Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[doris]

Actually it is very easy to check out and you are quite wrong. She does not ALWAYS take full responsiblity. She has denied full responsibility in as many parole hearings as she has accepted and in recorded interviews, she has state that it is not as much her fault as others and that she doesn't bear responsibility because there was nothing she could have done to change it.

I have a feeling based on your repeated references to "experts deem she's suitable for parole" the vast majority of your readings comes straight from the crime library which has that quote exactly. I recommend you read more, including her OWN actual words and testimony.

Here's one such place you could start. Van Houten repeatedly denies her responsibility and there are televised interviews to prove it.

http://tatefamilylegacy.com/lvh.html#parolehearings

I tried reading the page you linked to but found it too partisan.


for instance

"In her 2002 parole hearing she made a point of correcting the board's misstatement that she was a Homecoming Queen in high school, telling them that she was a Homecoming Princess. She said it was a small thing but she felt that sometimes she had to be so careful of all the little "technical details".

Obviously, the parole board is not concerned whether Leslie was a Homecoming Queen or a Princess. The fact that she feels that is the kind of "technical detail" they would call her on, shows a complete lack of understanding of the gravity of her offense."

How does correcting someone on a detail indicate "complete lack of understanding of the gravity of her offense."

I wonder if victims families are the correct people to listen to with regard to releasing ofenders. They are hardly going to be objective are they?

doris

[DVV]

"Each day I wake up, I know why I'm waking up where I am."
Leslie Van Houten, 1991.

"I carry this crime with me as if I was the only one. Each act we did in that house, I take responsability for. I can't place the blame one someone else. It was me."
Leslie Van Houten, 2000.

She also said : "I blame myself, I'm part of what made Manson a leader. A folower is as responsible for allowing a leader to lead them foully."

Now, Bugliosi (to Larry King, and Bugliosi is by no means a Leslie-freak, quite the reverse):

"I was impressed by her. In defense of her, I can say this : she seems to be a model prisoner and everyone seems to say she is remorseful for the murders."

Lastly, an expert opinion (among many, all agreeing):

"It is my opinion that she has continued this self improvement, not as a motivation to parole but as a genuine interest in battering herself. It is my opinion that the inmate would not be dangerous if she was released to the community."

Amitiés,
David

ps: thanks for the link. A good example of complete partiality.

[Ally]

I don't know if you're lying, Magpie, or if you just don't understand what you're talking about.

Once again, Leslie takes full responsability. Quite easy to check out.

Actually it is very easy to check out and you are quite wrong. She does not ALWAYS take full responsiblity. She has denied full responsibility in as many parole hearings as she has accepted and in recorded interviews, she has state that it is not as much her fault as others and that she doesn't bear responsibility because there was nothing she could have done to change it.

I have a feeling based on your repeated references to "experts deem she's suitable for parole" the vast majority of your readings comes straight from the crime library which has that quote exactly. I recommend you read more, including her OWN actual words and testimony.

Here's one such place you could start. Van Houten repeatedly denies her responsibility and there are televised interviews to prove it.

http://tatefamilylegacy.com/lvh.html#parolehearings

[Ally]

What are the names of all these psychiatrists? While a psychiatrist is, of course, human and as flawed as that implies, and therefore I have no real interest in their findings, I would like to know their names. If they are going to be accorded "expert" status then their expertise should be evaluated.

[DVV]

No Ally, with "experts" I mean psychiatrists.
They all agree : she's suitable for parole.
But the ultimate decision doesn't belong to them.

Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

That's an opinion.

So is the title of this thread that she should be released.

But as a matter of fact, her sentence is "life with parole", and experts are of opinion that she's suitable for parole.

Actually the experts appear to be of the opinion that she is not suitable for parole. Since they keep denying it to her.

We can't all make our own personal laws.
Leslie Van Houten must be treated fairly, ie : according to the laws and standarts of our times and civilization.

You are quite right. If we weren't civilized now, we'd have drawn and quartered her or burnt her at the stake. But in civilized times, if you can't kill them, then they need to be locked up for the duration of their lives. Intentionally and willfully taking of another's life demands the forfeit of your own. And if not through your death, then in from your permanent removal from society.

Worst criminals than she is are released before serving 40 years.

And that's a flaw that should be fixed, however, she's a serial killer. They rarely are released. And you can argue that she only stabbed one, but she assisted in the murder of several. That makes her equally responsible for ALL the murders that were committed both in that house and in the Tate house. The Tate murders had already occurred, she walked into that house knowing full well everyone in it was going to be killed just like everyone had been killed the night before. She has not one, but several murders on her head. And no, there are not too many criminals worse than that who are released.

Leslie Van Houten has the right to stand for parole, according to Californian law, and according to experts' opinion, she seems suitable for parole.

She has the right to request it and again, the experts are denying it. Which seems perfectly suitable.

[DVV]

She can be ashamed and remorseful all she wants, in jail, where she belongs.

Cold-blooded, first degree murderers should get parole the same day that their victims get resurrected from the dead.

That's an opinion.

But as a matter of fact, her sentence is "life with parole", and experts are of opinion that she's suitable for parole.

We can't all make our own personal laws.
Leslie Van Houten must be treated fairly, ie : according to the laws and standarts of our times and civilization.
Worst criminals than she is are released before serving 40 years.

I personally am not against death penalty, but I have to accept that it has long been abolished in my country.
Leslie Van Houten has the right to stand for parole, according to Californian law, and according to experts' opinion, she seems suitable for parole.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Is he?

Everything I read seems to indicate he is innocent, no evidence, a host of illegal actions by the rozzers and a rubbish confession.

doris

Hi Doris,

imo, yes, he's guilty. I'm hardly impressed by his claims.

Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

She can be ashamed and remorseful all she wants, in jail, where she belongs.

Cold-blooded, first degree murderers should get parole the same day that their victims get resurrected from the dead.

[DVV]

David

Once upon a time when I was young and handsome I took a plane to New York and hitch-hiked to California and one day I met and talked with Manson who was with an entourage of very sexy babes. Happily I wasn't invited on to his school bus. Strange days.

You're great, Stephen!

When and where was it exactly, do you remember ?

Had you gone with them, this thread could have been :

"Stephen Thomas should be released on parole."

For I have no doubt you would have been ashamed and genuinely remorseful, as is Leslie.

Amitiés,
David

ps: what color was the bus at that time ?

[DVV]

I don't find myself taking a position on whether or not Leslie should be freed.

Hi Kensei,

the question is indeed difficult.

But she seems to comply with all criteria.

Amitiés,
David

[doris]

Hi Stan,

Heirens is a serial killer and can't be released

Amitiés,
David

Is he?

Everything I read seems to indicate he is innocent, no evidence, a host of illegal actions by the rozzers and a rubbish confession.

doris

[DVV]

I don't know if you're lying, Magpie, or if you just don't understand what you're talking about.

Once again, Leslie takes full responsability. Quite easy to check out.

Not only for the LaBiancas murder, but also for having been a Manson follower...

You can repeat the same nonsense over and over, people have internet access, and at all her parole hearings, Leslie takes full responsability.

Indeed, that's why ALL experts (psy) agree that she is suitable for parole.
They couldn't say so if it wasn't the case.

The "egregious nature of the crime(s)" is the only reason why she is denied parole.

And it's the only thing Leslie cannot change.

It has therefore little to do with parole hearings, who should primarily deal with the following questions :

-is still Leslie a danger for the community ?
-does she understand the terrible pain she has caused to the victims and their relatives?
-is she genuinely remorseful ?

Leslie is no more dangerous for society, she's understanding and remorseful.
You may disagree, but that's the opinion of ALL experts.

And her prison records are perfect.

She's therefore suitable for parole, but to the present day, lobbying keeps her in jail.

40 years in prison means she is whether the ultimate American monster, or still a danger for the community.
But you know she is not.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

A most interesting discussion, gentlemen.

Magpie

I've admired your posts here for several years.

Why thank you, kind sir

Would never have guessed you were the flog 'em and hang 'em populist type.

That's me A suspended sentence should mean six feet of hemp...

Seriously, I'm not. I'm 100% for the death penalty in principle, but I'm 100% sure that there's not a government on this planet that can be trusted to apply it justly.

I'm for people being given every chance to redeem themselves and to be given a second shot at life if they deserve it. Leslie Van Houten doesn't fit that catagory. She spent 32 years of her sentence denying that she killed Rosemary Bianca. In 2002 she finally conceded that it was possible that she did. Full kudos for finally admitting what everyone else figured out 40 years ago--not enough progress to say she deserves freedom.

She's spent all of her sentence so far blaming Charlie for her actions. She's made no effort to apologize to the family of the woman she killed--going so far as to walk out of a parole hearing rather than face Rosemary LaBianca's niece. It's funny that someone who professer to be a dedicated and earnest 12-stepper, Van Houten has signally failed to apply any of those steps to the LaBianca murder.

People trying to rewrite and distort history to make Manson or any of his minions into folk heroes, political prisoners, or victims of the system is ridiculous. Ignoring or omitting evidence, distorting facts and just plain making stuff up in the process is something that, as a researcher, I find appalling.They did it, they got a fair trial (in Leslie's case two of them) and they got convicted. They should be counting themselves lucky that, through no merit of their own, they weren't executed; instead they spend year after year whining about how hard done by they are by not being released.

Despite what David claims the parole board is legally entitled to deny Van Houten's parole solely based on the egregious nature of the crime, and despite his conviction that she is now ranked among the pure and the good, she has never accepted full responsibility for what she did. Period. None of the Tate/Labianca killers have, and as long as people let them play the "Charles Manson controlled my mind" card, they never will.

[kensei]

Sorry to come into the discussion so late, but I was just perusing all the posts and was surprised that no one seems to have made comparisons to what just recently happened with two of the other Manson girls, one at each end of the spectrum. Susan Atkins, for those who might have missed it in the news, is dead. She died six months ago in prison after having lobbied unsuccessfully for release because she was dying of cancer (a strategy that worked for the Libyan terrorist in the Locherbie bombing case, who by the way has now made a comeback in his health which I think should mean he should go back to prison). I guess it was decided that the person who actually killed Sharon Tate and stabbed her unborn baby in the womb should never be released for any reason. But meanwhile, seven months ago, Squeaky Fromm- WHO TRIED TO ASSASSINATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES- was released from prison and is now free.

I don't find myself taking a position on whether or not Leslie should be freed. But it does make me rather philosophical on the whole subject of redemption and forgiveness. I do absolutely believe that you can forgive someone and yet still expect or even demand that they pay for what they did. But should every murderer be required to die in prison? Has no murderer payed for their crime until then? I don't know, I think that question may be up to higher forces more wise than myself. I remember Vincent Bugliosi on a Geraldo Rivera t.v. special way back in the late 1980s saying he thought some of the Manson people might be getting out in the next five or ten years, his tone implying that he was pretty much resigned to it. Of course there are the worst of the worst, predators like serial killers and serial rapists who are hard-wired to continue to stalk their prey if they were released, and I do not have a problem with the death penalty for them- for instance Night Stalker Richard Ramirez, who has been cheating death now for 21 years!- but for lesser offenses with extenuating circumstances, I do think there should be some room for leniency. But again, that's not to take sides in the debate over Leslie.