All true, and self evident to someone not a dolt, but not really responsive to my question. The person I was responding to says that the answer “may very well be yes,” which is what I am asking about. What do they know that leads them to that conclusion? I confess to not knowing a whole lot about the Manson Family gang/cult/filthcrowd and its former members after they were imprisoned. I know John Holmes thinks they are nice folks, and maybe they are. They may even be deserving of parole. From where I sit, though, the answer may also very well be no, regardless of the political sideshow surrounding the whole nightmare. So that’s what I was asking - what does the person I responded to know that leads them to that conclusion? And if you share it, what do you know?
They know that the parole board—a group of trained evaluators whose very existence is predicated on their ability to judge whether someone should be released from prison—has repeatedly recommended that she be released from prison.
What is the point of having a parole board if their judgment on such issues is not to be trusted?
I couldn’t care less about remorse. Perpetual incarceration is not in the interest of justice.
Do they know that? Great, thanks for reading their mind for me.
It’s not a matter of reading minds. It’s a matter of reading the article, or at least the excerpt posted above.
I suppose that nobody lost an election for refusing to release a prisoner. At least not in the US.
I can think of situations it’s happened in but it was to do with political support for the criminals rather than compassion. Showing compassion doesn’t present the kind of “strong” politicians seem to need to project.
That is a problematic aspect of our justice system for sure, and it got a lot worse after the Willie Horton affair tanked Dukakis’ campaign in ‘88.
I think it would be better all around if governors had the power to commute sentences, but not the power to override parole boards. It’s unrealistic to expect a governor to have more insight into a convict’s suitability for release than a panel of professional evaluators who had the time, resources and experience to evaluate all the information.
I agree, it is possibly reasonable to allow the executive to apply mercy beyond the rules as a last resort. But if you have an expert body tasked with some aspect of justice, putting a politician in to override it doesn’t seem right. How would we feel if a politician were entitled to override a judge in determination of guilt? Or even in sentencing? Sure they set policy but not implementation in instances.
Yep, I did miss that sentence. Fair enough.
My fear is that she is not being evaluated by the same standards as other criminals who have committed similar crimes due to the continuing 50-year fascination by the media of the cult that she was in and the continued discussion of Charles Manson. I honestly don’t know if this is fair or not. I don’t know if she is likely to reoffend or not. The parole board says probably not, and I tend to go with the parole board since they have the details and I don’t.
She was a heavily drugged near-juvenile woman in absolute thrall of a world-class manipulator when the crimes happened. She was out of her gourd on LSD and was still being manipulated during her first trial, which was eventually thrown out. Despite having two more trials, none of them were really fair.
I have no doubt that she is guilty. It is possible that dying for her crimes - being it via the needle as she was originally sentenced, or by the clock and calendar is justice. For better or worse, most criminals serve about 10-20 years for a murder. She’s served 45 years for a double murder.
I’m not exactly crying a river for her. She’s guilty.
But I do think it’s crappy that the discussion as to if she should leave prison has a different outcome due to political reasons.
Many gangs self identify as family.
U gonna live next door to one… Or are u offering to pull the switch? I have seen very very bad 80 yr old. We have one wrecking the presidency right now.
Not mutually exclusive concepts.
Which is why we have parole boards to evaluate the eligibility of convicts for release on a case-by-case basis instead of assuming all old people are suitable for parole.
Let’s remember two people were killed and never had the chance to earn college degrees. Their lives cut short by a senseless brutally savage act.
By the way, if you’re interested there is far more information than one could reasonably want here:
http://www.cielodrive.com/updates/governor-newsom-reverses-leslie-van-houtens-parole-grant/
Not just that post but the whole site.
Also includes a transcript of her 2013 Parole Board hearing (I don’t know if they have any later ones) if you’re interested in how those go:
http://www.cielodrive.com/leslie-van-houten-parole-hearing-2013.php
Best bit as always is the comments - never read the comments:
[snip to remove a lot of actually fairly sensible arguments about why the Governor’s ruling is wrong]
Just as I predicted. Newsom should join Leslie in prison for ignoring federal immigration laws in the State of California and treason to the country. He’s the last person that should be determining someone’s suitability for parole.
It’s always nice to see how people will shoehorn their particular bugbears into conversations without any indication that they understand that their views are in any way in conflict.
Because of course a non-liberal governor would release her in a shot. Being all reasonable and rational and non-treasonous.
Indeed. In the US, the penal system is used almost exclusively punitively, with barely even lip-service paid to rehabilitation. In fact “tough on crime” often means blocking rehabilitation-oriented legislation on the belief that criminals don’t deserve it, even though, as countries with more civilized justice systems demonstrate, rehabilitation is considerably cheaper than America’s extremely disproportionately long prison sentences.
In the US, Americans as a whole, despite being the richest country on Earth, tend toward a vicious streak resulting from decades of being hobbled from depowering our robber barons by the delusional self-image of ourselves all being temporarily embarrassed millionaires. That rage seeks an outlet, and criminals are the least defensible target. Rehabilitation is therefore never seriously considered as a function of the US justice system, and the Americans who can and do vote the most reject political candidates with serious comprehensive criminal justice reform planks in their platforms. Hence America’s carcereal state.
Moreover, candidates who claim to support equality without addressing the underlying problem of the racialized criminal justice and penal systems are blowing so much smoke up America’s ass. Yet one finds many Americans who are moderate or left-leaning by US standards actively supporting this “tough on crime” rhetoric out of a sense of emotion that prevails over rational policy.
Should Houten be denied parole? I don’t know. But I agree with @Brainspore that politicians should not have the authority to overrule parole boards.
If you ask a lot of Americans if they support a rehabilitative model or a punitive model of criminal justice, most would probably say some of both. In practice, however, they vote for the latter consistently and the former rarely. To these people, some of whom are probably in this very thread, paying to keep Houten in prison until she dies is what society owes her victims, irrespective of rehabilitation or whether doing so is in the interest of society. To them the justice system in practice serves the dead first and the living second (though they would likely balk at it being put in those terms). By their lights it’s working as intended. Since the balance of their values are fundamentally different from those of us who value a rehablative model of criminal justice over a punitive one, being at loggerheads about it is inevitable.
The reason I lay this all out is that threads such as this routinely involve the two sides of the argument making defensive statements at each other without ever really getting to the crux of the difference, which is unproductive.
These problems are by no means unique to the US, but we’ve taken them to astounding extremes thanks to American puritanism.
Difference?
The differences are legion. Is this a serious question?
Impress upon a vulnerable person that prosperity and glory will be provided in the future based on doctrine. But that person has to follow the strict rules of the hierarchy. This means breaking from pre-existing familial and friendship relationships. Now that you’re “one of us” that’s all that matters. Your time, money, and livelihood are no longer yours, but if you work really hard you might be a leader some day. There may be some “conventional” laws that will be broken, but they are not the laws of our clan. Other clans may try to dissuade you from going down this path, but that is because they are not enlightened.
Cult or gang?
I’d say the only distinguishing element is whether there is some ‘spiritual’ element involved.
Identifying that can be tricky and people will vehemently disagree over particular cults/gangs.
But if the prosperity, etc. is expressed to be purely material then it’s probably more on the ‘gang’ side. Once you start talking about ‘spiritual enlightenment’ or expansion of consciousness, etc. then you’re moving into cult territory.
It’s a fluid line as you say.
