By Christopher Cervantes

On April 15, an announcement shocked many in the state of California and reminded them of one of the most frightening times in their history. Leslie Van Houten, one of the members of the infamous Manson family, has been recommended for parole  by the parole board.

For those who don’t know specifically about Van Houten, she was one of the youngest of the Manson women, joining the group when she was only 19. She was an accomplice in the murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Van Houten left a message, using the victim’s blood.

While in prison, Van Houten, now 66, has expressed remorse about the tragedy. She has been described as a model inmate who has acted as a counselor to others and earned two college degrees. That being said, people are still questioning whether Van Houten should be allowed parole.

According to the Associated Press, Commissioner Ali Zarrinnam of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations told Van Houten, “Your behavior in prison speaks for itself. Forty-six years and not a single serious rule violation.”

Conversely, Cory LaBianca, the surviving stepdaughter, strongly opposes the possibility of parole.  “Maybe Leslie Van Houten has been a model prisoner,” she told the Los Angeles Times. “But you know what, we still suffer our loss. It doesn’t get easier. It never gets easier.”

From what I can gather from the various social media sites, the most common point I find being made is the possibility of relapse and if the inmate in question truly deserves parole. Van Houten was the subject of Charles Manson’s “influence,” which was a more gentle way to sum up the large amount of brainwashing he had over his makeshift family.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the reincarceration rate of paroled inmates is maintained at a steady 9 percent From the latest data collected (approximately from 2013-2014), that means that 144 parolees returned to the prison system. 

I don’t believe this to be an issue, though. From all the reports done on the Manson women over the years, it becomes apparent that Van Houten could only be considered dangerous if she found herself once again under the influences of Manson. Given that he has no real chance of parole, I very much doubt whether will ever happen again.

Despite that, though, I feel as if this case is one that should not have been allowed. When it comes to parole, I find it effective and deserved in most scenarios. However, I find murder a very hard crime to forgive. Van Houten may be a model inmate, but so were the likes of other killers such as Aileen Wuornos and Gertrude Nadine Baniszewski. And while she never racked up the body count of the first or committed the tortures of the second, Van Houten still committed one of the most atrocious acts in modern day society.

In 1994, Van Houten told American attorney Vincent Bugliosi, “I take responsibility for my part, and part of my responsibility was helping to create [Manson].” If this was really true, then maybe she should have denied herself the parole.

It pains me to say that someone should spend the rest of her or his life in prison. But in this case, the well being of the victims’ family takes precedence.