Charles Manson cult member denied parole.

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
The California governor, Gavin Newsom, on Tuesday blocked parole for Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, reversing a panel’s recommendation that she be freed after spending a half-century in prison.

Van Houten, 72, “currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison at this time”, Newsom said in his parole review. It was the fifth time that a California governor has rejected her release.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/30/leslie-van-houten-gavin-newsom-denied-parole-again

Does the governor think she would go on a killing spree if released?
 
BidenPresident said:
The California governor, Gavin Newsom, on Tuesday blocked parole for Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, reversing a panel’s recommendation that she be freed after spending a half-century in prison.

Van Houten, 72, “currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison at this time”, Newsom said in his parole review. It was the fifth time that a California governor has rejected her release.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/30/leslie-van-houten-gavin-newsom-denied-parole-again

Does the governor think she would go on a killing spree if released?
Click to expand...

The concept of being soft on crime has many faces. This is the gov avoiding that. he is probably acting on polling.
 
BidenPresident said:
The California governor, Gavin Newsom, on Tuesday blocked parole for Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, reversing a panel’s recommendation that she be freed after spending a half-century in prison.

Van Houten, 72, “currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison at this time”, Newsom said in his parole review. It was the fifth time that a California governor has rejected her release.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/30/leslie-van-houten-gavin-newsom-denied-parole-again

Does the governor think she would go on a killing spree if released?
Click to expand...

Might be more a political decision. (?)
 
BidenPresident said:
Probably. Does anyone think this 72 year old is going to get a knife and start stabbing people if she is released?
Click to expand...

I don't think she is eligible for Social Security since she lacks 10 years of work experience, so she might have to knife people just to get food to eat.
 
Jack said:
I don't think she is eligible for Social Security since she lacks 10 years of work experience, so she might have to knife people just to get food to eat.
Click to expand...

I am sure that is why the governor nixed her release. Although many estimate it costs the state more to jail one person than giving them SS and food stamps.
 
BidenPresident said:
I am sure that is why the governor nixed her release. Although many estimate it costs the state more to jail one person than giving them SS and food stamps.
Click to expand...

I've heard Prisons routinely release 'older prisoners' because they don't want the expense of caring for them. Where do they go? Do they get Jobs at 80? Do they go and 'sponge' off a brother or sister?
 
BidenPresident said:
The California governor, Gavin Newsom, on Tuesday blocked parole for Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, reversing a panel’s recommendation that she be freed after spending a half-century in prison.

Van Houten, 72, “currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison at this time”, Newsom said in his parole review. It was the fifth time that a California governor has rejected her release.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/30/leslie-van-houten-gavin-newsom-denied-parole-again

Does the governor think she would go on a killing spree if released?
Click to expand...

So what are you arguing?
That no matter how bad the crime(s) a person commits?
That they should automatically be released at 72 because they are too old and frail to possibly be a danger to society?
Is that what you are actually saying?

First - https://www.news.com.au/world/north...h/news-story/d8dbef9bc42cec341af8b0bd524c588a

Second - how young does this 'they are too old to do harm' rule of yours begin?

At 70?
65?
60?
Give us a number please when we should just let out every criminal over a certain age - no matter how many people they have raped/molested/murdered?
 
McRocket said:
So what are you arguing?
That no matter how bad the crime(s) a person commits?
That they should automatically be released at 72 because they are too old and frail to possibly be a danger to society?

Is that what you are actually saying?

And if so?
How young does this 'they are too old to do harm' rule of yours begin?

At 70?
65?
60?
Give us a number please when we should just let out every criminal over a certain age - no matter how many people they have raped/molested/murdered?
Click to expand...

72.
 
BidenPresident said:
72.
Click to expand...

So, are you arguing that every criminal over 72 should be released...no matter what crime they committed?


Oh...and since you seem to think that 72 year old's cannot possibly do any harm?
Meet a 100 year old axe murderer.
And a couple more oldies but goodies in the same article:

'In 2009, a 98-year-old Massachusetts woman strangled her roommate at their nursing home but was deemed incompetent to stand trial last year at the age of 102.

The woman, who suffers from dementia, was admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

In 1990 a 95-year-old man, Oliver Barr, used a therapy bar to bludgeon an 88-year-old woman to death after he became suspicious she was poisoning 15 senior citizens who lived in his building.'

https://www.news.com.au/world/north...h/news-story/d8dbef9bc42cec341af8b0bd524c588a
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top