The Briefing Room
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Cincinnatus on June 06, 2013, 04:01:22 am
-
A parole board on Wednesday rejected Manson family member Leslie Van Houten's 19th attempt to win freedom.
The board also decided she could not seek parole again for five years.
Van Houten, 63, was convicted of murder and conspiracy in the 1969 killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in their home in Los Feliz. She has repeatedly been denied bids for parole over the last four decades.
The hearing took place at the California Institution for Women in Chino. According to KABC-TV, Los Angeles County prosecutors and relatives of the victims spoke out against her release.
Van Houten, a former homecoming princess from Monrovia, has been described by supporters as the least culpable member of the so-called Manson family. She did not take part in the Aug. 9, 1969, killings of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others at Tate's rented Benedict Canyon home.
But prosecutors dispute that characterization and describe Van Houten as an active and willing participant in the slayings of the LaBiancas on Aug. 10 after randomly targeting their Los Feliz residence.
Van Houten held down Rosemary LaBianca while an accomplice stabbed her and, when told to "do something" by cohort Charles "Tex" Watson, she stabbed the woman about two dozen times in the back.
The killers wrote messages on walls using the victims' blood at both the Benedict Canyon and Los Feliz crime scenes
A simply brutal murder, no question.
van Houton as a young woman:
(http://i1058.photobucket.com/albums/t413/winthroproberts/leslie_zps6fdd6a89.jpg) (http://s1058.photobucket.com/user/winthroproberts/media/leslie_zps6fdd6a89.jpg.html)
van Houton today:
(http://i1058.photobucket.com/albums/t413/winthroproberts/leslie2_zpse373cfcd.jpg) (http://s1058.photobucket.com/user/winthroproberts/media/leslie2_zpse373cfcd.jpg.html)
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-manson-family-member-van-houten-denied-freedom-for-19th-time-20130605,0,3629574.story
-
I don't care how much time has passed. All of them should rot in prison for the rest of their lives. No parole, ever.
-
helter skelter
-
My wife's family knew the LaBiancas; of the San Gabriel Valley SoCal Italian American community.
This lady held the lady down, and then stabbed her, and should never go free. Age 63 isn't treating her very well.
-
I don't care how much time has passed. All of them should rot in prison for the rest of their lives. No parole, ever.
Interestingly enough van Houten and the other family members convicted in the Tate/La Bianca slayings were all originally sentenced to death for their crimes. But the CA Supreme Court ruled in another case, capital punishment violated the 8th Amendment prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Anderson
Thus the sentences of the Manson Family were vacated and commuted to life in prison.
Members of the Charles Manson Family involved in the infamous Tate-LaBianca Murders were all sentenced to death, but their sentences were commuted to life sentences when the U.S. Supreme Court briefly outlawed the death penalty in 1972
http://crime.about.com/od/news/a/Charles-Manson-Family-News.htm
I knew about this because Joseph Wambaugh mentions it in his chilling and factual "The Onion Field", which involved the execution type slaying of an LAPD detective by a pair of losers who also escaped the death penalty because of that ruling.
A terrific book if you have not read it. Made into a pretty good movie, too (1979).
-
Van Houten, a former homecoming princess from Monrovia, has been described by supporters as the least culpable member of the so-called Manson family. She did not take part in the Aug. 9, 1969, killings of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others at Tate's rented Benedict Canyon home.
Charles Manson himself wasn't even AT the Tate or LaBianca homes during the murders, yet we KNOW he'll never see the light of day again either.
-
It makes no sense to consider parole, ever, for a death sentence commuted to life.
-
I don't care how much time has passed. All of them should rot in prison for the rest of their lives. No parole, ever.
The problem is inconsistency. It appears that if you kill somebody famous, or the crime is particularly notorious, California's parole board will bury you forever, e.g Van Houten, Krenwinkel, Sirhan Sirhan. But the average murderer in California serves something like seven years and change. The case I remember most was a grad student at one of the Universities some seven years into his Masters, who bludgeoned his advisor to death with a hand sledge. He REFUSED parole because it would have required him to stay away from the University if released. He chose to max out instead. So he did seven years and THREE MONTHS. Bet the folks at the University felt real good about their state's enlightened approach.
Van Houten and Krenwinkel have done everything one expects from a potential parolee. They got college degrees, were gainfully employed by the prison system, learning trades to do so, participated in 'Scared Straight' type programs and showed remorse for their crimes. They have served in excess of forty years in prison. California should drop the hypocricy, and publicly admit that in their case, parole is an illusion - that they will never be released. Because, in California, it appearswho you kill, not that you kill, is the determinative factor on whether or not you will ever be'eligible for parole. :pondering:
-
in California, it appearswho you kill, not that you kill, is the determinative factor on whether or not you will ever be'eligible for parole. :pondering:
Excellent points made. The problem, and its not just CA, is cold blooded murderers period do not serve the time they really deserve. I would like to see them all taken off the streets for good.
-
While I cannot think of a specific instance wherein parole should be allowed for those with a commuted death sentence, I'm not sure it would be wise to absolutely eliminate a judge's discretion on this issue. Of course, allowing judicial discretion is what allows liberal judicial appointments to come up with their INSANE rulings, but that's just more reason for conservatives to make more active use of the judical impeachment process, imho...MUD
I think you may have answered your own question
-
You just might be right, my friend...have a great weekend. :beer:
BTW...when did you start and stop being a freeper?
Regards...MUD
2011 - 2013 :seeya:
-
The problem is inconsistency. It appears that if you kill somebody famous, or the crime is particularly notorious, California's parole board will bury you forever, e.g Van Houten, Krenwinkel, Sirhan Sirhan. But the average murderer in California serves something like seven years and change. The case I remember most was a grad student at one of the Universities some seven years into his Masters, who bludgeoned his advisor to death with a hand sledge. He REFUSED parole because it would have required him to stay away from the University if released. He chose to max out instead. So he did seven years and THREE MONTHS. Bet the folks at the University felt real good about their state's enlightened approach.
Van Houten and Krenwinkel have done everything one expects from a potential parolee. They got college degrees, were gainfully employed by the prison system, learning trades to do so, participated in 'Scared Straight' type programs and showed remorse for their crimes. They have served in excess of forty years in prison. California should drop the hypocricy, and publicly admit that in their case, parole is an illusion - that they will never be released. Because, in California, it appearswho you kill, not that you kill, is the determinative factor on whether or not you will ever be'eligible for parole. :pondering:
And the guy who shot President Reagan? Not guilty by reason of insanity. Frequent outside visits now.
BTW Richard Ramirez, "The Night Stalker" died today, at San Quentin while awaiting death.
Both verdicts and both sentences are the opposite of swift and certain justice.
Who expects anything better, these crazy days?
-
parole is an illusion
Parole should be an illusion for anyone that viciously takes the life of an innocent. I agree with the inconsistency. The fix is to execute or keep under long term lock up more such people, not release more
-
Van Houten and Krenwinkel have done everything one expects from a potential parolee.
After what they did, too little too late no matter what they do. They should have been executed and this discussion would not be taking place.
-
I remember this Like it was yesterday. Their trial was a circus...their murders were beyond brutal. No way should any of them be parolled and they should have died in the gas chamber.