Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[Magpie]

"They can't use the crime forever and ever. That turns her sentence into life without parole."
Judge Krug

.

Jesus Christ, what will it take to make you comprehend?

THE APPEAL COURT SAID THAT KRUG WAS WRONG.

Or maybe this will work:

THE

APPEAL

COURT

SAID

THAT

KRUG

WAS

WRONG!!!!!

Which particular words in this sentence are giving you trouble? Tell me, please, so I can try and explain it to you.

California LAW--the law, not your opinion--says that in the case of an exceptionally egregious crime, the parole board can deny parole solely on the basis of that crime.

I've only explained this to you about 6 times now, leading me to believe that your insistence on making sure your bull**** about Krug appears on almost every page of this thread is either wilful ignorance or some form of mild retardation.

[DVV]

Please do point out where I said disagreeing with me is a mental disease, DVV?

My English is poor, but I guess "loony fringe" wasn't a compliment.

She is DIRECTLY responsible for the murders of both people in that house. And she is culpable for every single death that occurred as a result of that plot. She could have been and should have been tried for those crimes as well.

Perhaps, but the more guilty of all is Manson. Then we have Tex, Susan....and at the bottom of the list, Leslie.

And considering that she was originally given a death sentence, life without parole is a suitable substitute.

That's an acceptable opinion, but not mine.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Magpie, thanks for the fun.

[Magpie]

You're welcome to disagree, but like it or not, dozens of criminals are paroled every year.

Amitiés,
David

I figured you'd try this nonsense at some point, so I checked the stats.

In California, between 4500 and 5500 prisoners serving life with parole apply for parole per year. Between 140 and 150 are actually recommended for parole-- not granted, recommended.

So contrary to your claim, Van Houten is not some exceptional case being denied something that is routinely handed out to others.

[Magpie]

Magpie, thanks for the fun.

You're most welcome.

Now that you've passed up my last opportunity to explain what it is about the Appeal Court decision that you don't understand, I'll assume you finally grasp it. So from now on when you post the driviel about Krug, I'll simply point out that you're lying and leave it at that.

[Magpie]

And just to explode the emerging myth about the only reason for denying Van Houten her parole is the nature of the crime, the parole board also included these reason's for denying her request:

Minimization of her involvement in the crime and the enormity of the crime.

Unwillingness or inability to recognize the racial motivations for the murders or the intended purpose of the crime (i.e. to start a race war with the attending loss of life)

Withdrawal from all prison programs and activities for some time prior to her parole request.

[DVV]

Let's see if it works...

Judge Krug

made a point, since

Leslie cannot change

the nature

of her crime,

denying her parole on such a basis amount to

give her

life without parole

which is in plain contradiction

with the

sentence she

received.

[Magpie]

Perhaps, but the more guilty of all is Manson. Then we have Tex, Susan....and at the bottom of the list, Leslie.

If if mass murder were an Olympic event Manson Tex and Susan would get Gold, Silver and Bronze and Leslie would be the footnote that no-one remembers.

Unfortunately for you mass murder is a crime, and the law says that every conspirator's hands are equally dirty.

[Magpie]

Let's see if it works...

Judge Krug

made a point, since

Leslie cannot change

the nature

of her crime,

denying her parole on such a basis amount to

give her

life without parole

which is in plain contradiction

with the

sentence she

received.

You're lying. For reasons amply illustrated.

Gee, that's a lot easier.

[DVV]

So from now on when you post the driviel about Krug, I'll simply point out that you're lying and leave it at that.

I certainly don't need to lie in such a discussion, nor do I need to say you lie just because our opinions differ.

And, even though they can deny her parole because of the nature of the crime (I know this very well...indeed, they have no other argument to come with), judge Krug has pointed out a patent contradiction.

[Ally]

So I am counting. And still not coming up with five.

Not according to the State of California, there were no facts that she had knowledge of Tate prior to the crime. She found out the morning after from PK.

I never said that she knew prior. I said she knew when she walked into the labianca house what had occurred the prior evening and what was going to occur that night. And the minute that she knew of prior murders and agreed to participate in future she became an accessory after the fact and a conspirator in any future murders. Whether California chose to PROSECUTE her is not the point. The Green River killer has not been prosecuted for dozens of murders we know he committed. That doesn't mean he isn't guilty of them.

So that's one and you were the one in error not me. Keep the rest coming.

[DVV]

You're lying. For reasons amply illustrated.

Gee, that's a lot easier.

It's a pleasure to discuss with you, little bastard.

[Magpie]

I

And, even though they can deny her parole because of the nature of the crime (I know this very well...indeed, they have no other argument to come with), judge Krug has pointed out a patent contradiction.

Which is not what you've claimed.

It is not a difference of opinion. You've repeatedly represented Krug's statements as a legal ruling that applies to Leslie's case. You've been informed of your error. This is the first time that you've admitted that the parole board has every right to do what they've done. You keep repeating all this knowing that you are factually wrong. You are lying.

[Magpie]

It's a pleasure to discuss with you, little bastard.

Gee, now who's stooping to insults?

[Ally]

My English is poor, but I guess "loony fringe" wasn't a compliment.

No it wasn't a compliment but it has nothing to do with whether someone agrees with me or not. When someone comes on the boards and chooses a username you can assume something about them from that username. The fact that she or he chose to identify themselves as FreeLeslie as if they were some mindless, fanatical drone rather than an independent person proves they are less a person than a cause and thus, the lunatic fringe.

Perhaps, but the more guilty of all is Manson. Then we have Tex, Susan....and at the bottom of the list, Leslie.

No Manson is not the most guilty of all. They are all equally guilty. No one forced them to do anything. They were adults. They ALL had a choice. Dozens of people came into the camp of Manson and left. They had that option too. It was their own weak characters and lack of ethics that led them individually to choosing to slaughter people. They are all equal in action, thought and deed.