Moonglow
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 219,899
- 52,041
I don't vote for Biden, why in the Hell would I do that?Why do vote for Biden ? An UNconvicted criminal. Shows how legitimate "conviction" is nowadays.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I don't vote for Biden, why in the Hell would I do that?Why do vote for Biden ? An UNconvicted criminal. Shows how legitimate "conviction" is nowadays.
Oh yes, he has been convicted.Trump isn't convicted.
I am, so fucking what.
Trump has ZERO felonies fucktardOh yes, he has been convicted.
Do you need a felony to be a criminal? I think not.Trump has ZERO felonies fucktard
Exactly. It wasn't like the corpse was complaining about being stabbed over and over. The Labianca husband was a grocer, so he probably didn't let hungry people just take food off his shelf, so he deserved it anyway.She wasn't involved in the death of Tate.
She was involved in the murders of the LaBianca's.
and she had only stabbed the wife, and even in that case, it wasn't clear if she actually killed her or was stabbing a corpse.
53 years seems more than reasonable, given her behavior during those years was exemplary and she is unlikely to reoffend.
YesDo you need a felony to be a criminal? I think not.
If she was so what? All that means is that the 19 year old gang banger should have been kept locked up, also. Locking up violent offenders is more for the safety of the law-abiding outside of prison than for any kind of justice. Justice would have required her to be violently killed, not housed in a California women's prison which are so cushy that men have started to lie about their genders to get into them.The parole board needs to treat each case on its own merit and consider how the prisoner has behaved while in custody.
Was Van Houten treated differently than some 19 year old gang banger who had killed someone and had served 53 years?
Redemption is a thing. Can't speak for her but it is real.She should have stayed confined for the rest of her life.
If she was so what? All that means is that the 19 year old gang banger should have been kept locked up, also. Locking up violent offenders is more for the safety of the law-abiding outside of prison than for any kind of justice. Justice would have required her to be violently killed, not housed in a California women's prison which are so cushy that men have started to lie about their genders to get into them.
Her goal was to start a race war, by blaming blacks for her own brutality. We saw, in 2020, how destructive it can be when people whip up a race war, so she deserves what she got and more.
Yea, yea…I read the book, saw the movieShe should have stayed confined for the rest of her life.
If she was so what? All that means is that the 19 year old gang banger should have been kept locked up, also. Locking up violent offenders is more for the safety of the law-abiding outside of prison than for any kind of justice. Justice would have required her to be violently killed, not housed in a California women's prison which are so cushy that men have started to lie about their genders to get into them.
Her goal was to start a race war, by blaming blacks for her own brutality. We saw, in 2020, how destructive it can be when people whip up a race war, so she deserves what she got and more.
I stand corrected I guess. All those Manson babes seem the same to me. I guess some prison plastic surgeon took the swastika off her forehead. The participants in a murder are equally guilty of murder. Too bad the Ca. court rescinded the death penalty when they were on death row. .She wasn't involved in the death of Tate.
She was involved in the murders of the LaBianca's.
and she had only stabbed the wife, and even in that case, it wasn't clear if she actually killed her or was stabbing a corpse.
53 years seems more than reasonable, given her behavior during those years was exemplary and she is unlikely to reoffend.
I don't doubt the awesome power of redemption. If Van Houton earned it, or accepted it, or attained it in whatever way, she should have been grateful for the opportunity to live out her life among others in need of redemption, so she could witness to them about her own.Redemption is a thing. Can't speak for her but it is real.
I agree that murderers should be treated equally. But it is never safe to release a murderer. I would accept a plea of insantity with a lifetime of securer committment, rather than letting her out. She is young enough at 73, and streetwise enough after being a member of a mass murder gang and then spending more than fifty years in prison with other murderers to do plenty of damage.Yea, yea…I read the book, saw the movie
The key is the notoriety of the Manson murders.
We have a parole system in this country. I know conservatives would just as soon kill them all.
But we are not that kind of country. She was 19 at the time and needs to be treated like any other 19 year old murderer who had served 53 years
I am living proof of redemption.I don't doubt the awesome power of redemption. If Van Houton earned it, she should have been grateful for the opportunity to live out her life among others in need of redemption, so she could witness to them about her own.
This is silly. She's lived her ENTIRE LIFE behind walls. She has NO CLUE what "street life" is. Period.She is young enough at 73, and streetwise enough
So what's your excuse for Mansons sentence..?She wasn't involved in the death of Tate.
She was involved in the murders of the LaBianca's.
and she had only stabbed the wife, and even in that case, it wasn't clear if she actually killed her or was stabbing a corpse.
53 years seems more than reasonable, given her behavior during those years was exemplary and she is unlikely to reoffend.
I am living proof of redemption.
I had 5 to 15 years and got out after 3. Not everyone is a toss away
"Streetwise" is a word we use in Special Education for a kid with a low-IQ, but who is able to cover for that by knowing how to act. It indicates useful knowledge that is outside of the curriculum that they struggle to access. Nothing to do with "the streets." Understandable that you misunderstood.This is silly. She's lived her ENTIRE LIFE behind walls. She has NO CLUE what "street life" is. Period.
Worthy of parole or not I don't know but that statement was beyond stupid.
Aggravated juvenile delinquency."Streetwise" is a word we use in Special Education for a kid with a low-IQ, but who is able to cover for that by knowing how to act. It indicates useful knowledge that is outside of the curriculum that they struggle to access. Nothing to do with "the streets." Understandable that you misunderstood.
She did not live ENTIRE LIFE behind bars. She lived enough and learned enough before going behind bars to kill an innocent couple in their own home with knives, a rope, and a .22 revolver. I doubt she has forgotten those skills.
If you experienced redemption, I'm very happy for you. If your crime was not violent, I am happy you were released, because I don't think non-violent criminals should be incarcerated at all. If your crime was violent, I have to note that you became angry over a word on a message board.
One can live a redeemed life behind bars, and help others, as I said.
I agree, as I'm saying for the third time now.Aggravated juvenile delinquency.
Intimidation of a state witness.
Terroristic threats.
I was a teenager. ANYONE can repent and find redemption.