[T]he court held that to refuse parole there must be evidence that a prisoner is currently a danger to public safety. The court said the board could not base a refusal only on the details of the crime committed by the inmate long ago.
Her conduct over the past 40 years in prison says differently:
Prison spokesman Lt. Robert Patterson told CNN in 2009 that Van Houten is a model inmate involved in prison programs and a mentor to other inmates in the facility's college program.
Van Houten was convicted in 1971 of the La Bianca murders and sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to life in prison when the California Supreme Court struck down the death penalty statute in 1972. She won a new trial in 1977 based on ineffective assistance of counsel (her lawyer disappeared during the trial and was later found murdered). The second trial resulted in a hung jury and she was released on bond.
She was tried again and convicted of felony robbery, murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. Her sentence: life in prison (with the possibility of parole.)
Parole boards have a duty to consider more than the severity of the offense. Leslie Van Houten has been a model prisoner. Labeling her a current threat to society, based on her perceived failure to have insights into the crime and her motives at the time, is another way of saying it's still all about the crime. The parole board continues to usurp the power of the court by nullifying her sentence and unilaterally changing it from life with parole to to life without parole.
TalkLeft has urged her release on parole since since 2002. Van Houten won't have another opportunity for parole until 2013. What more does she have to do? What more can she do? If the answer is nothing will make a difference, then sentences to life with parole in California are meaningless.
