Leslie Van Houten

[Scarlett]

Do you think she should be paroled?

[Scarlett]

I thought someone in CA would have an opinion. Maybe y 'all aren't awake yet.

 

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Who?  The name only vaguely rings bells.  Something with Manson?

Yes a Manson follower. Been in prison like 40 years.  Has taken responsibility for her crimes, and been a model citizen for 40 years.  Parole board recommended parole at least 3 times but the governor blocked it twice.  

[Lady Florida.]

I didn't realize she was up for parole again. I do think she should get it this time.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Lady Florida. said:

I didn't realize she was up for parole again. I do think she should get it this time.

I read somewhere the governor denied it because she had 'failed to explain how she went from an upstanding teenager to a murderess at age 19.'  I thought that was a weird thing to demand of her.  I doubt she can explain it.

[hjffkj]

From what I've read she seems remorseful for her crimes and has spent her time in prison bettering herself.  So, she is probably a good candidate for parole.

[MercyA]

Yes.

[Lady Florida.]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I read somewhere the governor denied it because she had 'failed to explain how she went from an upstanding teenager to a murderess at age 19.'  I thought that was a weird thing to demand of her.  I doubt she can explain it.

I agree. She was 19 and a mixed up kid. Now of course there are a lot of mixed up 19 year olds who don't go on to become gruesome murderers, but she probably asked herself that question and has not come up with a good answer. I think what matters is realizing how awful it was to be who she was at 19. She has done that and she has repeatedly shown remorse. It's been 50 years.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Lady Florida.

[Katy]

As a general rule I don't think murderers should ever be paroled.

[Scarlett]

10 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

I agree. She was 19 and a mixed up kid. Now of course there are a lot of mixed up 19 year olds who don't go on to become gruesome murderers, but she probably asked herself that question and has not come up with a good answer. I think what matters is realizing how awful it was to be who she was at 19. She has done that and she has repeatedly shown remorse. It's been 50 years.

And I am not positive but seems like there was a lot of drug use involved.  So yeah, just a bad combination all around....I can't imagine having to live with myself after having done something so horrific.  Whether in prison or out.  Seems like she has done the best she can to be  positive and better herself over the last 50 years.

[Valley Girl]

If it were my decision, I would give a great deal of weight to what the families of the victims wanted. Yeah, it's been 50 years. Fifty years of living without their loved ones, 50 years of reliving the horror, 50 years of pain that doesn't go away. Knowing a murderer will spend the rest of his or her entire life behind bars is the only justice those bereft people get.

[Scarlett]

14 minutes ago, Valley Girl said:

If it were my decision, I would give a great deal of weight to what the families of the victims wanted. Yeah, it's been 50 years. Fifty years of living without their loved ones, 50 years of reliving the horror, 50 years of pain that doesn't go away. Knowing a murderer will spend the rest of his or her entire life behind bars is the only justice those bereft people get.

It would be interesting to know if anyone of the family spoke against her getting paroled these three times she has been recommend for parole.

[umsami]

I think she should be paroled.  She has served far longer than most murderers.  Her third trial gave her seven years to life. She's been approved for parole three different times by parole boards.  Forty is definitely at the longer end of that.   I do not feel that she is a risk to others and she has done her time.

Edited April 25, 2019 by umsami

[Valley Girl]

22 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

It would be interesting to know if anyone of the family spoke against her getting paroled these three times she has been recommend for parole.

This article from 2017 says families did oppose it.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-manson-van-houten-murder020170906-htmlstory.html

 

[Scarlett]

20 minutes ago, umsami said:

I think she should be paroled.  She has served far longer than most murderers.  Her third trial gave her seven years to life.  Forty is definitely at the longer end of that.   I do not feel that she is a risk to others and she has done her time.

I agree.  Most murderers do not spend as much time in prison.

Now Manson....I am glad he was not released ever.

 

[gstharr]

Sometimes the punishment serves as a deterrence to other. I expect some surprising punishment in Varsity Blues. 

[Scarlett]

34 minutes ago, gstharr said:

Sometimes the punishment serves as a deterrence to other. I expect some surprising punishment in Varsity Blues. 

Yes I can see punishment in the college cheating scandal to  act as a deterrent.

Psychos who decide murder is a good idea?  Not so much.  

[umsami]

4 hours ago, Seasider too said:

I think of David and the death of his baby with Bathsheba. Even when one is repentant, choices have consequences. 

I can’t speak to her individual merits, but her release would not be something I’d expect, given the circumstances. 

She was not involved in the murder of Sharon Tate's baby....FWIW.  She was implicated in the murder of the grocer and his wife.  She was told she must go back and stab the wife....so she did.  She said that she believed the wife was already dead.  An autopsy stated that some of his wife's stab wounds occurred after she had died.  Were they the ones committed by Leslie Van Houten? I have no idea.

Warning regarding link...describes the murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Van_Houten#Murders_of_Leno_and_Rosemary_LaBianca

 

 

[Scarlett]

I just saw she was denied again.  I think she will probably never leave prison.

[Reefgazer]

I do not think any of them ever should be/should have been paroled.  I am vehemently anti-death-penalty, but believe in harsh punishment for intentional, pre-meditated murder. 

[Scarlett]

40 minutes ago, Reefgazer said:

I do not think any of them ever should be/should have been paroled.  I am vehemently anti-death-penalty, but believe in harsh punishment for intentional, pre-meditated murder. 

I mostly agree.  Crimes committed when so young do give me pause though.  But they were horrific crimes so a harsh punishment is fitting.

[J-rap]

I know it's been decided already, but just thinking about this.  It's a tough call.  Certainly it's a horrific crime, and a severe punishment can serve as a deterrent.  But, it's been a long time, and it sounds like she has really changed a lot.  Plus, I think about her being young and so mixed up...

It reminds me a little of mystery author Anne Perry.  She was only a teenager when she and her best friend committed a gruesome crime.  She was in jail for only five years, and eventually became the author she is today.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Perry

 

 

[Scarlett]

24 minutes ago, J-rap said:

I know it's been decided already, but just thinking about this.  It's a tough call.  Certainly it's a horrific crime, and a severe punishment can serve as a deterrent.  But, it's been a long time, and it sounds like she has really changed a lot.  Plus, I think about her being young and so mixed up...

It reminds me a little of mystery author Anne Perry.  She was only a teenager when she and her best friend committed a gruesome crime.  She was in jail for only five years, and eventually became the author she is today.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Perry

 

 

Wow, that is very interesting! 

[katilac]

3 minutes ago, J-rap said:

It reminds me a little of mystery author Anne Perry.  She was only a teenager when she and her best friend committed a gruesome crime.  She was in jail for only five years, and eventually became the author she is today.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Perry

 

19 is young, but Perry was only 15 when she committed murder. 

[Bluegoat]

I think I would allow her to be released.  I don't think anyone gains by her continued presence in prison, not even the families though they may believe they do.  And its possible that she could do some good outside of prison.

[Catwoman]

8 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I think I would allow her to be released.  I don't think anyone gains by her continued presence in prison, not even the families though they may believe they do.  And its possible that she could do some good outside of prison.

 

But isn’t it enough that the families are comforted by knowing she is still in prison? 

She participated in truly gruesome murders and at the time, she wasn’t deterred or upset by the horrific suffering she and her fellow murderers inflicted upon their victims. And even if you believe her questionable story that she believed she was stabbing a person who was already dead, what kind of person could actually plunge a knife into another person’s body — and not just once, but many times? Sure, people make all kinds of excuses to pin all of the blame on Charles Manson, but the fact that she had been able to listen to those poor, terrified, innocent victims begging and pleading for their lives, and to hear their screams of agony without trying to help them (or even just run away to escape the horror,) makes me understand why the victims’ surviving family members would want to see her remain in prison for the rest of her life.

[MercyA]

When Scarlett originally posted this question, I started thinking--maybe the families' desires really shouldn't be a consideration in determining punishment. Wouldn't the families be much more likely to want vengeance than justice? 

I think justice has probably been served. She was very young and likely heavily under the influence of LSD and other drugs during that time.

[Valley Girl]

47 minutes ago, MercyA said:

When Scarlett originally posted this question, I started thinking--maybe the families' desires really shouldn't be a consideration in determining punishment. Wouldn't the families be much more likely to want vengeance than justice? 

I think justice has probably been served. She was very young and likely heavily under the influence of LSD and other drugs during that time.

The victims of violent crime don't get a reprieve.

The families of victims don't get a reprieve.

Why on earth should the people responsible for their pain and suffering get a reprieve from their legally imposed sentence? Because they've been ever-so-good in prison? Bully for them. Their victims never get the opportunity to move forward. Expecting people convicted of violent crime to serve their full sentences is hardly vengeance.

Sorry. No sympathy here. I'm saving mine for the innocent people wronged.

Non-violent crime is a different story.

 

[Catwoman]

53 minutes ago, MercyA said:

When Scarlett originally posted this question, I started thinking--maybe the families' desires really shouldn't be a consideration in determining punishment. Wouldn't the families be much more likely to want vengeance than justice? 

I think justice has probably been served. She was very young and likely heavily under the influence of LSD and other drugs during that time.

 

I can’t help but wonder if we would be having this discussion if Leslie Van Houten was a man. 

She is a mild-looking older woman who appears harmless. What if she was the same age, but was a muscular 6’3” tall man with multiple visible tattoos? Even if his prison record was exemplary, would people be likely to trust that he was completely reformed and that he would never hurt anyone else? 

Would you also support the parole of the male murderers who were Manson followers?

[Bluegoat]

Quote

But isn’t it enough that the families are comforted by knowing she is still in prison? 

 

Well, no, that isn't enough, if she'd be better off somewhere else.  

I don't think what the family wants, especially after 40 years, is a very good guide to the justice or rightness of a situation, or what would be best for everyone or society.  And for that matter I am not convinced that most people have a lot of insight into what will give them the most peace or the best opportunity to work through their emotions.  I think if you dug down into this idea that they are "comforted" by her being there, that is really not what is going on.  

[maize]

Do those of you who believe that perpetrators of violent crimes should have no mercy and can never be considered reformed also believe that people who kill under the direction of military commanders are similarly irrevocably tainted?

[Bluegoat]

3 minutes ago, maize said:

Do those of you who believe that perpetrators of violent crimes should have no mercy and can never be considered reformed also believe that people who kill under the direction of military commanders are similarly irrevocably tainted?

 

You know, in some parts of the Christian church, if you have ever killed someone, even as a soldier in war, you can never become a priest.  It's not that you aren't forgiven if you confess, but there is a sense that you are somehow changed.

I think that is true, I think people are changed permanently.  I just don't see that prison is necessarily the best way to deal with that in every instance, permanently.  

[Catwoman]

57 minutes ago, maize said:

Do those of you who believe that perpetrators of violent crimes should have no mercy and can never be considered reformed also believe that people who kill under the direction of military commanders are similarly irrevocably tainted?

 

I think it’s incredibly insulting to anyone who has ever served in the military to compare their wartime commanders with Charles Manson.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Catwoman
Typo!

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Well, no, that isn't enough, if she'd be better off somewhere else.  

I don't think what the family wants, especially after 40 years, is a very good guide to the justice or rightness of a situation, or what would be best for everyone or society.  And for that matter I am not convinced that most people have a lot of insight into what will give them the most peace or the best opportunity to work through their emotions.  I think if you dug down into this idea that they are "comforted" by her being there, that is really not what is going on.  

 

Do you also believe that the other Manson followers who committed brutal murders should be released as well? 

[Valley Girl]

21 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

I think it’s incredibly insulting to anyone who has ever served in the military to compare their wartime commanders with Charles Manson.

Yes. Assuming we're not discussing war crimes, the comparison is offensive. So much for all those soldiers who fought and died on D-Day.

[maize]

1 minute ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

I believe criminals can be shown mercy by not being executed. Sometimes a life sentence should be life. I don’t agree with comparing a mastermind criminal to a military commander, and really, in an actual war both sides have ‘decided’ to fight. The dead couple discussed here were just sitting in their home when they were invaded. However, I do believe that there are plenty of war crimes committed, both by rogue soldiers and corrupt commanders. The My Lai massacre comes to mind, and we all know how that turned out.

There were an awful lot of innocent people sitting in their homes, people who had no choice at all in their country's decision to fight, when Harry S. Truman ordered bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

War always results in casualties among non combatants. Or in other words, every military organization that has ever existed has murdered innocent people.

I don't personally see a black and white line between an individual committing murder under the orders of someone they view as a leader when that person is a military commander vs. when they are not. There is of course a difference in that one is sanctioned by society and the other generally is not. 

I think examining our societal hypocrisies and acknowledging moral complexity is healthy.

[maize]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

 

I think it’s incredibly insulting to anyone who has ever served in the military to compare their wartime commanders with Charles Manson.

 

I am a military veteran. 

That is one reason I think about such questions.

[MercyA]

7 hours ago, Catwoman said:

I can’t help but wonder if we would be having this discussion if Leslie Van Houten was a man. 

She is a mild-looking older woman who appears harmless. What if she was the same age, but was a muscular 6’3” tall man with multiple visible tattoos? Even if his prison record was exemplary, would people be likely to trust that he was completely reformed and that he would never hurt anyone else? 

Would you also support the parole of the male murderers who were Manson followers?

That's an interesting thought and an interesting question! If the men were young and under the influence of drugs when they committed the crime, and if they had consistently showed true repentance and reformation, and if they had already spent basically their entire lives in prison, I think I would support showing them mercy. 

From what I've read of Manson, he showed himself to be evil to the core to the end. People can change, but I don't think he did. I wouldn't have supported parole for him.

[MercyA]

7 hours ago, Valley Girl said:

The victims of violent crime don't get a reprieve.

The families of victims don't get a reprieve.

Why on earth should the people responsible for their pain and suffering get a reprieve from their legally imposed sentence? Because they've been ever-so-good in prison? Bully for them. Their victims never get the opportunity to move forward. Expecting people convicted of violent crime to serve their full sentences is hardly vengeance.

Sorry. No sympathy here. I'm saving mine for the innocent people wronged.

Non-violent crime is a different story.

I understand. I just know that if I personally got what I deserved, I would be in serious trouble. So, I do have sympathy for those who have done wrong and are truly sorry, and I make no apologies for that. 

 

[MercyA]

6 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

You know, in some parts of the Christian church, if you have ever killed someone, even as a soldier in war, you can never become a priest.  It's not that you aren't forgiven if you confess, but there is a sense that you are somehow changed.

Yes. Just as King David was not allowed to build a temple for the Lord: "You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight” (1 Chronicles 22:8).

[MercyA]

4 hours ago, maize said:

I don't personally see a black and white line between an individual committing murder under the orders of someone they view as a leader when that person is a military commander vs. when they are not. There is of course a difference in that one is sanctioned by society and the other generally is not. 

There is no line except the artificial one we make when we glorify the military. Killing innocent people is always wrong. Always. Whether you're in the military and following orders or not. 

[Scarlett]

Mercy I am feeling your line of thinking.  I have pondered the concept of what if it were my family murdered. I mean, why does that change the Standard?  When I see a pattern of willful sin, lawbreaking, willful disregard for human life.....yes I can see life in prison.  But when we are talking a youthful crime....even if horrific....I just feel sadness.  I don’t wish for no punishment.  But I wish for redemption.  And 50 years in prison with strides toward redemption seems adequate. 

[Ausmumof3]

8 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

You know, in some parts of the Christian church, if you have ever killed someone, even as a soldier in war, you can never become a priest.  It's not that you aren't forgiven if you confess, but there is a sense that you are somehow changed.

I think that is true, I think people are changed permanently.  I just don't see that prison is necessarily the best way to deal with that in every instance, permanently.  

Even biblically David was not permitted to build the temple due to his wartime campaigns 

[Ausmumof3]

2 hours ago, MercyA said:

Yes. Just as King David was not allowed to build a temple for the Lord: "You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight” (1 Chronicles 22:8).

 

2 hours ago, MercyA said:

There is no line except the artificial one we make when we glorify the military. Killing innocent people is always wrong. Always. Whether you're in the military and following orders or not. 

 

I know your Christian so just thought I’d reference the punishment if I think Joab?  The comment was he “shed the blood of war in a time of peace” or something to that effect.  I will have to get the exact reference for you.  Biblically there is a difference placed between wartime killing versus peace time.  Whether that’s relevant to a mostly post Christian society is a separate question.

edited to add 1 kings 2:5 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Ausmumof3

[MercyA]

10 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I know your Christian so just thought I’d reference the punishment if I think Joab?  The comment was he “shed the blood of war in a time of peace” or something to that effect.  I will have to get the exact reference for you.  Biblically there is a difference placed between wartime killing versus peace time.  Whether that’s relevant to a mostly post Christian society is a separate question.

edited to add 1 kings 2:5 

I hadn't remembered that passage; thanks! Israel was a special nation and God instructed them when to go to war and whom to fight. There is no nation that God is now instructing to go to war. 

A Christian's primary citizenship is that of heaven (Philippians 3:20). We have new instructions--love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, live at peace, live quietly, do violence to no one.

[Ausmumof3]

11 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I hadn't remembered that passage; thanks! Israel was a special nation and God instructed them when to go to war and whom to fight. There is no nation that God is now instructing to go to war. 

A Christian's primary citizenship is that of heaven (Philippians 3:20). We have new instructions--love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, live at peace, live quietly, do violence to no one.

Totally 100pc agree.

[Bluegoat]

20 hours ago, Catwoman said:

 

Do you also believe that the other Manson followers who committed brutal murders should be released as well? 

 

There are a lot of considerations in determining what the best course of action is with a particular inmate, which is why parole boards spend a fair amount of time considering each case individually.  I certainly couldn't say without knowing the kinds of details the parole board is privy to.

[Bluegoat]

Oh, and for what it's worth, I was a soldier, as was my dh, and I don't find questions around killing in war offensive.  That' snot to say I think being a serial murderer is the same as killing in war, there are any number of differences, but its worth thinking about just what those are, what killing another person means at its most basic level.

Manson himself, in my opinion, was both evil and mad.  It sounds a bit medieval I'm sure, but he seems to me like a man who allowed himself to be inhabited by a demon.  There is no way he should have ever stepped out of a prison, even had he been able to come to some better place spiritually speaking.  

But young people, who had been dragged into a cult and manipulated and under the influence of drugs are a very different story.  I think that is a situation that could happen to almost any young person under the right set of conditions.  

[Bluegoat]

3 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Wait. You can’t say that parole boards spend a fair amount of time considering each case individually.  Every one is different, and way too many spend mere MINUTES. I have a close family friend who spent decades in prison. I know exactly what they looked at, I heard them tell me with their own lips how long they spent( multiple parole hearings). There’s a serious lack of everything positive that’s needed in our prisons, and I’m sure a bit of googling will give a prettty gloomy view of our parole board practices, too.

 

Yes, I'm sure that's often true, but I am really just saying that its not a question that can be answered as a general principle, without any kind of information about an individual. 

[Reefgazer]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 10:20 AM, J-rap said:

I know it's been decided already, but just thinking about this.  It's a tough call.  Certainly it's a horrific crime, and a severe punishment can serve as a deterrent.  But, it's been a long time, and it sounds like she has really changed a lot.  Plus, I think about her being young and so mixed up...

It reminds me a little of mystery author Anne Perry.  She was only a teenager when she and her best friend committed a gruesome crime.  She was in jail for only five years, and eventually became the author she is today.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Perry

 

 

I am truly not trying to be argumentative, but I do not think anyone who is capable if such torture and wanton cruelty can change that part of their person.  I feel that is a flat-out defect in their humanity and they should never again see freedom.  It doesn't matter how bad a childhood was, whether drugs were involved, or what types of problems a person has; what killers like this do is beyond human.