Gov. Newsom rejects parole for Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten

[RandySF]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom has overruled a parole board's decision to free Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten.

Newsom said Monday that the 69-year-old inmate shouldn't be released. She's spent nearly half a century in prison and received reports of good behavior and testimonials about her rehabilitation.

Van Houten was 19 when she and other followers in Manson's cult fatally stabbed wealthy Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, in August 1969.

The killings came the day after other Manson followers killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others. No one who took part in the Tate-LaBianca murders has been released from prison.

Governors have rejected parole three times for Van Houten.



https://abc7.com/gov-newsom-wont-free-manson-follower-van-houten/5328645/

[marble falls]

1. Cut her loose.

[calguy]

3. She'll never be released

It would be too politically damaging for any governor allow her release.

[marble falls]

4. Not exactly justice.

[calguy]

6. Maybe not. But it's reality.

[LanternWaste]

30. You're conflating perception and reality.

Thus solidifying the inaccurate premise that they are in fact, the same thing.

[delisen]

5. I agree with the parole board. I do not understand Newsome's reasoning n/t

[former9thward]

7. He wants to run for President some day.

He doesn't want this to follow him.

[Polybius]

43. I don't think he can win nationally

Perhaps he'd be a VP one day.

[cwydro]

10. Why?

Go read what she did.

She needs to stay in prison.

[customerserviceguy]

14. Exactly

She should consider herself lucky to be alive.

[marble falls]

15. She and I are the same age I know exactly what she did when she was a teenager ...

its time to cut her loose.

[cwydro]

18. Well, it ain't never gonna happen. nt

[skylucy]

54. +1000

[Codeine]

23. Why should anyone who maliciously ended

the life of another person or persons ever walk free?

[marble falls]

25. Please. We've been droning people without due precess fot three decades, and we ...

execute innocent death row inmates regularly. Where's the outrage?

[GaYellowDawg]

58. Whataboutism at its finest. nt

nt

[marble falls]

59. Pretty casual take on dead and dying women, children and men.

[emmaverybo]

35. That's what I don't understand. And in this case, there are still family members who are victims

and don’t want her released. This was a heinous, brutal crime that caused emotional anguish before death.

[treestar]

63. They do sometimes

I recall watching one of those crime shows where Texas at one time had such overcrowded prisons, that they released even murderers if they had behaved well enough. One of them killed again.

[BigMin28]

76. yes, Kenneth McDuff

He was a serial killer sentenced to die, the sentence was commuted to life.
He was released on parole in 1989. Within days he was back to killing. Before being caught, he raped,
tortured and murdered 5 women, one of whom was pregnant.

Not sure how I feel about Leslie Van Houten, but I'm pretty sure she isn't on par with McDuff.

[obamanut2012]

24. 100% agree

[MineralMan]

96. On what basis?

Frankly, my concern for her is extremely limited. Not everyone sentenced to life in prison is released on parole. Some are, but certainly not all.

Why do you think she should be released? Do you have information to share with us?

She is being denied parole. Again. I'm OK with that, frankly. Some crimes deserve a lifetime in prison, I believe.

As a solid and unshakable opponent of capital punishment, I am in support for non-parole life sentences as a substitute in cases where a heinous disregard for another life is involved. I would never accept the death penalty, but I have little problem in accepting an actual imprisonment for life.

[UTUSN]

2. K&R

[4now]

8. Good decision

They should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

[cwydro]

9. Good.

Those people made their beds.

Let them lie in them.

[colsohlibgal]

11. She Is A Different Person Now

She has educated herself, she is no longer, and hasn’t been for some time a danger to anyone.

She has been in there for 50 years, maybe we should recognize her rehabilitation, the good she’s done, release her for the later stages of her life.

[UniteFightBack]

13. Does the LaBianca family feel that way too? nt

[marble falls]

16. That why we do not let familiy member on juries.

[emmaverybo]

36. What is the point of justice if it is not given to families? We do allow victim

impact statements so we are persuaded by the experience of surviving victims. Let her continue her good works inside.

[Downtown Hound]

77. Do you have any sympathy for Van Houten's victims?

Or just Van Houten? Just wondering.

[MrsCheaplaugh]

17. Does Sharon Tate get parole? NT

[marble falls]

26. Sharon Tate is dead: she gets nothing either way. Justice is not about the victim, its about ...

maintaining and reaffirming where society stands on the law.

[MicaelS]

28. And THAT is something I profoundly disagree with.

Justice should always be about the victim first and foremost.

Go look a live victim in the face and tell them it is not about them.

[marble falls]

29. You may not like it, but that is what our justice system is about. Its why we don't let ...

families lynch people.

[BlueWI]

33. Although victim impact statements are allowed sometimes.

And restrorative justice models centralize the victim's well-being.

I actually don't have a strong view of this issue, but of all the outrageous violations of justice in the court system, this decision is easier to accept than many others.

[marble falls]

38. Which nevers affects the verdict in any sort of way.

[BlueWI]

42. Parole review doesn't affect the verdict either.

It is a part of sentencing decisions, as are victim impact statements.

[marble falls]

45. Absolutely. Parole is not an expression of not guilty or innocent. Impact states are not, either ...

which is why they are shared after the verdict and just before the sentencing. They don't affect the sentence, they are just a way to give the family a last and personal last word with the convicted.

[emmaverybo]

50. You are wrong. Judges can consider all information presented, including victim impact statements

In fact, this issue—how those statements affect sentencing—has been studied. So they are not presented simply as a venting mechanism. Judges can and do consider; parole boards can and do.
Because these statements can change a sentence—make it more harsh—allowing them is still controversial.

[marble falls]

57. Do you think there's been any judge who listened to weeks of a trial with a guilty verdict ...

who's really overlooked 99.9999% of it and changed his mind about sentence over an impact statement.

[emmaverybo]

62. Yes I do. It has happened more than once. Certainly an influence in parole hearings. Sharon

Tate’s sister always attends.
I provide a closer at hand example in this thread of how a friend of my husband’s will probably serve out his full sentence due to, as his lawyer has told him, his victim’s parents going to the parole board with a very persuasive statement.

There are other readings on this issue, more recent ones.

http://sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/pdf/articles/2006/Aug2006/story13.pdf

[emmaverybo]

56. Untrue. Read up. That's why some folks don't like that they were admitted. The judge can

consider them as a part of all information presented. They have the potential to impact sentencing.
Google, please.

[emmaverybo]

37. Untrue. Justice is about the victim. It is not a mere abstract concept. Certainly, one of its issues

is the protection of society. But it also serves surviving victims, which is why they show up to pressure parole boards why we now have victim impact statements read at sentencing hearings.

[marble falls]

40. Its your opinion, but not the way it works. Why do you think Justice is blindfolded? Or judges ...

or prosecutors recuse themselves or why juries excuse jurors for relationships with victims, the accused, the prosecutors or defense?

[emmaverybo]

41. No. It is not just my opinion that survivors are allowed to be heard during sentencing or at parole

hearings.
My husband has a friend who while driving drunk killed an older cab driver and his passenger, a young man returning from building houses with Habitat.
The driver was given a fifteen year sentence and has been eligible for parole some time. But each year the young man’s parents attend the parole hearings.They take with them a little “essay” their son wrote in the third grade in which he said he hoped he would grow up to become president of the United States. The parents read his essay and they say, we will never know.
The driver is turned down for parole despite good behavior.
It seems YOUR opinion that the law not consider surviving victims, but there was this victims rights movement, see.

[marble falls]

44. Like I said. Justice is not about the victim or the family. Its about society and its values ...

More criminals get out of prison regardless of the protests of families than get kept in because of families. People are found not guilty every day in spite of how guilty the families 'know' they are.

My condolences to your husband over the loss of his friend in such a terrible manner. I grieve my best friend on the planet Irvin every single day of my life. All I can say is I do not know how I will ever get past it. A good reason I would not have been a good choice for a jury if one would have been required.

[UniteFightBack]

65. Justice is blindfolded because it is supposed to be dispensed fairly no matter who you are.

The laws are created to bring about justice for victims. The laws are created to try to prevent more victims.

[marble falls]

67. Laws are not created for the victims. Laws are created to order society.

[Downtown Hound]

82. Why is it you have such a hard time admitting that

the impact on the victims DOES MATTER? You crass dismissal of them as if they don't matter is actually pretty disgusting.

[marble falls]

86. Because it does not. Being correct is not crass dismissal anymore than your opinion is a ...

plea to the emotions, right?

Please stay away from personal attack.

Victim impact statements are about getting their testimony into the record so they can have a sense of being heard regarding their loss. They don't change verdicts or sentencing. They don't add evidence, they document pain so the defendant can't hold the illusion that the crime was strictly between him and the victim.

If you think that impact statements are "testimony" and part of the trial then why don't defense attorneys cross examine them? Because the trial is over and the sentence is determined when the judge sits down to render it.

Why this offends you, I do not know.

[Downtown Hound]

87. Sorry, but you are flat out wrong

"Victim impact statements are about getting their testimony into the record so they can have a sense of being heard regarding their loss. They don't change verdicts or sentencing."

Prove to me that no victim impact statement has never altered a sentence. Prove it. I'll be waiting.

And I'm sorry, but it is outright crass and callous of you to simply ignore the victims and how much they've suffered. Call it a personal attack all you want, I just see it as pointing out he obvious. But it is crass to ignore them and say they shouldn't factor in at all. And it is cold. And you're dismissal of them and what they've been through says a lot about you. Try showing some sympathy to those who suffered because of this woman's heinous actions instead of just Van Houten.

Emotions matter, both legally and personally. No matter how much you want to pretend they don't.

[marble falls]

88. You've made the claim, you get to prove it has. I've shown you a number of ways why it does't ...

for example: if these statements changed anything in the trial wouldn't the accused right to confront accusers mean their attorneys would be cross examining them?

Go talk to some trial attorneys, I have.

[Downtown Hound]

89. No, you made the claim it has no bearing

It's up to you to prove that it doesn't. "I've talked to some trial lawyers" doesn't cut it. I never said anything about victim impact statements one way or the other. You did.

[marble falls]

90. I can't prove a negative. You get to defend your positive statement. I've already shown you ...

a bunch of reasons why not that you've never bothered to address.

Along with a trial lawyer you might want to read this, too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

[Downtown Hound]

92. Nice redirect attempt, Burden of Proof has nothing to do with victim impact

I don't have to defend shit. I never said anything about victim impact statements having no bearing on sentencing. You did.

I said impact on the victims should be considered in cases like this. That's it. I said it's impossible for you to prove that victim impact statements have no bearing on sentencing, and you just admitted that it was. Thanks. So maybe you never should have said that.

[marble falls]

93. I'm and adult and so are you. When you can get your temper back under control, we'll talk.

I'm saying the fact you can't seem to get your hand on one case where after the verdict an impact statement has changed even one sentence shows it is much more likely they don't have impact on a sentence.

Haven't you ever noticed impact statements are directed to the defendant and not the court? That's cause they aren't evidence. If they were it would have been admitted to the trial and they would have done it as testimony not as a 'statement'.

Go on add another ad hominem, I'm done with you.

[Downtown Hound]

94. Victim impact statements are made prior to sentencing

Which means, they could very well end up influencing a judge's decision. And my temper is actually quite under control. Sorry you have a hard time being challenged. But maybe you should try and remember about the human beings who lost their loved ones when you try and defend a murderer and make statements about how their feelings don't matter and try and hide your callous opinion behind legal mumbo jumbo.

[Downtown Hound]

79. Because it's supposed to be impartial in how its administered

That's a far cry from saying it's not about the victim.

[Downtown Hound]

81. There are certain crimes that are irredeemable in my book

And Leslie Van Houten is guilty of them. Sharon Tate will never get the chance to better herself as Van Houten and her supporters keep insisting she's done. Let her remain in prison until she's dead. I'm fine with that.

[SoCalNative]

84. Van Houten

had nothing to do with Sharon Tate's death. She was only present at the the LaBianca event.

Patricia Krenwinkle, who testified against the other family members at trial, DID participate in the event at the Tate house and has never spent a day in prison.

[Downtown Hound]

85. Part of a cult that murdered Sharon Tate

And participant in another murder. Not innocent. Let her rot.

[Dorian Gray]

69. That is false

The justice system is in place to punish crimes, to rehabilitate if possible, and to protect society. It's all about the victims. Not allowing them to sit on the jury is pragmatic. But true Justice is always taking into account what the victims have suffered. Always.

And I would have made the same decision Newsome has made. Taking into account the severity of the crime, the impact it had on the families, AND how it could affect society at large. People are obsessed with the Mansons. No matter how rehabilitated she seems, her release could be a problematic signal to the crazies who would rally behind anybody who associated with Charles Manson.

[marble falls]

72. Its not false. Justice is not about the victim. Its about society ...

It was "the people versus Charlie Manson", not "the prosecutor representing Sharon Tate versus Charlie Manson".

[Dorian Gray]

73. I feel like

you're picking bones to fight with here.

Of course it's the people vs. blah blah criminal blah


I did mention society in my post above yours. But justice takes into consideration the crime against the person who was harmed. That is the victim.

[Downtown Hound]

78. Bullshit it's not about the victim

And your lack of anything even resembling concern for them says a lot.

[Loki Liesmith]

52. Sharon Tate is still a dead person.

[UniteFightBack]

12. What does the LaBianca family think? If they say yes then yes and if they say no then it's no. nt

[SouthernProgressive]

19. That would be about as unjust as a justice system could be. NT

[marble falls]

27. We don't put family members on the jury. The LaBiancas have a predjudice that disqualifies them ...

from making any sort of decision and that's the way it should be.

[LanternWaste]

32. Vendetta Law! How positively medieval.

(btw - there's been both a Renaissance and an Enlightenment between then and now)

[SouthernProgressive]

20. Sorry to see a parole board overruled like this.

Politicization of the justice system.

[obamanut2012]

31. Agreed

[emmaverybo]

39. Parole board members often have no background in law, corrections, or much of anything. They

are appointed, politically appointed. Their guesses as to potential recidivism are often wrong. No reason they should not be overruled. And especially on this case.

[marble falls]

46. But a politically elected Governor with no particular expertise in corrections, crime, etc ...

should be allowed to over rule the parole boards who generally are named politically to the board by the politically elected Governor.

[emmaverybo]

49. Change the law. He had a right to over rule and he did. He was elected by the state. The parole

board was not. We vested this decision in him with our votes. You can lobby to change the law.

[marble falls]

53. The argument is not about his absolute right without explaination to over-rule the board that ...

he basically names, because sure he does. What we're discussing is whether she should be released from prison. Personally I think she and some of the others should be released just like one or two already have.

Charlie Manson is dead so there's no argument there.

[SouthernProgressive]

47. You have made no case about this parole board.

Nor any reason that the person in question is a threat to society.

[emmaverybo]

48. I don't think she's a threat to society. nt

[SouthernProgressive]

55. "Especially in this case." NT

[treestar]

64. In this case recidivism is near impossible

It's been 50 years. Van Houten was part of the crazy Manson family in 1969. Not likely that she would have killed anyone without that fact. The times were crazy, they did drugs, they were under the influence of Charlie and each other.

[emmaverybo]

66. As crazy as the times were, almost no one committed as horrendous a crime. And drugs?

No excuse. Everyone was taking them and not doing what they did.
Charlie no excuse either. There is crazy and then there is brutal, savage, gleefully causing great emotional anguish. The details of this crime are sickening.
As long as the descendants would suffer if she is released I am all for her staying in. And from all I have read, some very sympathetic to her, she still puts too much on Manson. He was evil. She did
some of the worst with her own hand.
Life sentences register the shock of a society that has been violated. They are not handed out for the sole purpose of protecting against future crime or most of the elderly inmates would be released.
Your post honestly makes their barbaric crimes sound like some moral turpitude or lapse in
responsibility.

[treestar]

68. who said anything about an "excuse?"

still, it's been 50 years. She is almost 70. She's not going to do the same thing again. 50 years is a very long time.

[kcr]

83. Almost no one committed as horrendous a crime?

Wow, that's quite a claim.

[Downtown Hound]

95. Okay name some then.

And then let's see how the law treated them by comparison.

[edhopper]

21. I understand both sides of the argument

but I can't seem to care about someone involved in these horrible murders.

There are far more innocent people who deserve our sympathies.

[kcr]

22. He's just a typical politician after all.

[marybourg]

34. Tough guy!

[Loki Liesmith]

51. Good

[Raine]

60. Good nt

[aikoaiko]

61. I can live with Leslie Van Houten remaining in prison.

[VOX]

70. Good. Jerry Brown denied her release twice as well.

Californians still feel pretty strongly about those who committed the brutal Tate-LaBianca murders.

I’m against capital punishment, but anyone who’s read the details of these crimes knows how unspeakably horrific they were, and that the life sentences given to Manson cultists continue to be appropriate.

[Whiskeytide]

71. Some brutal murderers ...

... should die in prison. Her actions were heinous and grotesque. She refused to show remorse at her trials and giggled during testimony about her victims. She described her role in murdering the LaBiancas almost gleefully. It was a high profile murder and trial and she seemed to revel in the attention. All of her claims of remorse and the claims that she was under the influence of drugs and Manson’s mind control have developed years later - in the parole application process.

The fact that she’s 70 and would be unlikely to commit new crimes is not a reason to release her. If Fla were still holding Ted Bundy, would we consider that as a reason to release him?

[D2020]

74. Good

Personally I believe she was lucky to stay off of death row. This was an especially heinous crime, and no amount of "rehabilitation" will ever make up for what they did to those people.

[RhodeIslandOne]

75. There are about a thousand people who probably deserve....

....parole before her.

The world isn’t hanging on Leslie Van Houten’s return to society.

[lillypaddle]

80. Agree with all of those

who said "cut her loose." It's time.

[maxsolomon]

91. The quality of mercy is not strained

The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice.

-Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

[marble falls]

97. Nice. The difference between the letter of the law and justice is mercy.

[left-of-center2012]

98. Governors have rejected parole five times, not three ?

Newsom and former Gov. Jerry Brown have rejected parole board recommendations to free her five times since 2016.

https://www.10news.com/california-governor-rejects-parole-for-manson-family-member

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

99. Too bad, so sad