Charles Manson follower denied parole again

[Cainkane1]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ew-murder-details-in-20th-parole-hearing?lite

"The 63-year-old Van Houten addressed the board during her 20th parole hearing. Hours later the California parole board announced they had denied Houten’s release.
"I know I did something that is unforgivable, but I can create a world where I make amends," Van Houten said. "I'm trying to be someone who lives a life for healing rather than destruction."


About Manson:


"He could never have done what he did without people like me," said Van Houten, who has been in custody for 44 years."




Too bad, so sad.

Life in prison should mean life in prison.

 

[DragonLady]

But her repeated attempts at appeal indicate to me that she has not really taken on the enormity of what she did.

I agree. I also tend to think hope(?) LaBianca was already dead, but I'm sure Van Houten was ready and willing to kill her.

I don't believe any of them really grasp what they did.

 

[triforcharity]

It's very sad to think of someone spending their entire life in prison.

Why? They participated in a horrific crime that destroyed a family. Why should you feel bad about the person who helped commit the crime?

 

[truethat]

I don't feel bad about the person "per se" its just the idea of someone young doing something incredibly cruel wasting their life away in prison. Doesn't really have the same effect of someone older committing a crime and getting what he or she deserves.

 

[geni]

Life in prison should mean life in prison.

That's actually a remarkably bad idea as it means that judge at the initial trial has to guess correctly if the person is reformable. There are quite a lot of cases where 20 years is about right but say a certain percentage won't be reformed after that time. Take away the ability to sentence for life unless the parole board says otherwise and you get some very dangerous people being released after 20 years or so.

 

[coalesce]

The chances of any of them getting out on parole are as good as Mark David Chapman's. You can say what you want about people long having paid for their crimes, but in this case, the memory of their horrific crimes are still too fresh and those wounds will never go away. Best they stay in prison because I feel, much like I feel for Mark David Chapman as well, that were they released, there would be a scene resembling the one from "Airplane", where they would be a long line of people on the outside armed with bats, hammers, boxing gloves and guns waiting to greet the parolees.

Michael

 

[KatieG]

The Manson Family saga is a clear definition of a cult. Scary stuff. Many years ago my husband was in a religious group that did bible study and some missionary type work (not Mormon). In the beginning it was great but over time some members began to insert themselves into leadership positions. The head of the organization was oblivious. In the quest for power and control, new oppressive rules were implemented. He got out before it all fell apart but he said after that he could really relate to what happened in Jonestown. He has little use for organized religion at this point in time, thank the stars.

 

[Mojo]

You seem to be implying that if they apply for parole, then they shouldn't get it because they have applied for it.

That's exactly right. Never thought of it that way, but yep.

Which impies that nobody should ever get parole, because if they have applied for it they therefore aren't reformed and so shouldn't get it, and if they have reformed they won't apply and therefore won't get it.

 

[truethat]

Which impies that nobody should ever get parole, because if they have applied for it they therefore aren't reformed and so shouldn't get it, and if they have reformed they won't apply and therefore won't get it.

No it doesn't.

 

[Mojo]

No it doesn't.

How would anyone applying for parole be able to get parole if "they shouldn't get it because they have applied for it", a statement that you have described as "exactly right"?

 

[truethat]

Who said anything about "anyone." We're talking about Van Houten in this thread and the Manson killers. Why the need to take a specific statement and generalize it? Does that amuse you or something?

If I say "Your mother has red hair" do you also generalize that to mean that all mothers have red hair?

Weird.

 

[Mojo]

Who said anything about "anyone." We're talking about Van Houten in this thread and the Manson killers. Why the need to take a specific statement and generalize it? Does that amuse you or something?

If I say "Your mother has red hair" do you also generalize that to mean that all mothers have red hair?

Weird.

No, not all mothers have red hair.

But if you have rules about who should and shouldn't get parole, then they need to be applied equally. If a rule that says "if a person applies for parole then they aren't suitable to be paroled" applies to one prisoner, then it should apply to all. People you don't happen to like have the same human rights as everyone else.

You have failed to provide any reason that some prisoners are not suitable for parole simply because they have applied for it while others are.

 

[Aepervius]

Where did I say any of what you are posting?

Are you just trying to spin an argument out of thin air. I was talking about specific criminals. Look at the title of the thread. Read the comments I actually wrote.

This kind of posting is so typical of this site.

Take a moment to read up on this case. You seem not to know anything about it. The Manson killers were sentenced to death. They were not supposed to receive parole or even life in prison. But a legislative issue changed their situation. So the idea that what applies to one applies to all which is completely untrue, (which is why we have so many different kind of sentences out there) is specifically different in this case.

Go debate someone else.

Mojo is right. It was implied above that they did not realize the enormity of their crime by the fact they are asking for parole. It does not matter if a legislative change is the cause, the implication of the statement quoted by mojo is clear.

Personally I am more of a "people can change" & "prison is for reformation and isolation from society of dangerous individual. Not for punishment" type of guy. Therefore in that point of view , request for parole should be looked at for every elligible , and both question answered "did the person change and was she reformed ?" and "is she a danger for society ?"

Naturally if people think prison is for punishment (and there seems to be a lot ion this thread) then I can udnerstand they want parole to be refused.

But then again why have parole elligibility for life in prison at all, if you take that stance.

 

[Minoosh]

The "girls" apparently liked being slaves to Charlie, needing something external to structure their lives. (Not that the Family routine was all that structured, but they did not have to be decision-makers). So prison should be a good place for them. If they've matured in the past 44 years, it's probably thanks to prison.

I remember a mom testifying in court about her son saying, "He does better in a structured environment. Like jail."

They are institutional creatures, keep them institutionalized.

 

[Mojo]

I am specifically talking about this specific case and the parties involved.

Why should this specific case have different rules from other cases?

 

[truethat]

Why should this specific case have different rules from other cases?

So I'm assuming you haven't read up on this case or you wouldn't be asking this question.

 

[DragonLady]

Which impies that nobody should ever get parole, because if they have applied for it they therefore aren't reformed and so shouldn't get it, and if they have reformed they won't apply and therefore won't get it.

I know. It's an illogical position, and unrealistic, too. But...that's the way I feel about the Manson family. I just don't think they -any of them- grasp the horror of their deeds. Somehow, deep in my gut, I expect them to look inside themselves and say "Wow...I was no good for the world at all. The entire population of this Earth is better off now I'm behind bars. I think I'll just stay here."

Maybe Manson himself has come to that conclusion, but I doubt it.

 

[Mojo]

So I'm assuming you haven't read up on this case or you wouldn't be asking this question.

Irrelevant. Why should applying for parole make someone ineligable for parole?

 

[Ausmerican]

Bah. Let Manson out.
He went to jail in a time before cellphones, ATM's, the internet, email, the entire electronic world in many ways.
He is happy safe and comfortable where he is. Release him and drop him in South Central L.A. where there are teenagers crazier than he ever was, with far more violent friends, all of whom are armed, in a world he has no idea how to interact with.

Jail is no longer punishment for him, if it ever was. The last interview I saw with him he revels in his notoriety and was enjoying hell out of himself attempting to terrify the woman that was interviewing him. The fact that he is a tiny old man in chains was apparently lost on him, probably because that's likely not how he is treated in jail.
Put him out on the streets where most young people only have a vague recollection of his name and are more likely to think 'Marilyn' if you say Manson than 'Charles'. His own high opinion of who he is would last maybe a week.

 

[Mojo]

Because in this case they weren't eligible for parole at all.

If they can apply for parole, then that implies that they are eligible for it.

And even if they aren't, that doesn't justify your assertion that someone should be considered ineligible for parole on the grounds that they have applied for it.