Manson family member released

[YmirGF]

Afaik they still have access to these things in prison. And it isn't like she hasn't heard and interacted with probably hundreds of people that have filled her in on these things during her stint. It may be a shock but I don't to the extent it seems you are implying.

Keep your fingers crossed. What could possibly go wrong for this woman? She's been a model prisoner for Pete's sake!

 

[The Hammer]

Keep your fingers crossed. What could possibly go wrong for this woman? She's been a model prisoner for Pete's sake!

Yeah, a little bit of elderly freedom for 5 years or so before she passes. Oh the huge manatee.

 

[Riders]

My Mom died at 88 and my Dad died at 95. there are people who work into their 70s and 80s.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The US is not other countries and has a culture that is much more aggressive and has a larger population than many with the problems that go with such. The homicide rate in the US is exponentially higher than in European countries. The US needs to fix the many societal ills that contribute to the violence that's become ingrained. Prison reform would logically follow after such headway was made and with that possibly alternate ways of handling inmates convicted of heinous crimes.

America got that way by having excessively harsh drug laws. The large population cannot account for it as American incarcerates far more than even India, China and Russia.

 

[Valjean]

Sounds like she would do well to remain in prison and continue to aid other inmates. Seems like the place she would do the most good.

Maybe we should ask her what her choice is.

It's not political, if it were Newsome wouldn't have passed on the opportunity. Others guilty if equal or greater crimes doesn't validate her release, two wrongs don't make a right. Lots of people who committed lesser offenses have been locked up for as long or longer, others too who were wrongly convicted. But somehow her incarceration would just be political. Ok.

OK, so what 'validates' her continued incarceration? Why should we keep her in jail?

Apparently, she would continue to help other inmates.

It's not vindictive to state the punishment should fit the crime. And she's already been allowed a life sentence, originally she was sentenced to death. I would say that in itself has been sufficiently merciful.

"Fit the crime?" "Sufficiently merciful" -- Sounds good, but what does it actually mean? It's a banal platitude, and awfully subjective. "Sufficiently merciful" sounds especially callous.
"What course of action would yield the best outcome?" or "What course of action would be most humane?" might be questions to consider.

 

[Valjean]

Keep your fingers crossed. What could possibly go wrong for this woman? She's been a model prisoner for Pete's sake!

Mabe the Right expects her to buy an assault rifle and run amok.

 

[Callisto]

Maybe we should ask her what her choice is.

Brilliant, lets ask those who have committed violent crimes whether they should remain incarcerated.

OK, so what 'validates' her continued incarceration? Why should we keep her in jail?

Because she was convicted on two counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. Because she put a pillow case over Mrs. LaBianca's head and tied it with a lamp cord then pinned the woman to the bed as she fought to get to her husband, whom she could hear being murdered, so that Krenwinkel could stab her with enough force that the knife blade bent. Because she called Watson in who stabbed Mrs. LaBianca 8 times with a bayonet. Because she took the knife Watson handed her and stabbed her 16 times in her back and another 14 times elsewhere. Because she told another Manson member, Lake, "that the more (she) did it the more fun it was."

"Fit the crime?" "Sufficiently merciful" -- Sounds good, but what does it actually mean? It's a banal platitude, and awfuectBanal platitudesSufficiently merciful sounds especially callous.

Banal? This from the person talking about Christian values when the murderer is a Christian? Ok.
No, I'm speaking objectively. I find it callous that no one advocating for her freedom gives a toss to the nature of her crimes and what her victim's families have had to endure or how this will impact them further. They are suppose to get over it, move on because what matters is the person who killed their loved ones.

This isn't someone who committed a burglary and merely took objects. Fine, get over the possessions and move on, if she couldn't reimburse them then do a bit of time. This is someone who did irreparable harm that can't be fixed, can't be undone and should have paid the ultimate penalty. Their children have had to live with the loss and the fact these murderers' lives were spared. The LaBianca's youngest who found the bodies has no escape from that or the knowing that had he come home that night as planned that he would have been killed too. Where are the Christian values, the compassion for the people for whom there is no parole? She gets her freedom, when do they get theirs?

"What course of action would yield the best outcome?" or "What course of action would be most humane?" might be questions to consider.

Indeed, perhaps you should think on them.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Brilliant, lets ask those who have committed violent crimes whether they should remain incarcerated.

Because she was convicted on two counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. Because she put a pillow case over Mrs. LaBianca's head and tied it with a lamp cord then pinned the woman to the bed as she fought to get to her husband, whom she could hear being murdered, so that Krenwinkel could stab her with enough force that the knife blade bent. Because she called Watson in who stabbed Mrs. LaBianca 8 times with a bayonet. Because she took the knife Watson handed her and stabbed her 16 times in her back and another 14 times elsewhere. Because she told another Manson member, Lake, "that the more (she) did it the more fun it was."


Banal? This from the person talking about Christian values when the murderer is a Christian? Ok.
No, I'm speaking objectively. I find it callous that no one advocating for her freedom gives a toss to the nature of her crimes and what her victim's families have had to endure or how this will impact them further. They are suppose to get over it, move on because what matters is the person who killed their loved ones.

This isn't someone who committed a burglary and merely took objects. Fine, get over the possessions and move on, if she couldn't reimburse them then do a bit of time. This is someone who did irreparable harm that can't be fixed, can't be undone and should have paid the ultimate penalty. Their children have had to live with the loss and the fact these murderers' lives were spared. The LaBianca's youngest who found the bodies has no escape from that or the knowing that had he come home that night as planned that he would have been killed too. Where are the Christian values, the compassion for the people for whom there is no parole? She gets her freedom, when do they get theirs?

Indeed, perhaps you should think on them.

I haven't got involved in this thread because I don't have particular views as to what punishments might be best for any particular crime (and as to what might be best overall for society), but her age at the time during which she was convicted must play a role (and her use of drugs), given that basically we aren't fully developed until our mid 20s, and she was much younger when she committed her crimes. As to her suitability for release I can't answer - given that I am in no position to know how she might have changed over the decades.

 

[Valjean]

Brilliant, lets ask those who have committed violent crimes whether they should remain incarcerated.

Apples and oranges. She had already been offered freedom, it was never her choice.

Because she was convicted on two counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. Because she put a pillow case over Mrs. LaBianca's head and tied it with a lamp cord then pinned the woman to the bed as she fought to get to her husband, whom she could hear being murdered, so that Krenwinkel could stab her with enough force that the knife blade bent. Because she called Watson in who stabbed Mrs. LaBianca 8 times with a bayonet. Because she took the knife Watson handed her and stabbed her 16 times in her back and another 14 times elsewhere. Because she told another Manson member, Lake, "that the more (she) did it the more fun it was."

Nobody's disputing her crimes, including herself. This discussion is about abstract principles -- of justice; of human rights, andabout the social function of the prison system.
You seem stuck in a childlike eye for an eye, punishment for punishment's sake mentality.
What we need to consider is what social effect we're trying to produce and what actions will produce them most easily, efficiently and humanely.

Banal? This from the person talking about Christian values when the murderer is a Christian? Ok.
No, I'm speaking objectively. I find it callous that no one advocating for her freedom gives a toss to the nature of her crimes and what her victim's families have had to endure or how this will impact them further. They are suppose to get over it, move on because what matters is the person who killed their loved ones.

The damage has been done. The effect on the families involved is what it is. Vindictive 'tosses' aren't going to effect any useful benefit. You're advocating cruelty for cruelty's sake, to satisfy the resentment of those affected or angered by a half-century old crime. Is this a principled, moral act, or an emotional kick in the teeth?

This isn't someone who committed a burglary and merely took objects. Fine, get over the possessions and move on, if she couldn't reimburse them then do a bit of time. This is someone who did irreparable harm that can't be fixed, can't be undone and should have paid the ultimate penalty. Their children have had to live with the loss and the fact these murderers' lives were spared. The LaBianca's youngest who found the bodies has no escape from that or the knowing that had he come home that night as planned that he would have been killed too. Where are the Christian values, the compassion for the people for whom there is no parole? She gets her freedom, when do they get theirs?

So eye for an eye, two wrongs make a right, and hate your enemies. Do you really think vindictiveness will benefit LaBianca's kids, or society in general?

You bring up Christian values!? Didn't Christ advocate mercy, compassion and forgiveness? Didn't he say to love your enemies? Keeping Van Houten in prison isn't going to 'free' the families of her victims.

I don't think it's Christ underlying your attitude.

Indeed, perhaps you should think on them.

Perhaps it's not the job of the state to cater to victims' vendettas or hatred.

 

[Valjean]

I haven't got involved in this thread because I don't have particular views as to what punishments might be best for any particular crime (and as to what might be best overall for society), but her age at the time during which she was convicted must play a role (and her use of drugs), given that basically we aren't fully developed until our mid 20s, and she was much younger when she committed her crimes. As to her suitability for release I can't answer - given that I am in no position to know how she might have changed over the decades.

It can be easy to be swept up by a cult, movement or charismatic leader, especially when youth, drugs or a deontological religious background have interfered with the development of strong, internalized moral principles. Situations like the Manson family, Symbionese Liberation Army, or the military can easily remodel pliant minds.

Not to excuse her crimes, but to explain them. It could have happened to almost anyone, in the wrong circumstances.

 

[Callisto]

Apples and oranges. She had already been offered freedom, it was never her choice.

Nobody's disputing her crimes, including herself. This discussion is about abstract principles -- of justice; of human rights, andabout the social function of the prison system.
You seem stuck in a childlike eye for an eye, punishment for punishment's sake mentality.
What we need to consider is what social effect we're trying to produce and what actions will produce them most easily, efficiently and humanely.

Apples and oranges? Then why raise the question? There is nothing "childlike" about justice being objective and that a sentence be proportional to the crime.

The damage has been done. The effect on the families involved is what it is. Vindictive 'tosses' aren't going to effect any useful benefit. You're advocating cruelty for cruelty's sake, to satisfy the resentment of those affected or angered by a half-century old crime. Is this a principled, moral act, or an emotional kick in the teeth?

So eye for an eye, two wrongs make a right, and hate your enemies. Do you really think vindictiveness will benefit LaBianca's kids, or society in general?

It must be nice to be so indiffernt about others' suffering while claiming to have compassion. The hypocrisy is boggling. The victims are ignored and written off, but the person who caused all the misery for them and for herself deserves nothing but compassion? smh

I'm cruel to say that the victims should be the priority, not just the deceased but those who became collateral damage? Then what does that make you? Your stance is utterly tone-deaf and heartless. "The damage has been done", "it is what it is", "Vindictive".

You want to talk about cruelty? How about the families were lied to by California, told not to worry when the death sentences were commuted, and assured none would ever actually be paroled? How many times have they had their wounds reopened and salted? The wounds they're supposed to "get over" because "The damage has been done", "it is what it is"? Are they just "vindictive"? Please explain.

How about the fact Van Houten's actions destroyed their 15-year-old son? That he was unable to simply "move on" deespite "the damage was done" and immediately turned to alcoholism while a teen and recently died a broken man from it? I suppose that's his fault, not hers? Get over it, vindictive crybaby, the person who really needs compassion is the murderer, she had to do jail time. Or how about his sister, Suzan, who rushed over when he raised the alarm? Her own daughter, the LaBiancas' granddaughter, was brutally stabbed to death 2 years ago. Now Suzan learns her parents' murderer has been released after years of being assured she would not be. What faith is she supposed to have as she relives not only that murder while enduring the pain of her daughter's murder? Maybe they should just forego a trial altogether because the poor guy will only be subjected to justice vindictiveness and cruelty when sentenced. She just needs to move on because "the damage has been done", "it is what it is". Now, let's show some compassion and worry about the murderer's feelings.

You bring up Christian values!? Didn't Christ advocate mercy, compassion and forgiveness? Didn't he say to love your enemies? Keeping Van Houten in prison isn't going to 'free' the families of her victims.

I didn't bring up Christian values, you did. I commented that doing so is irrelevant and hypocritical. Though I'll amend that by saying "misplaced, at best".

I don't think it's Christ underlying your attitude.

Nor yours.

Perhaps it's not the job of the state to cater to victims' vendettas or hatred.

Just because your arguments are based on skewed "compassion" doesn't mean another position is also emotionally based. You are simply wrong to think it has anything to do with either vindictiveness or hatred. Justice is blind, as I said before. And, once again, has been poorly served.

 

[Callisto]

Perhaps it's not the job of the state to cater to victims' vendettas or hatred.

Perhaps you should learn to not misconstrue justice with vendettas or emotions since you don't see there's a distinction. According to you, the LaBiancas' other daughter, Louise is just being vindictive and hateful with an axe to grind. She offered a public opinion to people like you making such heartless claims and in regards to Van Houten's release:

Love and logic do not always mesh together in neat, harmonious ways. This idea has occurred to me more than once as I try to reach a logical conclusion and accept that the woman who participated in the brutal murders of my father and step-mother has been released from jail...​

​

More than once, I have combed through my memory bank in search of some kind of timeless quote that explains how to move forward peaceably. I am a reasonably spiritual person, and I understand the concept of forgiveness and letting things go for karmic purposes. I have heard over and over all month long that the murders were over half a century ago; that Van Houten is a changed woman with deep feelings of remorse; and that she is no longer a threat to society.​

​

I have also heard that victims’ family members cannot be objective. We are perceived as illogical, unreasonable and subjective to the point that our voices might actually disrupt the cold, hard facts of the law.​

​

These perceptions are unfortunate. My love for my dad is timeless and real. Leno LaBianca was a lovable guy. He was warm and fun and people looked up to him in the community. He encouraged us to think deeply and with discernment. He was a great father and role model and he has been sorely missed by his family all these long years. As my sister, Cory, recently explained, the reminder of what we lost and the void it has left on our children and on her grandchildren is heartbreaking.​

​

When my cousin, Aleta, called Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office to find out why Van Houten was released, she said she was met with impatience and a brief explanation, followed by the click of the receiver. Perhaps the person on the other end of the line did not realize just how much she loved her Uncle Leno. How could they know when the victims’ family members have been marginalized by the media all these years? The story of the Manson Family was evidently more important to the media.​

​

We, the victims’ family, can be objective and think logically — even when we must ask ourselves, to quote Jay Sebring’s nephew Anthony Dimaria in his letter to Newsom, “Has the world gone mad?” (Sebring was also murdered by members of the Manson Family.)​

​

Still, the tragedy has left me with traumatic memories. Fifty-four years next month since the murders of my dad and stepmother is a long, long time. In those decades, I have lost many loved ones over the natural course of a lifetime. Like many people who have faced tragedy at an early age, I suffer deeply. I do not cry at funerals; I mourn in private, sometimes for months or even years. Is this logical? Probably not.​

​

I don’t pretend to be exceptionally knowledgeable about the law, but I do understand that something is askew here. In Dimaria’s letter to Newsom, he says that his parents and grandparents were promised by the Los Angeles District Attorney and police that none of the Manson Family members would ever be released from prison.​

​

Laws change. People change. I get that. But it’s not right. There is no justice for the victims or their families.​

By all means, please outline how this "vindictive", "hateful" person is simply set on a "vendetta" and has no room to complain. She needs to just move on, what's done is done, because the damage has been done, right?

 

[Valjean]

I'm not saying she has no grievance, I was wondering what good she's trying to accomplish by blocking Van Houten's release. I'd question someone causing another pain to assuage their own distress or anger.

 

[YmirGF]

I think viewing punishment as justice is a mistake. Justice is the crime never having been committed, and that is not achievable once it has been.

Instead, I think we need to view this as a security issue. People that cannot be trusted to live freely with other people without abusing and harming them should be denied that opportunity for everyone else's sake. The duration depends on them, and so does the means we employ of removing the threat. Up to and including execution.

Very astute, based on my direct experience while in prison in 2021. How to put this?


Rough numbers (arbitrary)

- 50% of prison population is not very bright. They are simply low intelligence with little or no schooling.
- 25% of prison population are career criminals who are not interested in any kind of behavioral changes. They want to get back to their preferred pastime of screwing over other people. Go, team!
- 25% of prison population are good people who made (very) bad choices and got convicted for it. They are keen to make amends, take courses like "Anger Management” and "Criminal Addictive Thinking" etc. They do not want to ever go back to prison whereas in the two other groups above, prison is seen almost as the cost of doing business and inevitable.

That said, I did meet people in prison who should never be allowed out. These people are usually highly manipulative and extremely dangerous.
Trust me when I say, you would not want these folks living next door. Prison also made me rethink Capital Punishment.

In parting, I am a tenacious writer and while incarcerated for my 5+ months filled 6 notebooks/journals with my daily writing. I talked to the Corrections Officers about one writing project I have now that was never in my mind before. That project is about the criminal justice system and the working title is "The Justice Myth". In essence, there are no "corrections" and "justice" is a hollow, empty word.

 

[PureX]

Very astute, based on my direct experience while in prison in 2021. How to put this?


Rough numbers (arbitrary)

- 50% of prison population is not very bright. They are simply low intelligence with little or no schooling.
- 25% of prison population are career criminals who are not interested in any kind of behavioral changes. They want to get back to their preferred pastime of screwing over other people. Go, team!
- 25% of prison population are good people who made (very) bad choices and got convicted for it. They are keen to make amends, take courses like "Anger Management” and "Criminal Addictive Thinking" etc. They do not want to ever go back to prison whereas in the two other groups above, prison is seen almost as the cost of doing business and inevitable.

That said, I did meet people in prison who should never be allowed out. These people are usually highly manipulative and extremely dangerous.
Trust me when I say, you would not want these folks living next door. Prison also made me rethink Capital Punishment.

In parting, I am a tenacious writer and while incarcerated for my 5+ months filled 6 notebooks/journals with my daily writing. I talked to the Corrections Officers about one writing project I have now that was never in my mind before. That project is about the criminal justice system and the working title is "The Justice Myth". In essence, there are no "corrections" and "justice" is a hollow, empty word.

Because justice is mythical, we accept vengeance, instead. But that doesn’t work, either.

 

[YmirGF]

Because justice is mythical, we accept vengeance, instead. But that doesn’t work, either.

That's where I get stuck. Just what is the alternative and therefore my thinking is more about reform rather than replacement.

 

[Callisto]

I'm not saying she has no grievance, I was wondering what good she's trying to accomplish by blocking Van Houten's release. I'd question someone causing another pain to assuage their own distress or anger.

Got it, you place a murderer over the people they've killed and destroyed and even after the above still dismiss the victims as simply lashing out. There is nothing accomplished by releasing her other than to prove there truly is no justice.

 

[PureX]

That's where I get stuck. Just what is the alternative and therefore my thinking is more about reform rather than replacement.

I think we need to stop looking for external emotional solutions and think more in the practical terms of security. If we were better at maintaining societal security we'd have fewer incidents to be so emotional about. But we also need to recognize that living with other humans forces a trade-off (and we have no choice but to live with other humans). We gain a great deal of good from it, but we also will have to pay a price in terms of selfishness, autonomy, and security. We just can't have it all. Especially now that there are so many of us living in a finite space with finite resources.

The one thing we really don't want to do, though, is create a huge criminal class amongst the law-abiding. And the best way to avoid that is to make sure everyone's basic needs and safety are being met. We can't afford the blatant greed and selfish disregard for the well-being of others that we have been engaged in under industrialized capitalism. If we don't face this issue and fix it, soon, the ever-growing criminal class that we are creating with reach critical mass, and the result will be disastrous for everyone. And who is the greater criminal, anyway? The violent street thugs that have no hope of a gaining a satisfactory life by playing by the riles? Or the thugs in suits in the halls of politics and the corporate board rooms that lie, cheat, and steal from everyone for everything they can? Neither group is sustainable, and the crap will hot the fan if we don't do something to stop these criminal classes form growing in numbers and power.

 

[YmirGF]

I think we need to stop looking for external emotional solutions and think more in the practical terms of security. If we were better at maintaining societal security we'd have fewer incidents to be so emotional about. But we also need to recognize that living with other humans forces a trade-off (and we have no choice but to live with other humans). We gain a great deal of good from it, but we also will have to pay a price in terms of selfishness, autonomy, and security. We just can't have it all. Especially now that there are so many of us living in a finite space with finite resources.

The one thing we really don't want to do, though, is create a huge criminal class amongst the law-abiding. And the best way to avoid that is to make sure everyone's basic needs and safety are being met. We can't afford the blatant greed and selfish disregard for the well-being of others that we have been engaged in under industrialized capitalism. If we don't face this issue and fix it, soon, the ever-growing criminal class that we are creating with reach critical mass, and the result will be disastrous for everyone. And who is the greater criminal, anyway? The violent street thugs that have no hope of a gaining a satisfactory life by playing by the riles? Or the thugs in suits in the halls of politics and the corporate board rooms that lie, cheat, and steal from everyone for everything they can? Neither group is sustainable, and the crap will hot the fan if we don't do something to stop these criminal classes form growing in numbers and power.

This is a surprisingly complex topic and that is why I'd be more inclined to simply begin introducing humanitarian measures that need to be addressed. Likewise, the criminal justice system and the prison system are different entities and have their own onerous problems that need to be dealt with.

One nitpick though, "The violent street thugs that have no hope of a gaining a satisfactory life by playing by the riles?" Again, from my experience, that isn't an accurate representation here. From what I saw it was people who had learned to game the system and they are not interested in your rules. They will do whatever they want. In one course I took inside, we explored the problem of people making vast sums from drug dealing only to be told they should get a job paying $15.00 per hour. I do not have an answer for that one. What needs to happen is the individual must make a moral decision that they are no longer going to turn to crime and get to work on their future.

 

[PureX]

This is a surprisingly complex topic and that is why I'd be more inclined to simply begin introducing humanitarian measures that need to be addressed. Likewise, the criminal justice system and the prison system are different entities and have their own onerous problems that need to be dealt with.

One nitpick though, "The violent street thugs that have no hope of a gaining a satisfactory life by playing by the riles?" Again, from my experience, that isn't an accurate representation here. From what I saw it was people who had learned to game the system and they are not interested in your rules. They will do whatever they want. In one course I took inside, we explored the problem of people making vast sums from drug dealing only to be told they should get a job paying $15.00 per hour. I do not have an answer for that one. What needs to happen is the individual must make a moral decision that they are no longer going to turn to crime and get to work on their future.

That's a tough road to choose when everything in their life has shown them that all that will result from it is a life of hard work that someone else gets rich off if, while you can't even afford to have a family.