Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[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

[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 ?

[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]

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

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[Ally]

[QUOTE=DVV;127221]"

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

Which is not expressing any remorse or responsibility at all. That is a neutral statement. She could be saying each day I wake up and I know why I am here "because people hate me and are mean and nasty".

How about this one:

" I didn't take Mrs. Labianca's life but I feel as responsible as if I had". 1994

Uh yeah right, you stabbed her 16 times but you didn't take her life. She was still ALIVE when you started stabbing her.

That's accepting responsibility? She's STILL in denial about her role and the fact that she stabbed a living breathing woman until she was dead.

"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.

Oh yeah here's this one:

"Van Houten: I felt responsible for Mrs. Labianca's murder because I was there with her but I don't feel responsible for Mr. Labianca."

She was there with her? What holding her hand and singing love songs.

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."

She also said: "Pat and Susan have a lot more to live with than I do".

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

And I care about him because?

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."

Once again, who are these MANY expert opinions? Where are their names and professional credentials to weigh? Who are these so-called MANY that you keep referring to?

[Ally]

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

Of course it was partisan. That was the point. DVV is reading a partisan website and getting all his info from that site, so the other side puts up theirs and the truth is in the middle.

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?

You are right, the only people who should have a say in who gets released are the actual victims themselves. So again, when her victims come and testify at her parole hearing that she should be released, then I say release her.

[DVV]

This is just comic, Ally.

The "experts" are those who testify or send their reports to the parole board.

That's their job.
As you well understand, had only ONE report concluded that Leslie wasn't suitable for parole, the victims' family would have let us know...


As to Bugliosi, I value his opinion as much as I value yours.
I even suspect that he knows the case a bit more than us.

Amitiés,
David

[Magpie]

Is this full responsibility:

"Yes, yes. You know, I didn't take Mrs. LaBianca's life, but I feel as responsible as if I had."

This is in the 21st century and she's still banging on about how she didn't kill Rosemary.

She continues:

"She was dead before you were stabbing her?"

" I felt that she was. And in my early years, it gave me some kind of comfort, and then as, of course, I matured, and my understanding of responsibility took greater depth, you know, it doesn't make that much difference to me"