Pages Menu
TwitterFacebooklogin
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 15, 2016 in Blog, Politics | 5 comments

The Opportunity for Redemption Should Be Part of Our Criminal Justice System

 

FILE - Charles Manson followers, from left: Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, shown walking to court to appear for their roles in the 1969 cult killings of seven people, including pregnant actress Sharon Tate, in Los Angeles, Calif., in this Aug. 20, 1970 file photo. 44 years after she went to prison, Leslie Van Houten is an old woman with gray hair and wrinkles and she is facing her 20th parole hearing Wednesday June 5, 2013 with multiple forces arrayed against her bid for a chance at freedom in her old age. (AP Photo/George Brich, File)

 

I just read Leslie Van Houten has been recommended for parole in California.  This is a good thing.  Let me explain why.

 

For those who don’t remember who she was, Van Houten was one of the most infamous followers of Charles Manson, who orchestrated two horrific killing sprees.  Manson is now 81, and basically an incarcerated box of Fruit Loops.

Joined by several other members of the Manson cult, Van Houten first conspired to kill and then carried out those acts directly in the murder of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, which made headlines in August 1969.  The couple was repeatedly stabbed to death by Van Houten, along with other Manson followers.  The LaBiana’s had been relaxing in their Los Angeles home when the drug-crazed groupies showed up and began slashing their victims with knives.  The grisly murders and the circus trial which followed became a media sensation later documented in the best-selling book, titled Helter Skelter.”

Given the gruesome acts of violence and sensationalism surrounding the murder trial in 1971, most observers expected that Van Housten would end up spending the rest of her life locked up behind bars.  Most likely, she would have even faced the death penalty had California not repealed capital punishment laws at about the same time.  In the more than four decades that have passed since then, opposition to her release from prison was a given, particularly since no one on a parole board would feel much compassion for a ruthless killer who committed such terrible and senseless crimes.  Until yesterday, Van Houten had been denied parole 20 times, that is before a shocking decision was reached which caught even Van Houten and her supporters by surprise.

The California Parole Board recommended parole for Van Houten, 45 years after her initial conviction.  She could be released as early as sometime later this year.

Obviously, it’s difficult to muster up much compassion for this convicted murderer, particularly someone who committed such a vile act against people who were innocent and deserved to live.  When it comes to justice, America tends to be a vindictive society.  We want our criminals to suffer.  We even demand some measure of revenge.  Even the slightest hint of compassion toward convicts amounts to being “weak on crime” or being called a “bleeding heart.”

Beholden to public opinion with its justifiable anger towards criminals, few politicians are likely to come out and support relaxing parole requirements.  Moreover, every inmate released from prison becomes the next potential Willie Horton, the ex-convict who was granted a weekend furlough in Massachusetts and then murdered someone.  Those fears ended up costing Michael Dukakis the 1988 presidential election. Hence, it remains practical politically speaking to be “tough on crime,” rather than examining individuals on a case-by-case basis.  For this reason, our parole boards are supposed to be apolitical, not subject to public opinion.

I don’t know much about Van Houten nor her case other than what I’ve seen from the Manson crimes.  I have seen her interviewed a few times over the years.  Now 66, she seems to be a wiser and calmer person, posing no threat to society.  She also appears genuinely remorseful for her crimes.  She understands the terrible things she did when she was 19 years old deserved to be punished — severely so.  However, after 45 years of incarceration, once a convict has clearly demonstrated contrition combined with good behavior, doesn’t that felon deserve at least some chance of returning to society doing something positive in life, rather than rotting away locked up in a prison cell until taking their final pointless breath?

Clearly, Van Houten committed a terrible act.  But she also was a highly-impressionable teenage runaway who consumed dangerous and delusional drugs, including LSD, which altered her perceptions and behavior.  Not even 20, she fell under the spell of a deranged maniac named Charlie Manson.  Then, one night she went out with the rest of the gang and committed acts of violence that left two people dead (the Tate murders took place the previous day, but Van Houten wasn’t involved in those acts).

I wonder.  How many of us would like to be judged by the very worst moments of our lives?  Think about that.  Surely, we all do bad things.  Most of us did things we regret when we were in our teens, or perhaps even later on.  That doesn’t mean we’ve gone out and murdered people, of course.  But the question remains — is it really proper to judge someone based on their actions on the worst day of their life, when they were 19 and stupid?  Even if the answer is yes, should that person have to stay locked up in prison more than 45 years later?  If so, what purpose does that serve?  Who wins?  What revenge is extracted?

We need to do a much better job in how we administer criminal justice in America, which too as baffling as it sounds, has now become a for-profit enterprise.  No wonder we lock up more people than any other nation in the world by a wide margin.  Someone is making a buck off the system.  Only in capitalistic America do we allow corporations and their shareholders to make a profit off of mass misery and what amounts to psychological torture.  I find this grotesque.

A far better option is to build in a redemption option for convicts who are remorseful and behave as model prisoners.  This way, even the most hardened criminals at least have the hope of turning their lives around and contributing to society in some way.  Certainly, harsh crimes do deserve harsh punishments, which might include long sentences.  But our penal system would be far better off if we selectively dangled mercy and compassion in the faces of the convicted.  The goal of prisons should be rehabilitation, not punishment.  Given most prisoners will be released at some point from their sentences, reforming the criminal justice system isn’t just a potential win for the parolee, it’s also better for those of us on the outside, which must inevitably deal with the risk and burden of reintroducing convicts into society.

The release of Leslie Van Houten will not be a popular decision.  She’ll be the subject of scorn.  There will be lots of finger-pointing at politicians.  The will be public derision.  Yes, she probably deserves to be stigmatized for the rest of her life, at least to some degree.  But she also deserves a chance at rehabilitation and redemption.  Releasing someone who was once a twisted soul shouldn’t be a matter of controversy or an opportunity for a political attack ad.  The parole system should be something to take pride in when there’s a success story — and Van Houten appears to be such a case.

Indeed, Leslie Van Houten’s release on parole does not show that we’re weak on crime.  On the contrary, it reveals our collective faith in the human spirit.  It amplifies the optimism that even the darkest of beings can be reformed and perhaps even do something good after terrible acts of bad were committed.

Civil society should always provide an opportunity for redemption.

Note:  An earlier version of this text stated that Willie Horton had been paroled when he committed murder.  However, he was on a weekend furlough program, signed into law by then-Gov. Michael Dukakis.  The correction has been made.

5 Comments

  1. I hear you, and even though it’s a very tough sell the points you make are valid. Especially since Van Houten wasn’t linked to the murder of Sharon Tate and her unborn 8.5 month-old son.

    Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. All the best.

    -David

  2. Her current status is the result her THIRD trial in which she sentenced 7 years to life with possibility of parole. In 45 years she has had 0 demerits. You can get a demerit for dropping a candy wrapper.

  3. A small correction; Wilkie Horton was out on weekend furlough not parole when he commited rape, assault and armed robbery

  4. Great to believe letting her out but would you want her living next door? I said No so I can’t really believe in letting her out to live next to someone. I vote keep her in jail.

  5. You make a solid case for Van Houten’s release, but what would she be released into? What will be her future “on the outside”…is she going to be some sort of “advocate” for something? Was she educated in a field that she will be able to work in? And just how will someone, who last tasted freedom, adjust from the 1970s to our 21st century world?

    There is one point where you are correct. Consideration has to be given for rehabilitation.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Perfect Wedding Gift for Charles Manson and His New Bride | Nolan Dalla - […] READ: Legal Redemption […]

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php