Leslie Van Houten should be released on parole

[DVV]

See you soon.

It's Dexter time in France.

And I like Miami.

[DVV]

Yeah.
It happens.
Pub talk.

[Ally]

And that has nothing to do with the subject at hand and is irrelevant.

[DVV]

Ally, I even forget my age, at times.
Especially on Friday night.

[Ally]

Piffling details? If you slaughter someone in cold blood and take away the next 40 -50 years of their lives, their age at the time YOU decided to end them, the age YOU decided would be their final year on earth, the age YOU decided would be the last birthday they celebrated, it is not a piffling detail. It is an understanding of the life, from birth to death that YOU destroyed and an acknowledgment of all the years you took away from them.

It is not a trifling detail.

[doris]

Yeah I am sure she's deeply remorseful over killing two people whose ages she can't even remember.

What does remembering piffling details have to do with repentance?

doris

[Ally]

Yeah I am sure she's deeply remorseful over killing two people whose ages she can't even remember.

[DVV]

Leslie played for the other team, 40 years ago.

Rehabilitation and repentance are godly things.

[Ally]

God knows.

Yep. But these ladies play for the other team.

[DVV]

God knows.

[Ally]

Yep. And so far, they seem to be doing it right. I mean sheeeesh if they didn't even let the brain cancer waster one out on parole, I doubt they'll let a reasonably healthy murdering bitch out.

[DVV]

She may be released, she may be not.
That's not up to you.
That will be the decision of the parole board.

[Ally]

Where is the difference, then, between life with parole, and life without ?

That's what Krug said, and it's not completely stupid.

The difference is with life without parole then you don't even get the option of applying. Life with the possibility ofparole means you get to apply. It doesn't mean you get it. There is no legal guarantee or protection for parole. A life sentence with the possibility of parole does not preclude you dying in jail. And considering that her sentence was originally death and her sentence reduced on a legal technicality she's never going to get parole. She was a death row inmate. When death row was abolished she was automatically sentenced to life. Her sentence had nothing whatsoever to do with her crime, it was the default from the death penalty being overturned. Now I realize that she was retried and could have been re-sentenced to life without, but I presume the judge instituted the same sentence as she'd had prior.

She was originally a death row inmate and frankly, that's where she should be now. When the ban was overturned all prisoners whose original sentences were reduced should have been re-instated in my opinion.

So again, rather than whinging that she's not getting parole, she ought to be damn grateful that she was convicted during the short window when the death penalty was abolished and she got off on a technicality.

She's a death row prisoner, and there she will remain until her death.

[DVV]

For the last time, no.

The contradiction he has pointed out is real.

On the one hand, she's allowed to stand for parole.

On the other, her parole seems already denied, for something that she cannot change: the nature of her crime.

Where is the difference, then, between life with parole, and life without ?

That's what Krug said, and it's not completely stupid.

[Magpie]

Oh...

He wasn't wrong, nor right, in legal terms...
He pointed out a contradiction in the parole system, with good reason, in my opinion.
That the parole board can rule Leslie out on the sole basis of the crime seems indeed legal, but I maintain that the primary purpose of a parole board has to be about the inmate improvement, dangerosity, understanding, etc.

Is that why you still call me a liar ?
Well... what can I say...

Yes, he was wrong in legal terms. The Appeals Court said so. Explicitly.

That's what Appeals Courts do--they point out when judges are wrong. Which is what they did.