California governor to stop fighting against parole for Manson follower

[Kamaji]

California governor to stop fighting against parole for Manson follower Leslie Van Houten

By Richard Pollina
July 8, 2023

One member of the Manson Family — led by deranged cult leader Charles Manson who orchestrated a string of murders in Los Angeles in the summer of 1969 — could be freed in the coming weeks after California governor Gavin Newsom announced he would stop denying her parole.

Leslie Van Houten, 73, has spent more than 50 years behind bars while she serves a life sentence in southern California prison for her involvement in two murders in 1969.

In May, a California appeals court overruled Newsom’s fourth attempt of denying parole eligibility to Van Houten, determining she is entitled to be freed from her prison sentence.

“The governor is disappointed by the Court of Appeal’s decision to release Ms. Van Houten but will not pursue further action as efforts to further appeal are unlikely to succeed,” said Erin Mellon, the governor’s communications director, said.

Van Houten, who was 19 when she was involved with Manson’s cult, is expected to be out on parole in the coming weeks, Nancy Tetreatult, the attorney representing the ex-Manson follower, told NBC News.

*  *  *

Source:  https://nypost.com/2023/07/08/californias-gavin-newsome-to-stop-fighting-against-parole-for-manson-follower-leslie-van-houten/

[mountaineer]

Manson Follower One Big Step Closer to Freedom
Friday, 07 July 2023 09:11 PM EDT

California's governor announced Friday that he won't ask the state Supreme Court to block parole for Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, paving the way for her release after serving 53 years in prison for two infamous murders.

In a brief statement, the governor's office said an appeal was unlikely to succeed.  ...

She was recommended for parole five times since 2016 but Newsom and former Gov. Jerry Brown rejected all those recommendations.

However, a state appeals court ruled in May that Van Houten should be released, noting what it called her "extraordinary rehabilitative efforts, insight, remorse, realistic parole plans, support from family and friends," and favorable behavior reports while in prison.  ...
Associated Press via Newsmax

[PeteS in CA]

Newsom is being realistic. The next stop for the case would have been CA's Supreme Court. Not taking a pretty much certain losing case there saved $$, and Van Houten would have been released within 12-18 months anyway. Would that Noisome acted with common sense at other times.

[Kamaji]

Newsom is being realistic. The next stop for the case would have been CA's Supreme Court. Not taking a pretty much certain losing case there saved $$, and Van Houten would have been released within 12-18 months anyway. Would that Noisome acted with common sense at other times.

There is, also, the fact that at 70, she's unlikely to be a serious threat to anyone other than herself, and she will have mounting health care costs that the government will no longer be liable for, to the degree that it would have been liable if she remained in custody.

To be perfectly honest, for all but the worst of the worst who remain unrepentant, letting most of the others out on parole once they hit 75 is probably a reasonable thing to do.  At that point, they are more likely to be a burden than a danger to others.

[Fishrrman]

She should have been dead 53 years ago.

Failing that, she should have been required to literally rot in prison.

What is "a life sentence" supposed to mean?

[mountaineer]

A few weeks ago in a town near us, a guy who previously was convicted of a double murder - and served only 8 years of a life sentence - shot one of his neighbors and subsequently was killed by police. Thankfully, the woman he shot survived. That is a travesty, serving only 8 years of a life sentence, not serving 53 years of a life sentence like VanHouten has done.

[Kamaji]

A few weeks ago in a town near us, a guy who previously was convicted of a double murder - and served only 8 years of a life sentence - shot one of his neighbors and subsequently was killed by police. Thankfully, the woman he shot survived. That is a travesty, serving only 8 years of a life sentence, not serving 53 years of a life sentence like VanHouten has done.

Agreed.

[Kamaji]

She should have been dead 53 years ago.

Failing that, she should have been required to literally rot in prison.

What is "a life sentence" supposed to mean?

So you like wasting taxpayer money - your money - on expensive geriatric care for old prisoners.  Thanks.

[Fishrrman]

Kamaji complains:
"So you like wasting taxpayer money - your money - on expensive geriatric care for old prisoners.  Thanks."

So... human lives -- and the wanton taking of same -- are now to be measured merely in taxpayer dollars?

Again, a "life sentence" means nothing if it doesn't mean confinement until death.

Although my preference would be a quick trial, one relatively quick appeal, followed by a quick execution.

The left has almost succeeded in abolishing the death penalty.
Next target: "life" sentences without parole.

They seem to already have gotten you convinced...

[Kamaji]

Kamaji complains:
"So you like wasting taxpayer money - your money - on expensive geriatric care for old prisoners.  Thanks."

So... human lives -- and the wanton taking of same -- are now to be measured merely in taxpayer dollars?

Again, a "life sentence" means nothing if it doesn't mean confinement until death.

Although my preference would be a quick trial, one relatively quick appeal, followed by a quick execution.

The left has almost succeeded in abolishing the death penalty.
Next target: "life" sentences without parole.

They seem to already have gotten you convinced...

Bullshit.  I don't give a tinker's damn about keeping some sick old man or woman locked up simply because it satisfies some insane sense of vengeance.

It's punishment enough if that person's life was spent in jail, and now they have nothing to look forward to other than dying in a few years.

So yeah, beyond that, once the race has been run and they are no longer a danger to anyone else, the big issue becomes how much it's gonna cost me to put up with the ego and wounded vanity of idiots like you.

There are very few who should remain locked up until they die from extreme old age; very few.

If you want to indulge your need to supplant God and His justice with your own personal sense of revenge, do it on your own damned dime, not mine.

[mountaineer]

Many of the Manson gang were sentenced to death, but then the death penalty was overturned in 1972 and they got life sentences instead. So the taxpayers of California are stuck supporting these geriatric old hippy murderers until they finally kick off, a la Charlie and Susan Atkins. Unless you're Timothy McVeigh or get sentenced in TX or FL, a death sentence pretty much means another 25 years or more in prison anyway.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Sharon Tate and her murdered child would differ.

Upon her release, she could become a counter-culture pop icon and influencer, brainwashing another generation with Charles Manson's philosophy.

She may not murder another person, but she could inspire others to kill - Helter Skelter.

[Kamaji]

Sharon Tate and her murdered child would differ.

Upon her release, she could become a counter-culture pop icon and influencer, brainwashing another generation with Charles Manson's philosophy.

She may not murder another person, but she could inspire others to kill - Helter Skelter.

Unfortunately, they're dead, and for better or worse, have other things to contemplate.  It is we the living who have to decide what to do with her.  Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that she is going to become some sort of pop icon and influencer.

[bigheadfred]

The parole commission can set some severe conditions or limitations on her release. Violations of those could easily land her back in prison. They haven't released her yet and being parole eligible doesn't mean she will be released. If they somehow think she will be a problem she won't be released.

I don't have a problem with her being released.

[Hoodat]

The bottom line here is that California law makes her eligible for parole.  She has a right to it.  And the Governor is denying her that right.

Opinions on whether she should rot in prison for the rest of her life or be executed have zero bearing on the case at this point.  California wrote parole laws.  And California should abide by the laws that they set.  Same goes for Sirhan Sirhan.  He should have been paroled 10-20 years ago.  At one of his parole hearings, the board accidentally recorded themselves admitting that he was eligible for release, but spent the next 45 minutes trying to come up with a reason why he should not be.

This effectively makes them political prisoners - where equal protection under the law is denied.  For Van Houten, the Governor himself has interfered with the parole process which in itself is a violation of California law.  If California doesn't like the law, then they should change it.  But until they do, they should have to live with the laws they made.