modern world will be a complete shock to her system, mentally, physically and emotionally. There is no way she can get prepared for this impact and after this many years of incarceration she will be devastated. Everything she knows and is used to will be left behind when that door closes. No one will come by to check on her a few times a day and no one will care. She wont have any money, won't be qualified to get any kind of good job and is likely completely unaware of computers, technology, the Internet, cell phones, etc... social media... yikes.

The reason why I don't think she should be released is that given the nature of the crimes that put her into captivity, and the particularly gruesome nature of those crimes, I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to subject such a personality to the stressors listed above. It's not IF she would crash and burn, it's a matter of when...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This will probably sound very weird, but I think they should keep her inside for her own good. The modern world will be a complete shock to her system, mentally, physically and emotionally. There is no way she can get prepared for this impact and after this many years of incarceration she will be devastated. Everything she knows and is used to will be left behind when that door closes. No one will come by to check on her a few times a day and no one will care. She wont have any money, won't be qualified to get any kind of good job and is likely completely unaware of computers, technology, the Internet, cell phones, etc... social media... yikes.

The reason why I don't think she should be released is that given the nature of the crimes that put her into captivity, and the particularly gruesome nature of those crimes, I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to subject such a personality to the stressors listed above. It's not IF she would crash and burn, it's a matter of when...

Fair point.

 

[Callisto]

I didn't mean to imply she won't have any quality to the remainder of her life, but that her life was already taken. She's at the age where you sort of just settle and take in the next decade or two. I can't see her doing anything criminal from here on out. What sense does it make to keep her in?

I know people in their 70s and 80s who are still active and hold jobs because they choose to. The question can be asked as what's the point in releasing her since she provided nothing of value to society even before being a criminal and is not likely to offer anything if, at her age, she's going to sort of settle and take in the next decade or two?

It would be criminal if she profits from her notoriety and crime in any way (interviews, books & movie deals, podcasts, etc.).

 

[Heyo]

Leslie Van Houtan got released last week.https://www.yahoo.com/gma/charles-manson-follower-leslie-van-201000979.html

I am mixed in my feelings about this. Though she was only 19 and on drugs when she and the family killed all those people I think Sharon Tates's family and the family of the rest of the killed should have some say so in this and probably don´t agree with it. But they have spent their whole lives in prison.

In most of Europe and Latin America she would have been released 20 to 30 years ago.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's not retributive justice, justice was simply denied.

How was it denied? She was a young woman when she went in and now her life is drawing nearer it's natural end.

Originally, she was to have been executed which would have been an appropriate penalty to the case.

That's not appropriate as executions are sinking to their level amd based in revenge and retribution.

At the very least, she should have been given life without the possibility of parole.

Why? What good can keeping her in accomplish? If anything, as @YmirGF pointed out there's a real issue of keeping her in for her own good and it may actually be worse on the outside for her now.

Being spared was her second chance, a second chance is something neither those she murdered or their family was granted.

What happened was terrible. That can't be denied, but whatever happens to her the family of the survivors have to move on the same regadless.

She's not a threat anymore: That would have been the case 50 years ago had her original sentence been carried out.

That would have been revenge on a young woman who was ensared by one of the lesser examples of our species.

 

[Mock Turtle]

This will probably sound very weird, but I think they should keep her inside for her own good. The modern world will be a complete shock to her system, mentally, physically and emotionally. There is no way she can get prepared for this impact and after this many years of incarceration she will be devastated. Everything she knows and is used to will be left behind when that door closes. No one will come by to check on her a few times a day and no one will care. She wont have any money, won't be qualified to get any kind of good job and is likely completely unaware of computers, technology, the Internet, cell phones, etc... social media... yikes.

The reason why I don't think she should be released is that given the nature of the crimes that put her into captivity, and the particularly gruesome nature of those crimes, I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to subject such a personality to the stressors listed above. It's not IF she would crash and burn, it's a matter of when...

I won't comment as to whether she should have been released or not but I doubt she has been completely unaware of the progress that has been made over the decades she has been in prison, and no doubt they have education courses for prisoners in the USA just as they do in many other countries. Not sure how she will cope though - given that there will be few sympathising with her.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I won't comment as to whether she should have been released or not but I doubt she has been completely unaware of the progress that has been made over the decades she has been in prison, and no doubt they have education courses for prisoners in the USA just as they do in many other countries. Not sure how she will cope though - given that there will be few sympathising with her.

True, but prison is it's own society. Regular society has shifted and changed so much since she was isolated from it that there's going to be a harsh adjustment period.

 

[Mock Turtle]

True, but prison is it's own society. Regular society has shifted and changed so much since she was isolated from it that there's going to be a harsh adjustment period.

True, and I don't know how she copes with what she did. Some things are ones for which we can't make amends.

 

[Riders]

I won't comment as to whether she should have been released or not but I doubt she has been completely unaware of the progress that has been made over the decades she has been in prison, and no doubt they have education courses for prisoners in the USA just as they do in many other countries. Not sure how she will cope though - given that there will be few sympathising with her.

I have watched tv shows about people being released from prison and they have extensive training classes that teach them what they need to survive. It is not necessary to have a computer anyways. I bought a radio in case my computer does not last much longer. doing arts and crafts and listening to the radio is pretty fun.

 

[PureX]

There is no way to "pay for" what was done. The question is what is the best result, now.

I wouldn't want to live in a society that cannot ever forgive.

 

[Callisto]

How was it denied? She was a young woman when she went in and now her life is drawing nearer it's natural end.

It's irrelevant how old she was when she committed her crime and if she's that close to death's door then there's no point in releasing her.

That's not appropriate as executions are sinking to their level amd based in revenge and retribution.

Execution is a legitimate level of punishment for sufficiently heinous crimes as hers and the others. It's not sinking to their level, it's indicative of a person unfit to be within society.

Why? What good can keeping her in accomplish? If anything, as @YmirGF pointed out there's a real issue of keeping her in for her own good and it may actually be worse on the outside for her now.

She was originally sentenced to death. California failing that, the closest substitute would be life without parole.

What happened was terrible. That can't be denied, but whatever happens to her the family of the survivors have to move on the same regadless.

Moving on doesn't mean a person should not receive the full measure of their punishment.

That would have been revenge on a young woman who was ensared by one of the lesser examples of our species.

It's not revenge, she received due process. She wasn't ensnared, she chose to be a part of the Family and engage in their activities. Evidenced by the fact she allegedly has been a model prisoner since the day she began her incarceration. That shows she did, in fact, at that age knew right from wrong yet chose to join them and stay involve. Of course once arrested, the defense is to claim manipulation and to denounce Charlie and the lot she chose to be a part of.