She should have been executed long ago, and she would have been but for the California Supreme Court playing games with the death penalty. Mr and Mrs LaBianca were unavailable for comment.
Yep
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
So much for life without the possibility of parole.
Before Charles Manson California released every prisoner after six years, no matter what the crime.
When Manson came up for release a Catholic DA said: “no way”. He got the whole country to bear against Manson’s release. Manson stayed in prison.
Manson would likely have continued his crimes.
Didn’t Squeaky Fromme try to assassinate the president Gerald Ford?
Reminds me of Jane Fonda who visited Viet Nam during the war. 13 prisoners in the Hanoi Hilton gave her their identification to bring to America. Jane Fonda turned the ids over to the Viet Cong who beat, tortured and starved the 13 GIs to death.
Now Fonda is on the cover of Cosmopolitan with her own line of clothing. All with black stripes I hope. Some license plates read: “Vets are not fond of Jane.” Philip and Daniel Berrigan burned our American Flag. The Supreme Court said that it was free speech, burning our American Flag. and fonda goes free after treason. Right up there with Tokyo Rose and Hanoi Hannah. Gut churning rot.
Before Charles Manson California released every prisoner after six years, no matter what the crime.
Untrue.
When Manson came up for release a Catholic DA said: “no way”. He got the whole country to bear against Manson’s release. Manson stayed in prison.
There was never a chance that Manson was going to be released short of death.
OK.It is a long time ago. I do remember writing letters to prevent Manson’s release. The National Catholic Register carried the story.
I’m all for releasing prisoners IF sufficient reform. I don’t think that was the case. She will fit in nicely w one group.
Some crimes do not deserve release because of reform. Some crimes need to be punished- end of. How she survived jail for so long is a reflection on type of person she is. Not everyone is fooled by the grey hair and the faux demeanour.
Correction to Rose’s tweet…she was not sentenced to life in prison. She was sentenced to death! But Commifornia overturned the death penalty in the state.
When dealing w death sentences and life in prison and thinking about reform/parole, I think about Saul/Paul.
So, I can never say NEVER.
I don’t think CA was looking at how reformed she was and it is a travesty of justice to families.
Compared to where she’s been, what’s she’s walking into may be a greater punishment.
I’m all for releasing prisoners IF sufficient reform.
You hand them their sentence, stated to the day. Once they’ve reached the halfway mark, you have your first parole review. You have one annually until the prisoner is so granted, finishes the full sentence, or dies. IMO, if you’re sensible, you ask one question i a parole review: has the subject shown sufficient respect for the rules of the prison and the employees therein. That’s about the only thing you can readily assess. I have a personal bias, and that’s that reviews should be undertaken by juries selected at random from prison system employees who have had two years in the field and have not worked any place the subject has been housed during his sentence while the convict in question was there. Hand them a dossier with the identifying information removed and give them a workday to deliberate.
About van Houten, she was a youhg women (just shy of 20) who had no priors. She wasn’t a participant in the carnage at the Tate house. She was given an idiot sentence (seven years to life). IMO, she should have been given a determinate sentence of 60+ years and not considered for parole until 2001 or thereabouts. As for Manson and the other four, they should have been put in front of a firing squad around about 1978.
When dealing w death sentences and life in prison and thinking about reform/parole, I think about Saul/Paul.
So, I can never say NEVER.
I don’t think CA was looking at how reformed she was and it is a travesty of justice to families.
——————
Paul/Saul‘s coming to Christ is no way comparable to this murderer being released from prison. Saul was not released from prison because he reformed his behavior —his killing of Jews was allowed under the law at the time. Paul was in prison for preaching the Gospel—not murder. And in the end, Paul was executed by the Roman government. Also, just because someone becomes a Christian does not mean they should not pay the real world consequences of a murder before becoming a Christian as their victims are still dead.
[…] Donald R. McClarey, J.D., at The American Catholic A Couple of Great Ads – Fr. Z’s Blog Mr. & Mrs. LaBianca were Unavailable for Comment – D. McClarey, J.D./The American Catholic Ordinariate Mass at the National Shrine’s […]
About van Houten, she was a youhg women (just shy of 20)
If by 19 years of age you haven’t sorted your basic morals out ie. assisting a cult leader/serial killer in his activities, then you deserve to be in jail just for being a useful idiot.
If by 19 years of age you haven’t sorted your basic morals out ie. assisting a cult leader/serial killer in his activities, then you deserve to be in jail just for being a useful idiot.
Thanks for responding to something I never said or suggested.
Thanks for responding to something I never said or suggested.
I used this very clever function called “copy and paste” on your comment.
IMO, she should have been given a determinate sentence of 60+ years and not considered for parole until 2001 or thereabouts.
There goes “copy and paste” again.
She should have been given NO parole other than life in prison. For the remainder of her life on earth. Literally. Regardless of whether she participated in the Tate carnage or not. Leniency for no prior criminal activity should not even factor in her initial sentence. Nor should she be considered for parole in 2001 or thereafter. That was my point on your point.
I would be very worried if she was going to be my new neighbour after 53 years in prison for being an associate of Charles Manson, of all people.