Letters: Parole for Leslie Van Houten does not automatically equate to contempt for the law

Dr. Cory Franklin has expertise in intensive care but not the legal or criminal fields. His opinion in his recent op-ed has a glaring omission (“Should former Manson family member Leslie Van Houten be free?” July 24). He states that Gov. Gavin Newsom did not challenge Leslie Van Houten’s parole. Newsom did, but he didn’t challenge the a 2-1 appellate court decision that granted her parole. The likelihood of the California Supreme Court accepting the appeal was minimal at best.

The fact that someone is granted parole after 53 years does mean that the parole decision shows contempt for the law. That is the primary thesis of this op-ed, and it shows a lack of understanding of the legal system in California. Is prison meant to punish or to rehabilitate someone? Franklin’s opinion favors the former.

Van Houten stabbed Rosemary LaBianca but was not involved in the stabbing and desecration of Leno LaBianca; including the latter is irrelevant to whether Van Houten should be on parole. The same applies to the fact that fellow murderer Tex Watson fathered four children while in prison.

Clearly, Franklin has issues with the penal system in California, but his opinion should stick to the topic at hand instead of using nonrelevant facts to support the emotional appeal of his opinion.

— Thomas Sarikas, Arlington Heights

Van Houten’s prison time

I read with interest an op-ed by Dr. Cory Franklin, who expressed opposition to the release of Leslie Van Houten. His feeling was that she should have never been released. While I respect his opinion on this, I would like to submit a different perspective.

I was a juvenile probation officer for 10 years, even though my degree was in education. In 1994, there was a teaching position in the Illinois Department of Corrections School District 428. I started teaching and ended up in administration for one of the great programs inside of prisons.

As all of us who worked in this profession met many inmates who committed some horrendous acts, including murder. I have known countless murderers who ranged in age from 14 to much older. Should every person who committed murder be locked up for the rest of their lives? Guess what? They’re not.

It might surprise many that the average sentence for murder, according to a 2016 U.S. Department of Justice report, is 25 years to life. The average time a murderer spent in prison at that time was less than 20 years. This is nationwide. All states, of course, have different statutes.

Van Houten was sentenced to seven years to life in 1971. I am not condoning what she did. Franklin writes that Van Houten “wanted in on the next murder spree.” Perhaps she did, or perhaps she was under the influence of a charismatic cult leader and drugs, including lysergic acid.

The 53 years she was locked up for, in my opinion, was excessive. If the case was not so infamous, it would not be newsworthy. Murderers are released every day. Franklin implies that Van Houten had a “quite effective makeup job” to cover up the “X” in her forehead. Is anyone the same person they were 53 years ago or when they were 19 years old?

I truly believe that people can change, for better or worse.

— Sandi Ivemeyer, Sandwich, Illinois

Van Houten paid small price

Dr. Cory Franklin’s op-ed is so terrifying in its retelling of the details of the monstrous Sharon Tate-LaBianca family murders and so eloquent in his discussion of the details of parole considerations for Leslie Van Houten that it should have been read at her most recent hearing.

But it wasn’t. She’s free. And now another monster walks among us, having paid a considerably smaller price than her victims.

So what was the point?

— Dennis Allen, Wilmette

Prosecuting 19-year-olds

Regarding the op-ed about Leslie Van Houten by Dr. Cory Franklin and her part in the ruthless murders of the LaBianca family, yes, she deserves to be free, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, our so-called judicial system is vengeful, not restorative. Secondly, a 19-year-old does not yet have an adult brain. The brain does not develop fully until the mid-20s.

The idea of treating those under that age as adults in court proceedings is immoral and unscientific.

— Janice Gintzler, Crestwood

Disappointed by Wirtz

I was sorry to learn of Chicago Blackhawks owner Rocky Wirtz passing. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.

While he brought back a championship hockey team to Chicago, let us not forget how he handled the Kyle Beach situation. To be so dismissive to a player that was clearly struggling was difficult to see. The way Wirtz brushed him off was disappointing.

— Scott Cross, Fort Myers, Florida

Cartoon is mocking voter

Chicago Tribune Opinion

Weekdays

Read the latest editorials and commentary curated by the Tribune Opinion team.

It’s apparent that letter writer Diane O’Neill (“False equivalence in cartoon,” July 24) is unfamiliar with Mike Luckovich or she’d realize that he is mocking the person who can’t decide who to vote for and not the president’s age.

— Holger Meerbote, Arlington Heights

It’s a criticism of ageism

I don’t think the writer of the “False equivalence in cartoon” letter understood the point of the cartoon. The point is not that running for president at 80 years old is as bad as running for president after attempting a coup and threatening our democracy with his dictatorial tendencies.

The cartoon satirizes the hesitancy of so many to make the obvious moral choice because the candidate with a career of honest public service happens to be 80 years old. If nothing else, the cartoon is decrying ageism.

— Mark Melnicoff, Naperville

Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.