Free Leslie Van Houten

During the summer of 1969, Charles Manson and a band of younger hippies committed mass murder on two separate nights (Bugliosi, 1994). One of those young hippies who participated in the second mass murder was a 19-year-old former homecoming princess named Leslie Van Houten. Van Houten was subsequently sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder (In re Houten, 2019). After many attempts at parole, Van Houten was found suitable for parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings. However, the governor reversed the grant of parole based on the claim that Van Houten currently remains too dangerous to be released into society because of her acknowledgement that the influence that Charles Manson possessed over her was a contributing factor to her criminality. In a two to one decision, the California Court of Appeals upheld the governor’s decision reversing parole (In re Houten, 2019). Consequently, Van Houten remains in prison.

Due Process

The United States Supreme Court has held that mandatory language in a state’s statute regarding parole hearings establishes a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. (Board of Pardons v. Allen, 1987, citing Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 1979). Both the California statute regarding parole and the California Code of Regulations contain mandatory language, establishing a liberty interest protected by the United States Constitution. California Penal Code Section 3041(b) states,

The panel or the board, sitting en banc, shall grant parole to an inmate unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual.

(Cal. Pen Code Section 3041 (b)).

California Code of Regulations establish guidelines to determine when and if a prisoner is suitable for parole. The regulation states “a life prisoner shall be found unsuitable for and denied parole if in the judgment of the panel the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison” (Cal. Code of Regulations Section 2281).

The governor has the right to rescind, reverse or modify a decision of the Board of Parole Hearings Under Article V, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution but must do so on the same criteria that the Board of Parole Hearings must apply (In re Rosenkrantz, 2000). Thus, the governor has the right to reverse parole based on the same constitutionally applicable liberty interest established by the United States Constitution. Any decision reversing parole that does not conform to such liberty interest is arbitrary and, therefore, violative of due process.

California Supreme Court Precedence

The California Supreme Court reviewed the liberty interest in parole for California prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole (In re Lawrence, 2008). The question before the court concerned the amount the Board of Parole Hearings or governor should give to the gravity of the commitment offense and prior criminality when determining a prisoner’s current dangerousness if released on parole (In re Lawrence, 2008). The court held that the Board of Parole Hearings or the governor may rely upon the aggravated circumstances of the commitment offense to deny parole only if some evidence in the record of the prisoner’s pre- or post-incarceration history, or current demeanor and mental state indicates that the prisoner would be an unreasonable risk to public safety if released (In re Lawrence, 2008).

The case of In re Lawrence concerned the governor’s parole reversal of Sandra Lawrence who had served 24 years for the premeditated murder of her lover’s wife.  The Lawrence court ultimately found no evidence in the record of the governor’s decision that established a nexus between the past premeditated murder and Lawrence’s current dangerousness. Thus, the court determined that the governor’s reversal of Lawrence’s parole grant violated her due process rights.

In a companion case decided the same day, the court held in In re Shaputis that the governor’s reversal of parole for Shaputis was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness due to his lack of insight into the contributing factors that led up to the commitment offense. Although Shaputis was convicted of the lesser charge of second-degree murder, he had a long history of domestic violence against his wife, the victim, as well as documented accounts of domestic violence against his former wife (In re Shaputis, 2008).

Leslie Van Houten

Van Houten was a homecoming princess in high school who had taken some college courses after graduation. When she was 18 years old, she began traveling with her boyfriend. During their travels, the two of them met Charles Manson who yielded great influence on Van Houten and other younger people who would become known as the Manson Family (Bugliosi, 1994). Charles Manson had ordered some family members to commit a mass murder and make the crime scene appear to have been orchestrated by blacks in order to start a race war. Van Houten did not participate in this mass murder. However, on the next night, Charles Manson ordered another mass murder which included Van Houten as one of the assailants. She was 19 years old at the time of the mass murder. Van Houten and the other family members were arrested and ultimately convicted of the murders. They were all sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole (Bugliosi, 1994).

While in prison, Van Houten participated in various self-help activities, took full responsibility for her crimes, and exhibited remorse for those crimes (In re Van Houten, 2019). In 2017, 48 years after having committed the mass murder, the Board of Parole Hearings concluded that she was no longer an unreasonable risk of danger to society and, consequently, granted her parole. However, the governor later reversed the grant of parole, claiming that Van Houten remained an unreasonable risk to public safety because she failed to take full responsibility for her criminality but, instead, tried to blame the crimes on the influence Charles Manson had over her (In re Van Houten, 2019).

Court Of Appeals Decision Upholding Governor’s Reversal Of Parole

Van Houten appealed the governor’s parole reversal. In a two-to-one decision, the Court of Appeals upheld that the record supports the governor’s contention that Van Houten places blame on the influence that Charles Manson had on Van Houten when she was a teenage drug addict (In re Van Houten, 2019). The dissenting judge, Honorable Justice Chaney, however, asserted that even if Van Houten had placed too much blame on the influence Charles Manson had over her 50 years ago when she was a teenager, such claim only indicates her insight into the contributing factors that led to her youthful criminality (In re Van Houten, 2019).

Leslie Van Houten Is Not Currently Dangerous

The governor provided absolutely no evidence nor rationalization that the 69-year-old Van Houten could possibly present any threat to society because she recognized the truth that has become part of the history of criminality in America. It is a well-established fact that Charles Manson had a lot of control over his young, drug-addicted followers (Bugliosi, 1994). If Van Houten had failed to recognize this fact, then she would have been in a state of denial, making her unsuitable for parole because of her lack of insight into the contributing factors of her criminality (In re Shaputis, 2008).  Van Houten does not lack insight. Instead, she has spent the last five decades reflecting on the mistakes she made in her youthful thinking and behavior. She has recognized that she fell into the horrors of drug addiction and antisocial thinking, making her more susceptible to psychopaths like Charles Manson. More importantly, Van Houten is 69-year-old women who has not committed a crime of any magnitude since she was a drug-addicted, homeless teenager. The fact that she has come to a deeper understanding of the trouble of her youth and the crimes that resulted from such immature, irrational thinking cannot make her currently an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The assertion is absorbed. Therefore, the governor’s decision finding her unsuitable for parole is arbitrary and must be rejected. Accordingly, Leslie Van Houten must be set free in accordance with the Board of Parole Hearings’ finding of parole suitability and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

 

         References

Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987), retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/369/

Bugliosi, Vincent. (1994). Helter Skelter: the true story of the Manson murders.

Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 2281, retrieved from: https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I5E3918F0078211E3A8E0B021DF1F7DCE?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

California Penal Code Section 3041 (b), retrieved from: https://law.onecle.com/california/penal/3041.html

Legal Information institute, Due Process, retrieved from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1 (1979), retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/1/

In re Lawrence 44 CAL. 4TH 1181, retrieved from: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-lawrence-33123

In re Rosenkrantz 29 CAL. 4TH 616, retrieved from: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/re-rosenkrantz-32311

In re Shaputis 44 CAL. 4TH 1241, retrieved from: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b28aadd7b04934760760

In re Houten, B291024 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2019), retrieved from: https://casetext.com/case/in-re-houten