• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Manson follower Van Houten gets another shot at release

T

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
104,071
Reaction score
84,041
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
So what do we think? Has she "served her time"? Should she be released? Personally I say no way, no how. I know she was young. I know she is rehabilitated. But the Manson crimes are among the worst in our country's history. What she did to Mrs. LaBianca IMO prohibited her from ever having the luxury of a day of freedom.


LOS ANGELES — Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten is getting another chance at getting out of prison following a years-long saga that has seen a board recommend her parole three separate times.

Van Houten's case is being heard before California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, which will consider whether to overturn a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge's ruling denying parole for Van Houten last year.

Van Houten's attorney, Rich Pfeiffer, will argue that his 69-year-old client deserves to be released because she's a changed woman, takes responsibility for her actions and has been a model inmate for more than four decades. Prosecutors will continue to vigorously fight Van Houten's release because of the seriousness of the crimes.


More here:

Manson follower Van Houten gets another shot at release
 
Redemption is valuable. It inspires us all. I hope she has transformed. Incarceration is for pubic security, not to punish.
 
I'm torn on this,

Yes, Manson and his followers did HEINOUS things, but so have others etc, I don't remember exactly what Van Houten's role was, (I've read a few books on it) but 40 years served, essentially her entire life, I don't see why she shouldn't be released, I don't think she would be a danger to society any longer, I think they can use that spot for someone else, and as ecofarm said, prison is supposed to be for rehab, (I think punishment as well) but I think the punishment aspect has been served.
 
We should dig up Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary to see what they say after she butchered them and smeared their blood on the walls of their home.

Let her rot in prison. This wasn't a bank hold up that went bad and she shot a clerk. This was demonic torture and butchering of two innocent victims.
 
Crosscheck said:
We should dig up Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary to see what they say after she butchered them and smeared their blood on the walls of their home.

Let her rot in prison. This wasn't a bank hold up that went bad and she shot a clerk. This was demonic torture and butchering of two innocent victims.
Click to expand...

My sentiments too.
 
sjmay said:
I'm torn on this,

I think they can use that spot for someone else.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, if it were possible, arrest, charge, try and convict "Brother Minister" Louis Farrakhan. He played Manson's role in the assassination of Malcolm X and there is no statute on murder.

Thomas Hagan, Thomas Johnson and Norman Butler all served between twenty and forty five years for the crime, and arguably the latter two might have been wrongfully convicted, but Brother Minister walked free despite ordering, for all practical purposes, in his official role as the second in command, the hit on Malcolm X.

Louis Farrakhan said:
"Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death."
Click to expand...

---December 4 issue of "Muhammad Speaks"
 
tres borrachos said:
So what do we think? Has she "served her time"? Should she be released? Personally I say no way, no how. I know she was young. I know she is rehabilitated. But the Manson crimes are among the worst in our country's history. What she did to Mrs. LaBianca IMO prohibited her from ever having the luxury of a day of freedom.


LOS ANGELES — Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten is getting another chance at getting out of prison following a years-long saga that has seen a board recommend her parole three separate times.

Van Houten's case is being heard before California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, which will consider whether to overturn a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge's ruling denying parole for Van Houten last year.

Van Houten's attorney, Rich Pfeiffer, will argue that his 69-year-old client deserves to be released because she's a changed woman, takes responsibility for her actions and has been a model inmate for more than four decades. Prosecutors will continue to vigorously fight Van Houten's release because of the seriousness of the crimes.


More here:

Manson follower Van Houten gets another shot at release
Click to expand...

I disagree here. The punishment fits the crime.
 
danarhea said:
I disagree here. The punishment fits the crime.
Click to expand...

Punishment has nothing to do with the justice system. We incarcerate people for public security. We provide opportunity for redemption. If someone is not a threat to the public and might seek redemption, what's the gain for us as society in keeping them incarcerated? Revenge? That's not justice.
 
tres borrachos said:
So what do we think? Has she "served her time"? Should she be released? Personally I say no way, no how. I know she was young. I know she is rehabilitated. But the Manson crimes are among the worst in our country's history. What she did to Mrs. LaBianca IMO prohibited her from ever having the luxury of a day of freedom.


LOS ANGELES — Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten is getting another chance at getting out of prison following a years-long saga that has seen a board recommend her parole three separate times.

Van Houten's case is being heard before California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, which will consider whether to overturn a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge's ruling denying parole for Van Houten last year.

Van Houten's attorney, Rich Pfeiffer, will argue that his 69-year-old client deserves to be released because she's a changed woman, takes responsibility for her actions and has been a model inmate for more than four decades. Prosecutors will continue to vigorously fight Van Houten's release because of the seriousness of the crimes.


More here:

Manson follower Van Houten gets another shot at release
Click to expand...

The three aims of sentencing are "rehabilitation", "deterrence", and "punishment".

The fact of apprehension, indictment, trial, conviction, and severity of sentence are what determine the second and NO time at all is required to establish it.

The fact of incarceration until such time as a parole board can see fit to recommend parole establishes the third.

The fact that an offender is "highly unlikely to commit the same, or a similar, offence in the future" establishes the first.

It appears that Ms. van Houton qualifies for release on all three grounds.
 
ecofarm said:
Punishment has nothing to do with the justice system. We incarcerate people for public security. We provide opportunity for redemption. If someone is not a threat to the public and might seek redemption, what's the gain for us as society in keeping them incarcerated? Revenge? That's not justice.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the old (and possibly apocryphal) story about the convict and the King of Denmark.

It seems that the King of Denmark was conducting his annual inspection of Danish prisons, and, after being regaled by a string of claims of innocence and wrongful conviction ended up before one convict who simply acknowledged his guilt, that his trial had been fair, and the punishment imposed appropriate. Upon hearing that convicts statement, the King of Denmark ordered the convict's immediate release on the grounds that he was "corrupting all of the innocent people in the prison".

PS - It only worked once.
 
ecofarm said:
Redemption is valuable. It inspires us all. I hope she has transformed. Incarceration is for pubic security, not to punish.
Click to expand...

Incarceration is seen to be a punishment in every legal jurisdiction, including ultra PC Sweden. You are mistaken.
 
The sentence she received for her crime is life in prison. She needs to stay there.
 
Sweden said:
Incarceration is seen to be a punishment in every legal jurisdiction, including ultra PC Sweden. You are mistaken.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what justice means? Justice is that which justifies the existence of society. It's what makes society worth being a part of. Punishment does not figure into that, at least not intellectually.

Justice is public security (incarceration) and redemption (rehabilitation). It's not revenge. State inflicted revenge does not make society worth being a part of. No one joins for punishment.
 
I have mixed feelings about this as well...

On one hand if I had my wish we would have the death penalty nationwide, an we wouldn't be discussing this.

However we do not, and as such our system is based on rehabilitation. She was sentenced to whatever it was and she is eligible for parole. The parole boards appear to believe she is rehabilitated, so by law she has served her sentance.

Also in this case there are extenuating circumstances, she was a member of a cult and Manson did get his members to do terrible things, much the same as Jones.

I think in this particular case I will be okay either way, just be happy that the justice system worked and shut the Manson machine down...
 
ecofarm said:
You don't understand what justice means? Justice is that which justifies the existence of society. It's what makes society worth being a part of. Punishment does not figure into that, at least not intellectually.

Justice is public security (incarceration) and redemption (rehabilitation). It's not revenge. State inflicted revenge does not make society worth being a part of. No one joins for punishment.
Click to expand...

In your arrogantly expressed opinion.

One intended purpose of the state punishing criminals is to remove the incentive for citizens themselves to punish offenders. Unlike you the vast majority of citizens consider that criminals deserve punishment.
 
Sweden said:
In your arrogantly expressed opinion.

One intended purpose of the state punishing criminals is to remove the incentive for citizens themselves to punish offenders. Unlike you the vast majority of citizens consider that criminals deserve punishment.
Click to expand...

A vast majority are stupid and think they're everyone's mommy and daddy; they're gonna teach someone a lesson. Fortunately, our system was established by the learned and wise. Not by the average person who is, frankly, a moron.

I want public security and opportunity for redemption. I don't give a damn if your feelings are hurt and you want revenge; that's petty BS and has no place in a justice system.
 
Last edited:
She's already 69, and I think she'd shown remorse.
Unless she's mentally unstable, what danger does she pose to the public?

She's served time. A long time. Her whole life was spent in prison.
We should put that past to rest.
 
Incredulous said:
The sentence she received for her crime is life in prison. She needs to stay there.
Click to expand...

/thread

She was sentenced to life and should die in prison. Her crimes should of resulted in her life being ended decades ago.
 
tosca1 said:
She's already 69, and I think she'd shown remorse.
Unless she's mentally unstable, what danger does she pose to the public?

She's served time. A long time. Her whole life was spent in prison.
We should put that past to rest.
Click to expand...

She was a young, desperate, highly impressionable woman brutally pimped and brainwashed by sociopath Manson.

She deserves freedom.
 
ecofarm said:
Redemption is valuable. It inspires us all. I hope she has transformed. Incarceration is for pubic security, not to punish.
Click to expand...

It is for both purposes since there is no sentence of "until sufficiently redeemed" or "until sufficiently transformed" - if one is sentenced to 15 years then they get out after that time served (or sooner in most cases) whether or not they are "redeemed" or "transformed".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is for both purposes since there is no sentence of "until sufficiently redeemed" or "until sufficiently transformed" - if one is sentenced to 15 years then they get out after that time served (or sooner in most cases) whether or not they are "redeemed" or "transformed".
Click to expand...

That time is based on justified security for society. Public security is justice.
 
ecofarm said:
That time is based on justified security for society. Public security is justice.
Click to expand...

Yep, and her sentence was life in prison - which ends upon her death. Her victims will never be secure and were permanently and very violently removed from society without any justice.
 
3leftsdoo said:
She was a young, desperate, highly impressionable woman brutally pimped and brainwashed by sociopath Manson.

She deserves freedom.
Click to expand...

The horrific nature of her crimes say otherwise. She deserves to rot on jail
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, and her sentence was life in prison - which ends upon her death. Her victims will never be secure and were permanently and very violently removed from society without any justice.
Click to expand...

Parole is part of the justice system and if we are to remove it from consideration then we must reconsider the sentence in its absence. It doesn't make sense to pretend parole doesn't exist on the back end.
 
If you let her out, I think her murder would be inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom