Leslie Van Houten (Who Is This Woman Part 2)

Leslie Van Houten, 1982

Post Updated 8/31/07
I know some of you are itching to know... So here is the follow on from my previous post, Who Is This Woman? Thankyou for all the comments on the last post - quite interesting! As the title of this post indicates, the woman in the photo is Leslie Van Houten, and what I'd like to do is talk about who she is and my thoughts on that, and then explain why I asked for comments and how they were helpful.

Homecoming
Princess

We can never completely sum up who some-one else is, but there are some things we can relate - achievements, beliefs, historical facts. So briefly... Leslie Van Houten is now 57 years old (born 23 August, 1949). Her parents have been described as handsome, beautiful, and loving, and divorced when she was 13 but remained committed to her. They were a church going family, and she attended Sunday School, sang in the choir, and became a junior deacon in her church. She was quite popular and well liked, and was twice voted highschool homecoming princess. She graduated in 1967, and attended business school where she trained as a legal secretary. Later in life she received a B.A. in English Literature and after that a Masters degree. Leslie Van Houten is famous for being a member of Charles Manson's cult, known as The Manson Family, and is serving life imprisonment for the first degree murders of Leno and Rosemary La Bianca in 1969. Her crimes are commonly named as part of the Tate-La Bianca murders, which were comitted over two consecutive nights by Manson Family members and which resulted in seven deaths. Van Houten was two weeks short of turning 20 when the murders were committed. She earned her university degrees while in prison.

Which gives us facts. I thought about how much to say here about the crimes. They were horrific, and I don't want to say too much about them. The BBC have a short article on Charles Manson and the Family which summarises what happened. The only issue with that article is that it lists two people, George Spahn and Ronald Hughes, who were not proved to be murdered by the Manson Family, although the Family are strongly suspected.

I've read four books on the Manson Family (at different times over several years), most recently The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten written by Karlene Faith in 2001. She first met Van Houten in prison in 1972 as a prison tutor for her and other Manson Family members, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins, and has remained a friend to Van Houten from then on. There are parts of the book that are extremely thought provoking, but Faith also comes across as inconsistent at times. The issue is parole. Van Houten has been denied parole 17 times, including being denied in September 2006. Her next parole hearing is scheduled for September 2007. And that is what brings her, the crimes and her associates continually into the public spotlight. Update Van Houten was denied parole on 30 August 2007, and her next parole hearing is set for 2009.

Van Houten, Krenwinkel, Atkins

In her book Karlene Faith wants us to consider how Van Houten has changed, and writes in relation to her case, "Seldom does brutal crime receive the kind of media coverage - and the resulting merciless sentence - that the Manson "family" crimes received". I'd agree that Van Houten has changed, but don't believe the media can be blamed for simply reporting what was put in front of them. Not only were the murders terrible in themselves, but the perpetrators left sensational messages on the walls of the victims homes. Tex Watson used the La Bianca's shower afterward, and they helped themselves to food from the refrigerator. Van Houten cleaned the house of fingerprints. Their behaviour at court was the epitome of attention seeking as they followed Charles Manson's lead - they sang songs and laughed, yelled at the judge and witnesses, shaved their heads, and branded swastikas into their foreheads in protest. And outside the court a group of Family members did likewise. The Manson Family courted attention, and they got it. To be fair to Karlene Faith, she does recognise "the defendants false testimony in court and their own propagation of sensationalised myths".

I think a couple of Karlene Faith's inconsistenices do need to be mentioned. She attempts to place Van Houten's case in the context of a feminist analysis,and says, "Before they had met Manson, these women had been oversocialised to be utterly "feminine" - at the extreme end of the a continuum of male dominance and female compliance". It's a generalisation which isn't supported by the facts of Van Houten's life, and falls into the feminist thinking that was prevalent in the 1970s - assuming every woman is a victim at the base level, rather than assessing when a woman is responsible. Van Houten was described by a psychiatrist during the initial trial (she had three trials) as "a spoiled little princess" who was impulsive, had fits of temper, and had become "a psychologically loaded gun" before the crimes. Her sister had a successful career in special education. Leslie Van Houten had begun training for a career herself. She was not oversocialised into a particular role, and Faith's analysis implies that somehow it is society, and Van Houten's family, which left her unprepared. In reality, it was her misuse of her time and talents which led her to be a submissive Manson disciple. Prior to that she was popular, capable, somewhat headstrong, had choices and opportunities, and couldn't be described as over submissive or at the extreme end of compliance.

Another point is that Faith attempts to place Van Houten as a victim of circumstances, as if she was a product of the 1960s, and the context explains her actions. She says what happened to Van Houten could have happened to anyone at that time, but also says, "A woman accused of murdering strangers has been a rare phenomenon in the history of crime", and adds later, "being killed by a stranger in one's own home is a commonly feared by highly unusual way to die". She also notes that "Just as Leslie's background was uncommon among imprisoned women, so her crime had little in common with those of anonymous but more representative women in terms of degree of seriousness and harm to others". These are important observations. Van Houten was not like other women who committed crimes at that time. She was not like "anyone" in that sense. To say that anyone who encountered Charles Manson could have done the same thing is also not true. People came and went from where the group stayed. Not everyone who came seeking "enlightenment" made it into the elite inner circle of about 15 people, because they didn't buy into Manson's ideology enough, and not everyone wanted to be in the elite group. Some did make it in and later left. Charles "Tex" Watson, now serving life for 7 murders, simply got up and walked out one day, and was not pursued. He returned some months later, and left again not long after the murders. The reality is that while there was an indoctrination that went on, which was reinforced by the inner peer group, they had the liberty to leave, and of those who came not everyone fell for the spin. The myth of Manson's automatic drawing power is a false picture. Something appealed to Van Houten, and she sought it. I believe she acknowledges this herself, and she has talked about allowing herself to be used - of giving permission within herself for that. The payoff in cults is the sense of elitism and spiritual superiority. So I do find Karlene Faith's analysis contradictory in places - the theory doesn't fit with the facts.

It is easy to think this was some bizarre 1960s aberration. But the reality is that if committed today the crimes would receive similar attention. Today we would call them a religious extremist cult, or terrorist group. And if they behaved now as they did then the media would be all over the story. I recently asked some-one in her early 20s if she had heard of the Manson Family. She hadn't and asked who they were. I told her briefly and calmly without embellishing or hyping it (and it was easier to talk about it than type it - there are things I cannot bring myself to type). The look on her face said it all - shock, horror, disbelief. It is as impacting now to some-one hearing it for the first time, minus media reports, as it was then.

My intention here is not to point to the crimes alone. Considering Leslie Van Houten, who has spent nearly 37 years in jail, brings to mind thorny questions. What are we responsible for and how do we make restitution? What is forgiveness? How is it applied? Are some things beyond forgiveness?

It is clear that Manson's group was a dangerous cult. He used different techniques to program a kind of philosophy or worldview into his disciples, and reinforced that they should, "Cease to Exist" and "Never Ask Why". Those are titles of two of his songs - much of his programming came through disciples repetitively singing his lyrics. Van Houten disavowed him in 1974. Yet what are the limits of responsibility? Van Houten, hearing about the five murders at Sharon Tate's house from Patricia Krenwinkel the morning after, did not get up and leave in horror at what her friends had done. That night she accompanied them to a randomly chosen house, and admits she knew there would be killings when they went into the La Bianca's home. Perhaps the most telling statement is from Van Houten herself regarding Charles Manson, "Manson took a lot of time taking middle class girls and remolding them. Part of my responsibility is that I helped to create him." We choose and create our idols, and while much is made of how Manson denounced the values of the parents of his young followers, the truth was they had themselves already rejected those values. Van Houten had hit the road, got into drugs, and rejected the spirituality she grew up with before she ever met Manson. As much as Manson was remolding her, she was also remolding herself in her chosen idol's image. This doesn't alleviate his guilt - he was in his mid 30's, and quite knowingly exploited and manipulated those much younger than himself. What I'm getting at here is that when we choose an idol we bear some responsibility. Van Houten has stated more than once that she takes responsibility for what she did, and has expressed remorse.

There are conflicting views about whether Van Houten should be released on parole. Some say she looks too poised and charming, while others say it's not her fault that she is physically attractive. Physical appearance isn't a helpful yardstick in determining character. She has been described as "a model prisoner", and her psychological reports indicate she is vastly different to the woman who presented 36 years ago. She has met all the criteria the parole board have set. So it becomes for some an issue of rehabilitation. If the prisoner is rehabilitated, why should she not have parole? Those who take a strong view for rehabilitation argue that it is simply retribution to keep her in jail. I've thought about this a lot, because I do believe that rehabilitation is a goal to be pursued. I don't see the point of continually punishing some-one who is remorseful and has turned their life in a different direction for a long period of time. It isn't in my heart to desire some-one else's mental punishment when they express regret and show evidence they've changed.

Parole Hearing 2002

I think the issue is not about retribution, but about restitution. And how does some-one make restitution for taking some-one else's life? It can never be done. Nothing brings back the deceased. I agree with Karlene Faith when she says, "I don't know that I could be so forgiving myself, if I were to lose one of my children - or grandchildren or anyone I love - because of another person's inability to contain his rage". Yet Faith sees the families of the murder victims as wanting retributive justice. Really, how does some-one restore what they owe when they have killed some-one? Thinking on that it occurred to me that the best a person could do would be to give their life in service, in an other-focus that benefitted people. It will never repay, but it gives a message of wanting to restore. Van Houten has lived like that in prison, being involved in various projects, such as helping others in a literacy program, taping books for the visually impaired, and assisting other prisoners by personally modelling to them a constructive way of doing time. While there is part of me that can see her as an aging woman who could be my next door neighbour (but won't be because of where I live), and I would be neighbourly if she was, there is a part of me that also considers the high value we need to place on human life. I do wonder if there needs to be a long termers unit in a prison, where those who have served more than 20 years, with good prison records, can live separately from other prisoners. To my mind, they would have a few more liberties than regular inmates, and would still be expected to participate in beneficial projects. If prison is to be their whole life, then assist their humanity in that, and let them at least settle into a long termers space of their own with some earned privileges (I'm talking simple things, not the Ritz). If a woman has found her humanity again, then I think it could be acknowledged in that way. But to be released, to walk at liberty, seems to put too low a value on the lives taken. I wonder too at how it is for the victims families when those from the Manson Family involved in the murders continually seek parole. It keeps bringing the trauma into debate and they are reptitively confronted with those awful events and their loss. Van Houten is not the only ex-Manson disciple scheduled for a parole hearing in 2007. There are also some scheduled for 2009. (Added note 8/07, Van Houten's next hearing is now also in 2009). It seems to me that families who have had a loved one taken would be better served by an acknowledgement from those responsible that they are willing to forgo normal freedom. If that kind of attitude comes from the core of a person it is not a punishment but a spiritual liberty.

There are those who say some things can never be forgiven. I think they can be forgiven, although it is a process that people find themselves revisiting, but not necessarily forgotten. I find this next part difficult to say because although I abhor what she did, I don't feel unkindness toward who she is now. However my view leans toward Van Houten not being paroled. Prison has given her back her life - beginning when California law automatically commuted her death sentence to life imprisonment, and through the help of a prison psychiatrist, people like Karlene Faith, and opportunities to serve others and find herself in the process. But I do think some improvements could be made in how women who do change are treated in prison over very long time periods. It may turn out that she is paroled next year - having been given one year to the next hearing is seen as favouring her release.

I do want to thank those who commented on my previous post. When I looked at the photo of Leslie Van Houten, even knowing who she was, I thought, "She could have been a model or actress". So if I didn't know who she was my answer would have been similar to many of the comments readers made. It was helpful to find out that people's impressions were somewhat like mine. And this is part of the tragedy - that she could probably have been some of the things people listed. She was concerned about social issues - perhaps she could have been a politician. She is interested in literature, and has written articles for the prison newspaper - perhaps she could have been an author. If we do not use our gifts and abilities productively we will end up using them destructively. Our gifts are irrevocable. It's how we express them that makes the difference. Some of you sensed a tragedy of some kind may have occurred - tragedies do occur in our lives. Some-one wondered if it was me. No, but isn't that what takes us by surprise, that she does look like some-one we might know? Without getting too analytical about spontaneous comments, I do think we are also trusting. We don't automatically think the worst (except I think commenters who were maybe trying to suss out what I was up to). And one person got it right, and I wondered if she actually has a memory of who this is and that's what popped into her mind. I was interested to see if anyone remembered Leslie Van Houten or the Manson Family after looking at the photo. Often times if we do have a memory of some-one or something the first impression that comes to mind will be the one that fits (this I learned way back in the days of exams and it worked a treat). For those who wonder why I wrote this, I have studied cults for years, and am interested in the dynamics and how people leave and recover. I'm also interested in the role of restitution in rehabilitation, and the issue of forgiveness. And of course I've heard about the Manson Family for years, have read books and articles, and wanted to consider the humanity of this person. I'd be interested to know if anyone feels differently about her now that you know who she is.