I concur that 44 years in prison is enough time served by Leslie Van Houten (I am NOT in favor of letting Tex Watson out). Criminals who have done far worse get out in much less time on “good behavior”. She has been very helpful to the other prisoners and the warden and members of the LaBianca family have supported her parole (she was not at the Tate murders). If she’s let out, she’ll be close to 70 and no threat to anyone.
“I concur that 44 years in prison is enough time served by Leslie Van Houten (I am NOT in favor of letting Tex Watson out). Criminals who have done far worse get out in much less time on “good behavior”. She has been very helpful to the other prisoners and the warden and members of the LaBianca family have supported her parole (she was not at the Tate murders). If she’s let out, she’ll be close to 70 and no threat to anyone.”
If they let her out, I just have one condition - that you and she be handcuffed together.
Hang on.
Charlie "Tex" Watson brutally murdered innocent people just like his fellow Manson family member Leslie Van Houten did. They have BOTH served around 44 years in prison and would be close to 70 now if they were released (actually this is much truer in Watson's case -- he's 67 and she's 63) Watson's lawyer likewise makes the case that Tex Watson has "served his time" and is "no threat to anyone" now because of his age.
Charlie Watson became a born-again Christian in 1975 and now says he found Jesus and he regrets the murders, asked God for forgiveness, believes that God has forgiven him, etc., just like Van Horton is "deeply sorry" and supposedly remorseful. He's behaved himself in prison, just like Van Horton, etc. His next scheduled parole hearing is in November 2016.
So parole is good enough for her because she "served her time", but NOT her fellow Manson family member who participated in the SAME murders and has the SAME punishment and track record in prison?
Someone explain the logic of this one to me. Makes as much sense as the people who are morally opposed to the death penalty and argue execution is a "lesser sentence" than life in prison without parole, but they would "allow the death penalty for terrorists" (giving them a "lesser sentence" according to their own internal logic)