You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Lurid Crime Tales-
Manson follower faces parole board for 19th time
2010-07-06
Leslie Van Houten, the one-time Charles Manson follower long seen as the most likely of his ex-acolytes to win freedom someday, faces her 19th parole hearing on Tuesday with a new lawyer and new case law which may give her the best chance yet for release.

Even if there is a finding of suitability for parole at the hearing, freedom would not be immediate. The entire state parole board would review the decision within 120 days and it would then be submitted to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for a final ruling.

Van Houten, 60, remains incarcerated at the California Institution for Women at Frontera, the same prison where another Manson follower, Patricia Krenwinkle, is imprisoned. Susan Atkins, the third woman convicted of murder in the crimes directed by cult leader Manson, died in prison last year after parole officials denied her dying request for freedom.

Van Houten last appeared before a parole board in 2007. Her chances for parole are enhanced by the fact that she has been discipline free since her incarceration in the early 1970s, has positive psychological reports and has been active in self-help groups at the prison including "Golden Girls," a group for elderly women inmates.

She has a new lawyer, Brandie Devall, who told The Associated Press she will refer to rulings by the California Supreme Court in 2008 and 2009 affecting standards for parole.

Most significant is the case of Sandra Lawrence, a convicted murderer who was paroled after 23 years in prison after the court held that to refuse parole there must be evidence that a prisoner is currently a danger to public safety. The court said the board could not base a refusal only on the details of the crime committed by the inmate long ago.
Posted by:Fred

#3  The court said the board could not base a refusal only on the details of the crime committed by the inmate long ago.

Yeah, 'cuz locking someone up just because they committed some utterly heinous crime is like mean and stuff. /me rolls eyes.
Posted by: SteveS   2010-07-06 23:42  

#2  Hey, like the death penalty opponents say..."life means life". And, being morally superior, they wouldn't lie. Right?
Posted by: tu3031   2010-07-06 21:12  

#1  Are her victims alive yet?

See you next time.
Posted by: gorb   2010-07-06 21:04  

00:00