by Darryl61 on March 23rd, 2007
I strongly disagree. Please feel free to pass this on to their parole boards.
by shammers still slogging along on March 18th, 2008
I truly disagree. July of 1969 was an extremely frightening time in LA. I was a single mother of three small children and I was scared every night. It made me scared of long haired, weird looking guys. Who could cut the baby out of the stomach of a mother still alive? Something was missing in the brains of these people. I'm not advocating keeping them in prison out of fear and hate . . just fear that we truly don;t know what if anything has changed in their minds.
by buxtonite ..back from the brink on March 18th, 2008
no!...these two people were very sick in the head ...they were pure evil then and nothing has changed my mind about them ... nothing they have done or said over the years has change my thoughts on this either ...they are just as sick now as the day they did what they did ... now if they were released they them selves might not harm any one again but I am sure they would be able to train some young fools into doing it for them ...just like Manson did
by YARNLADY is happy everyday on March 18th, 2008
I simply cannot agree that women who committed the crimes they committed should be released. I was there at the times, and I have changed a lot over the same number of years, but it was just too inconceivable that someone who committed that type of crime would be model citizens.
by Diane Sawyer in 1994, Krenwinkel stated: "I wake up every day knowing that I'm a destroyer of the most precious thing, which is life; and I do that because that's what I deserve, is to wake up every morning and know that." During a 2004 parole hearing, however, when asked who she would place at the top of the list of people she has harmed, Krenwinkel responded, "Myself." She was denied parole following that hearing because, according to the panel, Krenwinkel still posed an "unacceptable risk to public safety."
by Nuttsky on May 30th, 2007
I do not want them to be paroled. If a life sentence in so horrible a case is not really a life sentence, then the justice system pretty much loses its meaning. You might be thinking, well, they have only one life. But they TOOK lives, in horrifying ways. At least they get to live.
by Mirage V2.0 AWOL on March 23rd, 2007
Please post an article or details re their crimes and incarceration.
Keep them in jail.
It serves to remind folks that actions do have consequences, and that murder has some very long lasting consequences.
by Alwaystina69 on March 18th, 2008
I strongly disagree on both women. I strongly disagree on anyone who was asocciated with these murders and Charles Manson. What good would any of these people do, returning into our society. Clearly they would never be able to live by our rules and function as normal people. I bekieve that they should stay caged like the animals that they are. There was no justice for thier victims!
by kysaya on January 20th, 2008
Strongly disagree. If their death sentences were not commuted retroactively when California temporarily abolished capital punishment, they'd have been dead and forgotten all these years, and the families of the victims would've had release.
Yes, they can't undo what they've done. Is any one really sure - based, say, on their behavior during the trial, and on what their support group have been doing that they really wanted to undo anything? All their mouthings about remorse, about heir religious revivals, of how they would make a contribution to the society - leave me cold. They've already contributed - 7 dead bodies. AND Sharon Tate's unborn child. I bet the baby wanted to live and would've contributed to the society.
Also, see how many crackpot sites and publications there are about this trash? Does one want to bet they won't become head of new awful cults if free?
by AnonYmous on May 30th, 2007
I disagree, please pass that on to the parole board
by MissFerly on March 18th, 2008
I completely disagree. Why would we want these two killers who visciously slaughtered innocent people out on parole? These two women allowed themselves to be manipulated by Manson and should have no part of our society. The only time I would want to see them released is when they are in body bags.
by Anonymous on January 1st, 2008
Disagree!! They belong right where they are!!
by Trash Street on March 18th, 2008
It would nt bother me if they were released. Somehow the media makes it look like their are people trying to keep them in. If they were released it might help prove if they had changed if they were able to stay out of trouble.
I dont believe theyve changed but if I was a Judge presiding I'd release them on probation or something to see if they could stay clean. Then if they skipped country or got in any trouble I'd throw them back in the slammer for life once they were recaught.If I thought they were responsible for the trouble.I wouldnt like it if they were still talkin to Charlie Manson though. Hes obviously criminally insane.
Everyone deserves a second chance.
by Zombies on March 18th, 2008
I am willing to bet that most of these people who are refusing to forgive these two women are Christians, and as such, they're being hypocritical, as usual.
They've done their time. They have to live with what they've done. Brainwashing is a powerful thing /*Christians*/andalltheheinouscrimeschristianshavecommitted
.. and perhaps it is time to forgive and move on.
by WoOZackWoO on March 18th, 2008
Disagree on both women. Mainly due to my thought that murder should make someone instantly get sentenced to death if they commit murder. There is simply no justification for taking a persons life...NONE. The 7 years or whatever someone spends in prison for committing murder is not enough. Stop the rediculous appeals for those on death row and get the heads rolling!
by Anonymous on January 16th, 2008
If they are ever paroled, I hope a deranged lunatic kidnaps them the second they step outside into the free world and tortures them to death over a period of time.
by Agrippina on June 1st, 2007
Yes, they should be paroled. Their crimes were horrible, but committed while under the influence of drugs and while completely brainwashed by that crazy Charles Manson. As such, 30 plus years is a long time to serve in prison and a sufficient punishment. Given the cost to keep these women incarcerated and the zero chance of their re-offending, I think they should be released with strict parole requirements.
Unfortunately, the notoriety of their offenses will prevent this from ever happening. Their "fame" will keep them in prison for the rest of their lives whereas much more frightening and dangerous peope that we never heard of will be sent back out among us.
by Anonymous on April 12th, 2008
totally disagree .. if you count the number of people they killed, they have only served just under 4 years for each life they took.. they should serve a life sentence for EACH life taken.
by Anonymous on January 1st, 2008
Patricia Krenwinkel is coming up for another parole hearing this month. I believe that she is a suitable candidate for parole. The nature of her crimes were heinous, which has been well documented. Her crimes have also become a sort of modern folklore. She was sentenced to death, her sentence was commuted, and she has been given the right to parole hearings just like any other California prisoner. I have read that the average murderer in Ca. does seven years in prison. She is coming up on fourty years. I have seen her previous parole hearings. She seems not only completely remorseful, but racked with guilt.
She can't change what happened in 1969, but what has
she done since then? The state's job is to rehabilitate
After she has completed nearly fourty years of therapy, counseling, 12-step groups, education, and participation in everything asked of her - it leaves me asking what is considered rehabilited?
Another point that I wanted to bring into consideration was actually brought up by Leslie Van Houten at one of her parole hearings. Prison is a perfect place to fall into the same behavior that got them there. If she were still vulnerable to being easily led, it would have happened long ago. And a final word to all of the people that are irate at the mere idea of her being free. She is now elderly. The cost to the state of Ca. for her medical care will add up soon. Most older folks take meds. Free up the space for a real threat. Happy New Year
by megan121992 on January 1st, 2008
I Agree Cause I Believe They Have Learned There Lesson And I Know For A Fact That If They Get Out Of Prison They'll Live There Lives Normal Like You And Me.
by Rose of Sharon on May 30th, 2007
I not only disagree, but I think that they should be tortured, raped by gorillas, set on fire, hanged, revived and then the process should begin again. Hell isn't a bad enough place for these filthy, souless, ugly, nasty bitches. I hate them so much that if I could stab each one 20 times for each time
my beloved Sharon, Jay, Rosemary and Leno were stabbed, my hatred would not be quelled. Damn them all!
by Anonymous on July 1st, 2008
I strongly disagree,Leslie van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel took other people's life without any remorse and now we should give them their life back?
No way,they got what they deserve,let them stay in prison,at least they're still breathing,Sharon Tate's baby never even got the chance to take his first breath.
by molly on June 20th, 2008
No, they should NEVER be paroled. They should spend the rest of their natural lives in prison. These were very brutal, heinous crimes.
by harmony on June 17th, 2008
They have both served nearly 40 years for their crimes. They have openly severed their ties to Charles Manson and other family members, and seem to accept responsibility for what they did. They should be given a chance at freedom.
by Jade on May 14th, 2008
I strongly disagree. Put whatever face on it..they were on drugs, they were manipulated..they still committed a horrific crime. One person posed the question, "If they hadn't killed someone famous would anyone have cared as much?" They killed more than one person, including Sharon Tate's unborn child. It matters not at all whether the victims were famous or not. Now they think that there are numerous unmarked graves of more victims on the "ranch" were the Manson family lived. Were they led by Manson? Possibly, but they not only did the killings but obviously enjoyed it. Let them out? Hell no.
by Gideon on May 13th, 2008
I'm in the minority here, but I do think the two women should be paroled.
These were young women from troubled backgrounds who began to experiment with drugs at a time when experimentation was rampant. They were taken under the wing of a master manipulator who plied them with sex, drugs and unconditional acceptance as long as they did his bidding.
None of that excuses what the two women did in 1969. It does help explain it. Van Houten and Krenwinkle separated themselves from Manson and the family after their trials and have spent decades educating themselves, taking all available prison courses and offering assistance to other inmates. Their institutional lives have been without incident.
There comes a time when one has to consider the issue of rehabilitation. For less than a year's association with a dangerous man they have spent their entire adult lives in prison. How can the drug-addled, manipulated minds be the same today? At what point does a society offer a second chance to someone who has shown every willingness to change and improve themselves?
These two women can't change what they did. A thousand years in prison won't do that. But they might be able to make a life and maybe even better someone else's if given the chance.
by Casino on May 12th, 2008
yeah it's been long enough and with supervision, they should get a chance at a life that Charles took away from them.
by Midnighttoker on May 30th, 2007
no. they need to be cut up. charlie too.
by instruction101 on October 28th, 2008
Yes parole them both have show remorse, both have lead productive lives while incarcerated.
by 1tequila2 on September 3rd, 2008
This is a complicated legal and moral issue. First, let me say that I agree that Leslie should be paroled. Most people believe that Leslie was there during the Sharon Tate murders- she was not. I have SEVERAL reasons why she should be paroled, but I'm not going to list them all, as I don't want to put anyone to sleep. Just saying "keep those murderers locked up" is an acknowledgement to not knowing much about Leslie's involvement, nor about the case.
Some of you may think that I support Manson or his beliefs right now, but let me say that I IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM CONDONE MANSON. The man is clearly a mental patient, with clear psychological disturbances.
Here are some reasons that Leslie should be paroled.
1. A life sentence is 20 years- Leslie has spent nearly 40 years behind bars. Some are saying she was given the death penalty-which was originally true-however in 1977 she won a retrial and was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after 7 years. THAT is the sentence she is serving. Thirty nine years is almost double the time that most murderes spend behind bars. To put someone in there for 40 years, we trivialize the families of other victims, whose killers may have been behind bars for 15-20 years. It is a smack in the face. That is an important legal issue. She has done double that. For all of you that say "keep them locked up- you give me ONE- just ONE- person who has done 40 years in prison and can tell me that is not enough time, and I will withdrawl my argument. I have been in jail for 4 days, and I am telling you right now, jail is NO place to be. I cant even begin to fathom 40 years.
2. Leslie Van Houten did take a life. That is tragic and I will never belittle that. However, behind bars, she has counseled inmates with drug problems, gang, cult problems, and in this, she has also SAVED lives. At some point, as human beings, we have to believe in redemption. If there is no redemption, we are all doomed. I believe in second chances, and everyone reading this at some point has had a second chance, and been greatful for it. Remember- the ONLY incident of violence that Miss Van Houten has ever been charged with was in 1969. She has been a model inmate for 35 years with an impecable record and has met all terms of her parole. So why should we keep changing the rules? When you say "keep them in jail," who are you talking about- Leslie or Manson? She has met all terms and conditions of her parole- and has served DOUBLE her time. Imagine going to a casino and at a blackjack table you get 21, and the dealer tells you they bust at 20 on this table. That is what the parole board is doing to Leslie.
3.Her age. Leslie is not going to get out and start writing Manson. All four (Tex, Susan, Pat and Leslie) denounced Manson back in the 70's. Those who have done evaluations on Leslie say that she is "little or no threat to society," which in prison, that is the best review you can get. Why are my tax dollars paying to shelter rehabilitated criminals? It's at least $42,000 per year, per one inmate. If there was a posable threat that is one thing, but the prison is saying she is NOT a threat. One of the reasons that criminals are so hardened, is that the prisons are more concerned with punishment than rehabilitation.
4. The actual fatal wounds on Mrs. La Bianca were inflicted by Tex Watson, and Leslie's wounds were inflicted post mortem. This is shown by testimony as well as physical evidence. This is more an acccomplice issue than an actual murderer. I'm sure with Tex and Susan (who were completely out of their minds) she would have been afraid to stop anything, for fear for her own life. She was relunctant to do anything, but was demanded by Tex to stab her, because Manson wanted everyone's hands dirty.
5. Think about this-if I'm a prisoner with the possibility for parole-and see a model prisoner of 35 years not getting parole-what good does it do me to be a good inmate? It sets a bad precedent to the other inmates with parole hopes to keep denying someone who has met terms for 30 years.
I have several other reasons, but this may start to get boring. Remember- every person should have a chance at redemption, as we are all born innocent, and are human, both yourself and Leslie Van Houten.
You can send that to the parole board.
by Lili on July 20th, 2008
The death sentence should have been carried out.
They now "help" society? It doesn't ever make up for what they both did and the fact that they are still alive while their victims are gone for 40 years. When they performed murder it took away any rights they had to freedom forever.
by chichi on July 8th, 2008
These people should not be to be alive. They were sentenced to dead and just by "luck" they got a second chance and they are alive. The people they killed didnt have this "luck" so no parole for any of the people who were sentenced to dead in a first place.
by Jersey Girl on June 17th, 2008
NO!!! NEVER!!! What they did is unforgivable! They were originally given the death penalty and then life. If they had gone through with the death penalty we wouldn't be answering these questions. There would have been no parole had this been carried out. Did they give their victims parole? Did they show any mercy for a mother about to deliver her child, who begged for her life and the life of her unborn child, was she or the baby given parole? No! Life is Life. Sit there until you die and think every single day about what you did. Be happy you didn't get the sentence you deserved.
by WoOZackWoO on May 14th, 2008
My point is this: The people should be given a fair trial. 2 appeals or so. But, if constantly found guilty of their actions then they should be put to death. "Instantly" was a poor word to use.
The "Murder" is different than "execution". By my definition, murder is the willful killing of another for reasons outside the law. Execution is someone dying for horribly breaking some law, (Homicide laws for example)
Because I believe that human life is so valuable, is why I think that these people who think that it is OK to put someone to death for taking another's life. Take this guy for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff
I personally think that murderers should be put to death just so that we can be rid of these people. They had their chance and "messed up" when they stole another's life. Sorry, but that "mess up" is a bit too huge for me, and I think that they should be put to death.
by islandguy on May 13th, 2008
They've been in jail for 40 years. They are institutionalized. What else do they know? Why would they want to get out? What would they do for a living? What would they do for themselves. I know Krenwinkel has remorsed but what about Van Houten? I see problems with them fitting into society. No matter whether it's drugs brainwashing or cult activity that put them there, I know I would be looking over my shoulder all the time, if they were around me. I believe in forgiving and second chances, if you could convince me of their accomplishments and what they have done for themselves. Otherwise it might be harmful to them to be released.
by Bestoink on December 28th, 2008
All these little people who want to let these evil bitches out are totally sick. Sneak into a stranger's house,torture and butcher them to death,including a pregnant woman about to give birth who begged for her unborn baby's life and was told," Look bitch,I don't care about you or your baby,you're going to die so get ready" - yeah, there are embiciles who will feel sorry for these scum,want to comfort them,befriend them,marry them..I mean it's totally sick. As for Van Houten, the next night ,she knew what she was going there for-to kill.She knew what the mission was.She certainly heard what her buddies did the previous night. She helped Krenwinkle subdue MsBianca who was fighting for her life,held her down while Krenwinkle stabbed and stabbbed,got a few licks in herself with a large carving fork. Drugs? There were no drugs involved.Manson wanted them all clear headed so they wouldn't mess up.I don't care how long they've been in,how much they now love Jesus,the tooth fairy,Budda, Mickey mouse,whomever--NO PAROLE!
by J and B on November 12th, 2008
They are no longer the same people they were when those terrible events occured. There have been many and much, much worse convicted murders paroled, but their crimes were not national headlines for weeks. I think they should be paroled.
by Anonymous on September 24th, 2008
There is no proof that the wounds Leslie inflicted were post mortem. That is what she says she thinks, now. There is of course, NO WAY to prove that.
Age, drugs and Manson did NOT take away these women's freedoms. Their own actions took away their freedoms and rightfully so.
How do you know that we are all assuming out of ignorance that Leslie was at the Tate murders? Does it matter WHO she murdered? She was at the scene of two murders, isn't that bad enough?!
Life is NOT 20 years, it is 20 TO life, which means 20 years MINIMUM, not 20 years MAXIMUM. It means, 20 years with the potential for LIFE if denied parole, which she has been and good thing, too.
Furthermore, someone here stated that Christians should forgive, well, let me tell you something...If we were the kind of society you propose, then we would have to let everyone out of jail and "forgive them" and there would be serial killers and mass murderers wandering the streets, maybe killing you or YOUR family. How would you feel then?
It makes me sick when people start feeling sorry for dirtbags like this...How about feeling sorry for the real victims here.
What would you do if it was your child they murderer for absolutely NO reason? If someone broke into your house and murdered your family and friends before torturing and murdering you, would you pray as you die that they would be "forgiven" by society?
Since when was 7 years a GOOD thing for murderers? Is this something we should aspire to? If you take a life for any reason other than accident or self defense, you should pay with your own life at the very least in prison.
You people make me sick.
This woman died begging for her unborn baby's life, no woman should EVER die begging for her baby's life and knowing her baby will suffocate inside of her as she lie dying.
Abigail Folger was a civil rights worker. Gary Hinman often took in the poor and homeless. Leno and Rosemary LaBianca worked their whole lives to get what they had...And a bunch of jealous nobodies took it away because they couldn't handle what losers they were and still are.
They should spend the rest of their lives in prison for what they did. And any of you who feel sorry for them should know how it feels to be an innocent and random victim of violent crime!
by neveroddoreven on May 13th, 2008
Well, I'm not sure. They have been in prison for a very long time, what they did was of course, horrific, but people let the media interfere. If they hadn't killed a famous person would anyone care as much?
If they are not a threat to society then they may have served there time, although it would be unsafe to release them for their sake.
They commited truely awful crimes in a very peculiar situation, brainwashed, that is not a normal state of mind... they were brainwashed to believe they were doing something for a cause.
This is a difficult call. Maybe supervise them?
I don't know, I'm not qualified to decide.
by 1tequila2 on November 12th, 2008
I know that most people are against me in this argument. I will make a bet. Here is what I want you to do-instead of giving me charged emotion, for every one LEGAL issue (not your opinion or emotion) that you bring to the table on why Leslie should be incarcerated, I will bring you TWO reasons under California law why she should be paroled. There are more legal reasons for her parole than her incarceration. But give me facts or cite law, not your opinion. "What they did was horrible," is VERY TRUE-THE CRIME WAS DESPICABLE AND INHUMANE- but the law does allow for rehabilitation, whether you like it or not, Leslie is serving a term for 7-life with the possibility for parole and she has exceeded the criteria for parole. Some of you ask, "what if you were Rosemary LaBiancas brother?" In the same sense, If you were Leslies sister, would you fight for her release. It is a biased opinion.
by 1tequila2 on November 11th, 2008
First off, the assumption taking my argument into letting Manson be an accomplice is ludicrous. Here is where you are wrong. Think of it like this. John Gotti was never convicted of the physical act of killing anyone. (Even though he did) He was convicted for giving the order for someone to be killed. Which is exactly what Manson did. He told them to go into these specific homes and kill these people. The law is very clear on this. The person who gives the order will receive a tougher sentence than the one who is along for the ride.
Leslie testified at first she "was reluctant to do so at first, but after stabbing more it became more fun," which is just sick. Ethically, is there a difference of stabbing someone after they are dead? That will vary from person to person. However, LEGALLY they are NOT the same. And that is what counts, because ultimately, this is a legal issue. Remember-we have to go by what law dictates, not emotion, otherwise you run into a Salem Witch Trial scenario. For the record, Pat should not be released.
I apologize about the confusion as well. I was typing that pretty fast (like I am here), my point was that if one in general if does commit murder that they still can save a life, and even a murderer can turn their life around and do good deeds will add more to that but i have to go
by Anonymous on November 21st, 2008
I do not know enough about these individuals or true facts of the case to answer this question but this is a message for ignorant citizens and the Parole Board. Almost none of you have sat down one-on-one with someone who has an indeterminant to life sentence and looked at who they are now, what they are doing, and see who they are as a human being. You only see these individuals as a name on a file, a case, citizens only know what the media says and the board of parole only knows what they hear in the very little time the lifer gets to speak. So who are you to say that they should not be released. In order for us as citizens and you as memebers of the board of parole need to do...is not only look at what the victim's family are saying but take a good look at the criminal...because chance's are...they are where they are because they were victims...whether that be child abuse, spousal abuse, rape,...they were victims. What kind of message are you sending out?
by Anonymous on December 28th, 2008
I agree that they should be parolled. But under controlled circumstances. Everyday I hear about innocent people being murdered on the news. Maybe they would be able to counsel some of the kids in the world BEFORE they start their own "killing sprees". I do NOT condone what they did. It was a horrible crime. I also feel horrible for the families of the victims and what they have lost and how they have to continue to grieve for the rest of their lives.
by Proud Momma on November 10th, 2008
I strongly believe that these women belong in prison for the rest of their natural lives and they should pray for God's forgiveness for what they have done. They must accept responsibility for their own actions and to blame these crimes on other influences, drugs, society, etc... is a total cop-out. In fact it shows they do not take full responsibility. They did this on their own accord, not saying that Manson didnt influence them but that makes them no less accountable. And it truely sickens me to hear that some people think they deserve a second chance. While I dont believe they would commit crimes today I also believe they should be punished for what they did. While prison should act as rehibilation to some, to some it is also punishment: consequences for their actions. They must be held accountable for their actions for the rest of their lives. And for those who say that the fame in this case is the only reason for the punishment thats insane. By todays standards those who kill for no reason other than their own selfishness, dont even have a chance of parolle so why do they even have a chance at that?
by meghen13 on December 5th, 2008
I strongly agree. There are individuals who have been charged with multiple murders that have already ben released. It is the popularity of their case that is keeping them behind bars. They have been model inmates and have taken many actions to improve/ rehabilitate themselves. They too were victims of manson and have shown remorse for their crimes. Their ages alone no longer make them a threat to society. Prisons are for those who cannot be in society without reoffending or being a risk. I strongly hope that they will be released at their next parole hearings.
by 1tequila2 on November 10th, 2008
Once again, if you were not paying attention, LESLIE DID NOT MURDER ROSEMARY LA BIANCA!! SHE WAS MURDERED BY TEX WATSON! Lelie is an accomplice to murder and has done 5 times the alloted time for that crime. PER CALIFORNIA LAW. Sure this is an emotional issue, but the law of California states 7 years for being an accomplice. She has served 39. If anything, she should have been released years ago. If you want to add obstruction of justice for wiping off fingerprints at the crime scene, that may be 3 years max. Tex Watson was the murderer, NOT Leslie. He refuses to go his parole hearings. So as far as justice being served, Tex Watson should and will die in prison. There is the justice for the families. People that comment on this subject know barely little or nothing at all about the 2 nights of murders, (and for the record, there were actually 3 nights of murders, dont forget the murder of Gary Hinman by Bobby Beausoli.)
by djgilb91 on February 4th, 2010
I also believe they should be released as well as Charles Watson. They have spent 40 years in Prison. People that murder get 7-15 years and then released. Every time the girls or Charles Watson go before a parole board they are denied parole.
Leslie completed her Masters Degree, teaches, does community work in the Prison.
Patricia trains dogs and does community work. Charles Watson studied to be an Ordained Minister. Does service in the Prison and writes for Abound Love Ministries. All of them have admitted remorse. They were young people, caught up in the drug world (1969), and ran into Manson who controlled them with drugs and doing what he wanted them to do. After he controlled them with drugs, they had fear if they did not do what he wanted. It was a terrible situation - runied their lives. These people are elders now - they have skills to get out into society.
They have done everything the parole board wants them to do - and still not released. If a famous person was not killed - these people would have been out in 7 - 15 years. This is not justice. This is revenge. Also Political. OJ killed 2 people. Black jury found him innocent. Robert Blake killed his girlfriend. His money kept him from going to Prison. Laws are for diffent people. It is not the same justice for everyone. Money and being famous when you commit a crime - you do not go to Prison.
by killdrphil on March 13th, 2010
I disagree. And, actually, I would want them to let Manson go before I would want them to let those two go. They are the ones who actually did the killings (quite savagely, I might add). Manson wasn't even there.
by Sarah M on March 18th, 2010
Until they can figure out how to parole their victims from the grave I disagree
by Felonious_monk on January 3rd, 2009
Agree - To those who believe prison should not be reformatory (and the authorities recognise it when people have changed) but merely punitive, then someone previously guilty of murder should not be denied parole until their death. I'm not of this opinion. I also think that if Manson brainwashed his cohort/followers (which prosecutor Bugliosi mantains) then it would not follow logically that Van Houton or Krenwinkel can be deemed entirely responsible for their actions at the time.
Interestingly, La Bianca's daughter came out in support of Tex Watson receiving parole as he is now a born again Christian. Watson's part in the Tate/La Bianca murders far exceeded Van Houten's and Krenwinkel's.
Having said that, it's unlikely they'll ever get out. The DAs are in under a political ticket and they'd lose too much public support if they were to let them free.
by browneyedgirl on April 23rd, 2008
Van Houten and Krenwinkel have already been shown more mercy than they showed their victims....they're death sentence was commuted. They should only be paroled when their victims are paroled from their death sentence.
Should exconvicts be automatically forgiven by the state or govt after finishing their sentence?
by janeah on March 19th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
why would the judge of old charges want me to come back and appear monthes later?
by jerseyxgirl87 on March 10th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Do you know anyone in prison?
by its_complicated on March 10th, 2010
| 4 people like this
Assault at school, could I get compensation?
by bulletarerad on March 1st, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Wasn't this against the law? Why wasn't anything done about it? Read....
by mebo on March 8th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Caution Darryl, the Manson 'family' is credited with whacking Van Houten's original attorney for poor representation. After 16 & 11 parole refusals, respectively, a better question is why AlBuddha1 wants them released?
by Little Miss Dangerous on March 23rd, 2007
Most likely because he is a bleeding heart liberal, though I don't really care what his motives are.
by Darryl61 on March 23rd, 2007
D & LMD: Thanks. points. How you been, D? Haven't seen you recently.
by Mirage V2.0 AWOL on March 24th, 2007
Been pretty busy, don't have near as much spare time lately.
by Darryl61 on March 24th, 2007
I hope that is a good thing. You are a fixture around here, kinda missed you.
by Mirage V2.0 AWOL on March 24th, 2007
Yep, it's good. I'll still be around. Can't shake an AB addiction too easily, you know.
by Darryl61 on March 24th, 2007