Jump to content

Manson Follower Van Houten Denied Parole


Gfted1

Recommended Posts

Linky

 

FRONTERA, Calif. (AP) - Leslie Van Houten, the former Charles Manson follower convicted of taking part in a murderous rampage that terrorized Los Angeles 37 years ago, was denied parole Thursday for a 16th time.

 

The once raven-haired homecoming princess, now a gray-haired 57-year-old prison inmate, was convicted of murder and conspiracy for her role in the 1969 slayings of wealthy grocers Leno and Rosemary La Bianca.

 

The La Biancas were killed in August 1969, one night after Manson's followers killed actress Sharon Tate, celebrity hairdresser Jay Sebring, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, filmmaker Voityck Frykowski and Steven Parent, a friend of the Tate estate's caretaker.

 

Van Houten did not participate in the Tate killings, but went along the next night when the La Biancas were slain in their home. Prosecutors said at Thursday's hearing at Frontera's California Institute for Women that she had felt "left out" of the first night's carnage.

 

As she has during past hearings, Van Houten apologized to the victims' families, but the parole board wasn't swayed. Board members determined she was an "unacceptable public safety risk and a danger to society" and unsuitable for parole, said board spokesman Tip Kindel.

 

Van Houten, Manson and two other followers of the cult leader were originally sentenced to death, but their sentences were reduced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after California's death penalty was briefly suspended in the 1970s. None of them have been released.

 

Although Thursday's ruling keeps her in prison, Van Houten won one small victory when the board told her she may reapply for parole in one year rather than the usual two.

 

"She can't do anything to change the day of the crime, but she improved herself and she is no longer a danger to society," Van Houten's attorney, Christie Webb, said afterward.

 

Why do you suppose this is? Murderers get out every day without serving even a fraction of the 37 years this woman already has. Is it the noteriety of the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the differences in this crime as opposed to other murders? I don't know, but that might be the answer.

 

Noteriety, sure.

 

The nature of the muders? They were strangers and there was no real motive other than causing mayhem.

 

Part of a cult dedicated to destroying society? I mean, Manson wasn't just out to murder people, he had a cult and believed that he was "Mans' Son."

 

Random violence? This wasn't a mother who decided to kill her husband for having an affair. It wasn't just premeditated. These were murders carried out for two things: the joy of bloodshed and the desire to terrorize society.

 

Mutilation? The crimes didn't just involve murder but the acts were accompanied by bodily mutailation.

 

There are a lot of factors and I'm not a lawyer. However, I can see why the prisoners in this case fall under a different category.

Edited by metadigital

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you suppose this is? Murderers get out every day without serving even a fraction of the 37 years this woman already has. Is it the noteriety of the case?

that's a bit of a false premise. sure some murderers get out, but not many that were originally sentenced to death. the only resaon they did not get life without parole is that california did not (at least not at the time) have that option. i recall reading they only had 25 to life, though i cannot verify. in other states, if a death sentence gets commuted, it is usually to life without parole. you never hear about any of them getting out.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer executions of life without parole.  Its more economical and conserves resources.

technically it costs more to kill sombody than to toss em in prison.

 

and who is charles manson and why should I care? I keep hearing about this guy but the only info I ever really get from those who talk about him is that he was a "bad man"

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

technically it costs more to kill sombody than to toss em in prison.

 

Lethal injection is fairly cheap. Hanging is even cheaper.

but you gotta give em an automatic appeal and make sure they are in perfect health before killing them... plus facilities for the termination cost money.

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was trying to cause the collapse of society or some BS like that by murdering white families and trying to frame blacks to cause a race war.

 

I agree with an above poster about offing people like Manson. They don't deserve life behind bars, no matter how bad that life might be.

 

It's pretty lame how much it costs to use the death penalty. They used to hang people and I doubt it costed more than the rope to do it.

 

Can you just imagine sitting at home, like many of you are now, then have a group of crazed, dirty and hairy hippies burst into your home and do those things to you and your family for no other reason than the hell of it?

 

They deserve life behind bars at the VERY least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the fact that Charles Manson's name screams psycho I don't find it particularly odd that anyone having taken part in his little "Helter Skelter" inspired rampage has a hard time getting their parole approved.

^Yes, that is a good observation, Checkpoint. /God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that everyone might be missing the most important consideration in the whole debate: the mental state of the parolee.

 

After all, even considering her possible decades' long contemplation of her crimes, does that mean she would be able to live outside a prison now?

institutionalize

n verb

1 establish as a convention in an organization or culture.

2 place in a residential institution. ⇒[as adjective institutionalized] apathetic and dependent after long-term residence in an institution.

 

DERIVATIVES

institutionalization noun

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The victimes of these crimes were not just murdered, they were absolutely slaughtered. It was the work of sadistic, homicidal maniacs who, in my opinon, should never freely walk the streets of society again. So I am not surprised that she was denied parole. I'd have been surprised if she'd been granted parole. Surprised, and very annoyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer executions of life without parole.  Its more economical and conserves resources.

technically it costs more to kill sombody than to toss em in prison.

much more. i've heard $10-20 million for an execution, and that's for a quick one without too many appeals. prison stays are on the order of $50k a year from what i read. it's not the actual execution itself so much as all the red-tape (and as noted, special housing) getting there.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...