Should any of the Charles Manson Family killers ever get parole?

[onetrack]

I see where Leslie Van Houten, one of the surviving Charles Manson Family killers has again been recommended for parole, after being in jail for around 52 years. However, she has applied for parole 20 times and parole has been denied every time.

 

In every case where the Parole Board recommended she be released, the California Governor has overturned the Parole Boards decision. Americans seem to evenly split over whether Van Houten should be released - with residents of California largely opposed to her release. There are obviously a lot of long memories in California and anyone who recalls the news of the Manson family murders can probably still agree it was the worst case of mass murder of innocents America had seen in many decades.

 

Manson died in prison in 2017 - only one other of the Manson Family killers has died in prison - most are still incarcerated. Only one Manson Family escaped jail - Linda Kasabian, who was put on "guard duty" outside Sharon Tates house.

Kasabian was given immunity from prosecution and testified against the Manson Family members. She played no part in the murders and was reputedly horrified when she saw the murders being carried out at a late stage.

 

I personally feel none of the Manson Family murderers who are serving life sentences should ever be released.

Patricia Krenwinkel seems to have expressed real remorse for the murders she carried out - but I believe people know right from wrong instinctively, and I still feel Krenwinkel should die in jail.

 

She was recommended for release in Oct 2022, but the California Governor Gavin Newsom has refused to free her, stating he still believes she is a "threat to society".

I'm not so sure of the threat angle from a 75 yr old woman - but I believe she should never be freed, simply for what she did.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/leslie-van-houten-charles-manson-labianca-murders-parole/

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-27/manson-follower-patricia-krenwinkel-parole-recommended/101105774

 

 

[old man emu]

I imagine that if Californian law had the death penalty back then, and acted on it, that all of them would have been executed by now. Life imprisonment was supposed to be more civilised by eliminating the biblical "eye for an eye" form of punishment. One can easily argue that it is more civilised, and that it removes dangerous people from free society. Murder is the most serious crime that can be committed because the victim cannot recover to any degree. So the punishment must give the offender no hope of revocery.

 

Having said that, I now realise that I've opened up another can of worms - abortion. 

[facthunter]

The death penalty is state sponsored Murder. Not really acceptable in my view. You can't undo it if its wrong as it has been in many  cases in the USA. Trump executed about 25 as he left his Presidency as well as pardoning any of his mates that suited him.. It often depends on how much money you have got and a sentence means NO vote ever. in the USA.  Nev

[red750]

Yes. You often feel like these no good so and so's don't deserve to continue stealing oxygen, then along comes a case like Kathleen Folbigg.

[old man emu]

41 minutes ago, red750 said:

Yes. You often feel like these no good so and so's don't deserve to continue stealing oxygen, then along comes a case like Kathleen Folbigg.

Or Lindy Chamberlain.

 

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

The death penalty is state sponsored Murder. Not really acceptable in my view.

Well, murder is the "unlawful killing of another". That has been a basic element of maintaining the cohesion of societies since Mankind became a group animal.

 

The State approves of killing others when it permits military action. I can bring myself to support military action in defence of one's own country, but popping off to fight other people's battles, especially when the cause of the battling is internal politics, is no longer acceptable. But that sets up the problem of our assisting others when they are defending themselves against an external invader. If the State can declare killing unlawful, then it becomes a case of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". One would hope that our Society has advanced far enough to accept that the State is equally subject to the laws that bind it as are its members. 

[onetrack]

My gripe is with the general "softness" of our jail penalties, as compared to America. A "Life" jail penalty in the U.S. usually means the life of the offender - 50 years or more. But our system (based on the ideas of the British) reckons 20 years is "life" and only very very rarely do murderers get 20 years for murder, and most never serve their full sentence, with remissions.

 

IMO, "life" should mean 50 years or more in incarceration. I don't support the death penalty, I believe violent offenders should live out their lives uselessly, incarcerated, and age and die from ageing or disease, the same as the rest of us.

Their evil actions affect the lives of a huge range of people, from offspring to other relatives - and those effects last for longer than 50 years. 

 

However, I have noted that some major crime sentences have been increasing to more than 20 years in recent times, and I reckon this is only correct, as lifespans are increasing steadily, so I see no reason why penalty terms shouldn't increase as well.

[onetrack]

An interesting penalty case is our local former infamous bank robber, Brendan Abbott ("the Postcard Bandit"). He specialised in robbing banks in the 1980's and successfully stole at least $5M in dozens of bank robberies in W.A. Only $2M was ever recovered. Abbotts modus operandi was to break into a bank ceiling during the night, then drop down to the floor as soon as the bank opened for business.

 

He escaped from the notorious "escape-proof" Fremantle Prison in 1989, went on the run, and committed many more bank robberies in S.A. and Qld. He broke out of prison in Qld, was caught and re-sentenced and served 17 years in a Qld jail - then he was sent back to W.A. to serve the more than 17 years jail penalty in W.A. for the crimes he committed here (because you have to serve your full sentence, plus extra penalty for escaping). 

 

His penalty time in W.A. does not expire until 2033, and it's reported Abbott will have done around 40 years jail time by 2033. He tried to apply for release in 2019, stating that his punishment was cruel and unjust, and he'd served more time than any murderer ever has - and he never killed anyone.

 

But the W.A. authorities refused his appeal, point blank, and merely pointed out the fact, that he must have been aware when he broke out of jail, that the law says you serve your full sentence, plus penalties, if you do so.

Abbott is now apparently very remorseful and bitterly regrets his life of crime, and now realises his whole life has been a total waste. But on the other side of the coin, Abbott destroyed a number of people lives by pointing guns in their face and threatening to kill them, if they didn't hand over bank money.

I went to school with one bloke who became a bank manager, and he was one of the people robbed by Abbott, and Abbott destroyed his life, the manager never worked again in his life due to major PTSD, such was the trauma he endured at Abbotts hands with a loaded handgun in his face.

[red750]

43 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I don't support the death penalty,

I feel that if someone commits a heinous crime such as bashing an elderly person to death, and there is irrefutable proof (DNA etc.) of a persons guilt, they have surrender the right to live. Why should the taxpayer spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, keeping these peices of shyte alive? 

 

My late wife had a gun pointed at her when she wa a relief teller in the bank. Affected her for the rest of her life.

[facthunter]

Yes I know a Bank worker who was held up facing a gun twice. I'm glad Australia is against Capital Punishment. It's MORE CIVILISED and sets a better example . Life shouldn't be cheap. Nev

[facthunter]

Anyone who arms themselves and threatens others should expect the possibility of someone legitimately dispensing of that person in self defence. Thats not premeditated and you should be entitled to defend yourself  when threatened.. It's not that simple in practice. Your home is  sacrosanct in my view and if you make a forced entry and threaten Lives it's another matter than when a court gets involved later and prescribes a death sentence.  Nev

[old man emu]

While I can't disagree with the sentiment expressed by facthunter regarding the implied use of deadly force in defence of lives in your own home, the idea is teetering on what we deride in the Americans.

 

The best defence to a home invasion is simply to tell the invader to take what they want and bugger off. What's worth more - your  wallet, phone and car or your physical wellbeing? Macho ain't mucho if it puts your wellbeing in danger.

[facthunter]

I'm not saying you must kill the person but giving them everything when they were going to take it anyhow doesn't stop them killing you and yours to get rid of a witness or because they feel like it. I know the POLICE off the record have said make sure they're DEAD or they will get your House/ Use scissors rather than a pistol or Knife.. Most US events are not home invasions as far as I know. This IS the fool world we live in where  the crooks have more rights than the general populace  Their rights should go out the door when they choose to forcefully  and illegally enter yours and threaten you with weapons of death all Planned and pre meditated..  Their intention is  clear.  Nev

[red750]

Back in the day - mid 1960's - I was an agency officer with the old Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd. Another officer and I would take cash and documents from the main branch to a small agency in a nearby suburb too small for a full branch, where we provided over the counter banking services for two or three hours per day, before returning to the main branch. In those days, bank staff were armed, and we took a couple of Browning automatics to protect the cash.

[onetrack]

Red - But would you have shot any approaching robbers, or would you have just been ambushed and made impotent to stop them by them lining you up in their sights first?

 

I can recall a lot of armed robberies where the robber simply shot the people carrying the cash - especially the Armaguard money truck robberies by the Eastern States desperados.

 

This is where the "everyone should be armed" argument of the American right wingers is just pure BS. If guns were the answer, no police nor any soldier would ever be killed.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-03/pasquale-lanciana-sentenced-over-1994-armaguard-heist/100431078

[red750]

That's probably why bank staff ceased being armed (other than escort guards) many years ago. No, I was never threatened, therefore never had to respond.

[spacesailor]

'' While I can't disagree with the sentiment expressed by facthunter regarding the implied use of deadly force in defence of lives in your own home ''

In South Africa '' Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius '' is still in jail for manslaughter .

He didn't See the person he shot dead . ( through a toilet door  ) . and he was under the impression of '' home invasion '' ..

So scissors would be best , to get away with murder .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

It's not murder to defend yourself as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't live in the USA if you paid for the house either. Their attitude to guns is DIFFERENT. Carrying a concealed weapon is good for a few nights in the slammer and a hefty fine and that includes knives, in my book.  Nev

[onetrack]

Pistorius' argument that he thought there was an intruder was pure BS. He's an angry, impulsive thug who got furious that his girlfriend told him she was leaving him, and he shot her in a jealous rage through the door.

He should've got more than 13 years. He was jailed for murder on appeal, not manslaughter. His last application for parole in March 2023 was refused, and he can't apply for parole again until Mar 2024.

[spacesailor]

In his defence " I didn't know she was in the house " ( she used her key while he was sleeping ) .

AND Johannesburg IS the African capital of crime.

spacesailor

[octave]

27 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

In his defence " I didn't know she was in the house " ( she used her key while he was sleeping ) .

AND Johannesburg IS the African capital of crime.

spacesailor

That is not correct. They were both sleeping in the same bed prior to the shooting.

 

https://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/Oscar-Pistorius-verdict-timeline-of-events/index.html

Edited July 2, 2023 by octave

[spacesailor]

So different from the 'TV 'enactment,  I saw .

Difference being this one was by the prosecution. 

While,  the TV one was by the defence. 

And no one in the house while he was sleeping.

spacesailor

[octave]

DEFENCE CASE

D

February 14 2013: Oscar Pistorius, 27, and Reeva Steenkamp, 29, go to bed at 10pm. Pistorius sleeps on the left-hand side of the bed - contrary to his custom - because of a shoulder injury. A 9mm pistol is under the bed.

[red750]

Van Houten has now been released, aged 73.

[spacesailor]

Sounds more like the ' prosecution ' case . Than defence .

spacesailor

[onetrack]

Kind of makes me wonder if the authorities released her so they didn't have her medical costs to carry as she ages and maybe picks up some disease. With the amount of drugs she consumed, it's amazing she's still alive.

I still don't think she should've been released, when you read about the part she played directly in the Manson clan murders. She blamed drugs and blamed Mansons evil influence - but people still know right from wrong, and know when they're doing something truly evil.