California governor rejects parole for Manson family member Leslie Van Houten

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

California governor rejects parole for Manson family member

March 30, 2022

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday blocked parole for Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, reversing a panel’s recommendation that she be freed after spending a half-century in prison.

Van Houten, 72, “currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison at this time,” Newsom said in his parole review. It was the fifth time that a California governor has rejected her release.

Her attorney, Rich Pfeiffer, disputed that view and said the decision will be appealed in court. He accused Newsom of rejecting parole because he is worried about “his political future” and noted that Van Houten has a spotless prison disciplinary record.

“We’re not fighting (over) Leslie being a good person. She’s proven that through her actions for half a century,” he said.

-snip-

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/california-gavin-newsom-charles-manson-leslie-van-houten-6cd3a8ab668d14ffe82558a96799b865

[onecaliberal]

1. Good. The people she murdered don't get their life back.

[delisen]

2. I see no point in her continued imprisonment. Nt

[onecaliberal]

9. The point is that she killed people. Now she gets to

live a life of the consequences handed down because of her own actions. If she killed your daughter, I don’t think you would feel the same.

[obamanut2012]

12. she killed zero people

[onecaliberal]

14. Uh huh....

[hlthe2b]

58. You are wrong and should delete this. She wasn't at the Tate murders, but she DID stab LaBiancas to

death. So, no, she didn't kill "zero" people, she killed TWO.

[treestar]

63. Of course not

That's why the state decides whether one's daughter's killer gets parole.

That kind of argument does not apply. No one would be objective about their own family being involved. That's why they don't get to decide.

[hlthe2b]

70. Yet YOU are unwilling to LET the state's elected official decide whether this killer gets parole

[treestar]

89. Not true

I accept that it is his decision. She won’t get parole.

[onecaliberal]

77. The Governor is the head of state and he said NO.

[treestar]

90. Right. I was replying to

Someone saying the victims parents should decide. The fallacious argument of “what if it was your daughter” that is why it is the Board and governor who decide.

[onecaliberal]

91. I said that because people seem pretty flip about heinous murders of others.

It made me wonder if they would think differently if it were their kid. I never said or Insinuated parents should decide punishment.

[treestar]

94. The argument of what if it was your daughter

Is an appeal to emotion. If it was my daughter of course I don’t want them paroled. But that does not mean they should not be.

[onecaliberal]

97. It should be taken into consideration to a great deal.

That’s my .02

[LudwigPastorius]

21. She already got her lucky break.

Her death sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1972.

[hlthe2b]

3. Yes. WHere do THEY get an appeal.

The hair still stands up on my neck when I read anything about those murders and the cult's celebration while doing it.

[treestar]

8. Then it would follow that no murderer should ever be released.

[Dial H For Hero]

31. Works for me.

[USALiberal]

39. So, any degree? Nt

[Dial H For Hero]

83. First degree, certainly. Third, no. Second...maybe?

[obamanut2012]

10. She didn't kill anyone

[Demsrule86]

16. Yes she did...she was convicted of killing the La Biancas

Van Houten was arrested and charged in relation to the killing of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in 1969.

She was instructed by Manson to enter the couple’s home and murder them, alongside Tex Watson and Patricia Krenwinkle.

Watson allegedly tried strangling Rosemary but she was able to grab a lamp and launch it at Van Houten.

Van Houten allegedly held Rosemary down while Krenwinkle stabbed her in the chest several times.

The knife apparently jammed in Rosemary’s clavicle bone and Van Houten cried to Watson for help.

Watson had already murdered Leno, stabbing him repeatedly as he was tied up in the living room.

Van Houten allegedly stabbed Rosemary's lower back and glute area over a dozen times.

She was arrested shortly after and cooperated with authorities about the LaBiancas murder.

Van Houten admitted to direct knowledge of the LaBianca murders in a police interview.

[ripcord]

20. People get confused because she also plead guilty to the Tate murders

For some reason the girls thought if Van Houten plead guilty to a crime she didn't commit it would help get Manson off.

[Demsrule86]

29. I saw a documentary about that...Manson inistructed them to change their pleas to guilty

in the hopes that they would receive death penalties and he wouldn't.

[Glorfindel]

4. Good for Governor Newsom

Van Houten, the murderer, is exactly where she belongs, "spotless" record and all.

[obamanut2012]

11. She isn't a murderer

[Demsrule86]

17. She is a murderer. She viciously murdered Rosemary LaBianca by stabbing her numerous time...she

deserves to rot in prison.

[treestar]

66. Wasn't there an issue that she stabbed the dead body

after the murder already happened? I recall something like that.

[Demsrule86]

78. I posted links...She held La Bianca down and admitted to stabbing her 16 times...

The bodies were mutilated after death but this person stabbed her repeatedly and killed her. She also held LaBianca down while others stabbed her. She is a horror. She needs to stay in jail. I don't believe in death but she should never get out.

[Demsrule86]

27. https://allthatsinteresting.com/leslie-van-houten That is not true. She is a vicious murderer.

she killed Rosemary La Bianca by stabbing her multiple times.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/leslie-van-houten

[honest.abe]

53. How do you know that??

[hlthe2b]

57. They are very misinformed. Van Houten helped brutally stab the LaBianca couple. Horrific beyond

description. She was not at the Tate murder, but not a murderer? Hell yes, she was.

[PlanetBev]

5. Purely political move

Both Jerry Brown and Gov. Newsom have rejected the parole board’s recommendation. They’re afraid that the Republicans will clutch their pearls and scream “law and order.”


At 72, I seriously doubt that Leslie Van Houten poses any danger to society at this point.

[hlthe2b]

6. I STILL hear their laughter and celebration at that trial in my memories. Screw that.

Whether or not they are a threat to the general public is not the ONLY issue that decides whether to grant parole.

As with Sirhan Sirhan (whose parole app Newsome also thankfully rejected) some crimes resonate with harm to the public even many decades later. Those of Manson and his cult are just those.

She got her life back--a reprieve from the death penalty. That did not automatically imply release ANYTIME in the future.

[BlackSkimmer]

49. I was pretty young, but old enough to know what happened.

It truly terrified me.

[obamanut2012]

13. Agreed, it is ridiculous

1. She didn't kill anyone
2. She was young and sexually and physically abused by Manson
3. She was out for several years on appeal and had a good job, an apartment, and kept out of trouble
4. Actual murderers and rapists get out of prison all the time in CA
5. Her prison record is very good

[PlanetBev]

23. She did kill two people

Leno and Rosemary La Bianca, on the second night. She was not at the Tate-Polanski house killing the night before.

[Demsrule86]

24. Why do people here keeps saying she didn't kill anyone...she murdered Rosemary LaBianca

viciously with a knife: multiple stab wounds. It was a horribly painful death. Let her rot. Her death sentence was commuted...so she got a break. Although I do not support the death penalty.

[Cha]

61. They're ignoring the facts for

whatever reason.

Thank you for posting them.

I was living in San Diego at the time and was horrified like everyone else.

Appreciate that Gov Newsom has Denied Parole.

💙💛

[LudwigPastorius]

33. "1. She didn't kill anyone"

Leslie Van Houten in a 1996 interview, telling Larry King that she stabbed a still-living Rosemary LaBianca "about 16 times".

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/04/15/leslie-van-houten-manson-family-sot-larry-king-live.cnn

[Demsrule86]

36. +10000

[Cha]

64. TY Maybe whomever will Stop saying..

"Leslie Van Houten didn't kill anyone" NOW.

💙💛

[Demsrule86]

79. Hi Cha...good to see you.

[Cha]

84. Hey Dems.. Thank you for helping to

set the record straight on what a vicious homicidal maniac Van Houten was.

I was living in San Diego at the time and decades later I'm grateful Gov Newsom is keeping her in the hell hole she made for herself.

💙💛

[hlthe2b]

43. She most certainly DID kill someone. The LaBianca husband & wife murders--every bit as grisly

with innumerable knife attacks on the couple as the Tate murder the day before (which Van Houten did not take part in).

Why on earth you would claim she had not participated in murder, escapes me.

[edbermac]

50. Manson didn't kill anyone either.

Seriously, what are you going on about?

[shanti]

102. Releasing any of the Manson folks

is a political third rail. NOBODY will do this.

[treestar]

7. How is she a danger now?

That is not credible. After being in jail from age 21 or so. That's like admitting prison has no rehabilitative value.

[hlthe2b]

44. She was sentenced to death and later resentenced to life. That was her mercy for what had been an

remorseless (for decades) crime spree. Whether you were old enough to remember those horrific murders or not, like RFK's murder by Sirhan Sirhan mentioned upstream, this one shook the entire nation. A lot of us are NOT over it. Her guilt was proven without question. Let her do her personal rehab in prison.

[treestar]

59. So if the murder was less notorious and well known

shouldn't the murderer have the same result? If you have never heard of the murder, you would not be over it or traumatized by it.

[hlthe2b]

62. That is why the community who lived it, decides the sentence and its judges & elected officials

oversee the sentence. No murder is non-traumatizing. But, despite your apparently not knowing anything about it, this one terrified people all over the world in its heinous nature--the fact that drugs and a horrific, yet charismatic leader could get a cult to carry out such acts.

Every murder and murderer needs to be evaluated on the facts of the case. This one is a no-brainer for anyone who takes the time to educate themselves about it. Her mercy has been served. Let her achieve her repentance in jail where she belongs--not out selling her story or re-traumatizing those who lived through it and can never forget. She wasn't executed. Good. Now she needs to do whatever good she is capable of doing behind bars.

[treestar]

67. So it would be ok to be paroled

if the nation was not traumatized, just the family and people directly involved? IOW the millions of cases you've never heard of.

[hlthe2b]

74. I already answered this wretched excuse in full, had you bothered to read my post above #62

if you just want to repeat over and over, that is not a cogent argument. Maybe go do some reading on the case--as several others who keep posting that "she never killed anyone" (spoiler-- she absolutely DID) or simply post that you have read the arguments on this thread and still disagree. That is your right.

[treestar]

88. You are off the point

You didn’t answer. You said the trauma to the nation was the reason. So I can’t tell if murderers can be paroled if their case is not known.

[Cha]

75. Aloha treestar. It was a heinous

Vicious killing of human being.

Leslie Van Houten was sentenced to death.. and got a reprieve..

I was living in San Diego at the time and was horrified along with everyone else.. decades later I'm glad to see she's Not getting out of the hell hole she made for herself.

Leslie Van Houten in a 1996 interview, telling Larry King that she stabbed a still-living Rosemary LaBianca "about 16 times".

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/04/15/leslie-van-houten-manson-family-sot-larry-king-live.cnn

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16545424

[Mike Nelson]

15. I think...

... there are some crimes that warrant life in prison without parole. Being in prison for so long means Van Houten has adapted. She can have more time to continue whatever work and relationships give her pleasure. Maybe she can help younger people reform. I would also insist on complete privacy... no book deals or Oprah interviews.

[2naSalit]

22. You know...

That the wowee media will be all over it from every direction.

She needs to just stay there and die in prison, it's part of the punishment.

[hlthe2b]

45. Yup. She was originally sented to death. She received mercy with the life sentence.

[treestar]

68. That was not a particular mercy

The SCOTUS held CA death penalty law was unconstitutional. 107 defendants were saved the death penalty from that.

[hlthe2b]

69. I am well aware of the circumstances behind the resentencing, thank you very much. It was all the

mercy she deserved. You think nothing of the jury who, for weeks had to hear and view the most nightmare-producing testimony and evidence. and who unanimously agreed on the death penalty (something I do not support, btw), But now their decision, having been reverted to life in prison is now being dismissed by you. Well, no. Newsome was right on Sirhan Sirhan and he is doubly right on this.

[treestar]

87. It was a matter of law

Last edited Wed Mar 30, 2022, 10:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Not mercy to the defendants. The rest of your post is not on that point.

[ripcord]

18. This is one of the reason we still are still fighting the death penalty

There is no life without parole anymore, no matter how gruesome the crime they always have a chance to walk free.

[treestar]

95. Most murders are gruesome.

Perhaps murderers should never have a chance at parole. But in California they do. My question is would she get it but for the notorious nature of the crime? Likely others just like her were paroled because they were unknown nationally.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. At what point is a punishment no longer a punishment, but...

the public response more important than than the perpetrator or even the victim?

And do we consider a prison sentence as simply punishment, or at least partly an attempt at rehabilitation?

And, finally, why do we consider a life sentence behind bars to be less cruel than an execution?

[Demsrule86]

25. She stabbed Rosemary LaBianca multiple times and held her down while other stabbed her. She

should not be paroled.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. If her life means so little after 50 years, why shouldn't we...

just have killed her back then?

We keep them on ice like this for many reasons, not the least of which is that she might change. Not for the political fortunes of an elected governor.

[Dial H For Hero]

34. Because the Supreme Court said that we couldn't.

[Demsrule86]

35. They tried to kill her. She received the death penalty. She certainly deserves life without parole

Do the La Bianca's suffering and pain mean nothing...it truly was a heinous killing.

[treestar]

60. yes, the rehabilitation concept

under these facts, it seems denied - it is punishment and not rehabilitation. If so, then that would encourage life sentences for a lot of crimes, since there is not going to be any improvement. When let out of jail, they will just do it again, so why let them out?

[hlthe2b]

72. Rehabilitation does NOT automatically equate to release. It can, as in Van Houten's case mean

more and more privileges while in jail. And she has had considerable opportunities. When she was sentenced there was zero INTENDED opportunity for release from prison, though she was not ultimately executed per the sentence. The jury never expected her to see the light of day and given her crimes, she should not.

[hlthe2b]

46. Her punishment from original sentence was death. She received mercy with the resentencing to life.

That did not come with an automatic "get out of jail free card" after a number of years.

Some crimes impact the community and country at large. This was one of them.

[Dial H For Hero]

26. Her lawyer says that her actions have "proven" that she's a good person.

I suspect her victims would disagree.

If they were still alive.

Which they aren’t.

[EndlessWire]

28. She should get parole.

If she had received a sentence of "life without parole" then this would not be an issue. She shouldn't be resentenced to that, if they did not see fit to sentence her to that in the beginning.

But, there are no guarantees that you can get parole. At 72, she has paid for her crime. She is not going to join another cult and run around murdering anyone. I don't see her as a significant public threat. There are other people walking around who are more of a threat than she is a threat.

I see this as a political thing, just an easy mark to make Newsome look good. Why make us pay even more money to keep someone inside? He didn't have to do that; she is not a threat anymore, although at one time she was. This proves that prison is punitive, not rehabilitative.

She received more time in jail than many murderers get; what distinguishes one from another, if not politics?

[Demsrule86]

30. The jury expected her to be executed. She received the death penalty. When the death penalty was

overturned for a short time...all sentences were commuted to life with parole...she viciously stabbed the La Biancas to death...horrible killing. The victims suffered greatly. She should not get parole. The jury wanted her dead and never paroled.

[EndlessWire]

38. All sentences were commuted to life WITH parole

I presume that there was a reason for that distinction which didn't include individual assessments. All I'm saying is that she is not a threat (the parole board itself didn't think she is anymore) and this decision is still punitive. It isn't about protecting the public from a rabid attacker. I wouldn't want her moving in next door to me (I have a privacy-invading church group next door to annoy me,) but she could find a spot somewhere. The point is, the public is now paying good money to keep her inside when the stated reason for keeping her is NOT true.

They shouldn't blow smoke up our asses just to make themselves look good. Transparency would be a good thing. Just say, We're keeping her in not for any good reason except we are not done punishing her. Because, rehab is not an issue here.

[onecaliberal]

40. So keeping a heinous murderer in prison serves no purpose.

This world gets more fucked by the minute.

[LudwigPastorius]

42. So, you wouldn't want her living next to you, or babysitting for you.

Sounds like you consider her dangerous.

Fortunately, Governor Newsom does too.

[hlthe2b]

48. That WAS NOT what the jury who heard/saw every bit of evidence wanted.

When the death penalty was thrown out, the jury did not get to weigh in with an alternative. That judge did not close the door on parole, but it certainly was not a promise or guarantee.

[Demsrule86]

51. She does not deserve parole...she brutally murdered two people...the LaBianca's.

She stabbed Rosemary LaBianca at least 16 times. She is a monster.

[treestar]

92. Good point

To claim she is a danger rather than just saying she hasn’t had enough punishment yet. The sentence is life, so release is an exception.

[hlthe2b]

47. "If she had received a sentence of "life without parole" then this would not be an issue." !!!!!!!!!

Do you really not know that she was sentenced to death? Really?

[Torchlight]

41. I'm glad I'll never be in a position to make these types of judgements.

I have a difficult time discerning when justice ends and vengeance begins. If there was even the smallest chance my decisions were affected by the latter, I can only imagine the shame I'd feel.

As my old grandad told me, "Justice is what should be done, while vengeance is what you think should be done." And most of the time, I admit I don't have the wisdom (or patience?) to tell the two apart.

[AntivaxHunters]

52. Now do Wall Street CEOs

[Demsrule86]

55. What does a Wall Street CEO have to do with a brutal murder? Nothing.

[AntivaxHunters]

56. Everything

Start here --
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20220304/sackler-family-purdue-pharma-settlement

[Demsrule86]

81. This has nothing to do with the thread...please go away.

[AntivaxHunters]

86. Well that's not very nice....

Why the hostility?
I responded friendly so????
Very uncalled for & quite frankly immature.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

93. And you attempted to distract from the thread,

that's uncalled for and quite frankly, immature.

[honest.abe]

54. Good. Anyone involved in this horrific crime should never be set free.

IMO.

[Hekate]

65. Good.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. I am honesty ambivalent about the release of any of the Manson family.

This murder spree happened in my young adulthood. I paid attention then and have never forgotten about it.

~BUT~

She is now an old woman. She has apparently been a good prisoner. Were this a less notorious crime, would she have been treated differently?

~BUT~

There was a lot of blood spilled in an incredibly callous, cruel manner. Her original sentence was death. Had not the laws changed, she would be pretty much gone from memory except for a very few people. She is at her fifth parole hearings solely because the laws in California were changed.

~BUT~

I am opposed to the death penalty **in*all*cases** and with no exception, including my own family members. Killing someone else will not bring anyone back.

~BUT~

Have all her parole denials been the result of political cowardice? It would not surprise me.






Anyway, I have no dog in this hunt. If she is paroled or not will not have any affect on me. I can be content either way.

[Demsrule86]

82. I don't think politics play much of a role here...she committed a heinous murder...stabbed someone

16 times at least. I don't care who she murdered, she should never get out.

[msfiddlestix]

73. oh ffs "poses a danger to society if released at this time" are you effin kidding me?

sometimes......

[hlthe2b]

76. Hardly the ONLY issue in deciding parole for some of the most heinous crimes on record.

Not even the only issue for most violent crimes today. One issue, sure, but not the sole issue in parole decision

[msfiddlestix]

80. I could be miss-remembering, but I feel like she was totally under the influence of massive dose of

LSD or other hallucinogens a la Manson and totally brainwashed and controlled by him

I haven;t followed her case story but surely , after 50 years of good behavior in a women's prison, well why not?

unless she's exhibited violent behavior in prison. (?)

[hlthe2b]

85. Read the thread. This is not "any" murder and she got the reprieve from the death penalty the jury

had rendered. They had never intended her to be free again. There were ample reasons. I won't discount the horror that THEY had to endure and the soul-sucking indescribable testimony and photos while deliberating for weeks. While I don't believe in the death penalty, I have more respect for juries than to totally discount their intent. And no, this was not just any murder, nor was she a young teen or any of the other reasons we might think differently. If a Trumpster 01/06 insurrectionist had point-blank killed multiple members of Congress, would you be wishing their sentence to be lightened because they were under the "influence" of Trump and his cult?

[msfiddlestix]

101. Fair point.

[leftyladyfrommo]

100. I have really mixed feelings about cases like this.

After 50 years of living an exemplary life I think she deserves a chance.

50 years later she's not the same person she was.

Some young people commit terrible crimes and show no remorse . They need to stay in prison.

But cases like this are different. She's the same age I am.

[Tarc]

96. Honestly, who cares. I'll be glad when this last vestige of the boomer zeitgeist fades away

The endless infatuation with a 50+ yr-old celebrity murder is just...ugh.

[Stinky The Clown]

98. Wow that's one broad brush brush ya got there.

[XanaDUer2]

99. Good nt