The Pivot . . . Or The Divot?
Not only does reliability and integrity in politics seem to be missing in action, but most voters today don’t seem to even care any longer. Today, what voters seem more interested in is who they line up for and not what they say.
At first blush, that seems kind of sad. On reflection, however, it’s quite understandable. Why worry about what our representatives say when there’s no basis to believe they won’t pivot (or divot) at will any time it suits them. More than once. Back and forth. Just like a pendulum.
Why not, when there’s no longer any accountability in policy as there once was? Not only do some of our representatives engage in 180 degree pivots between the campaign for support and what they say once they have that support, but sometimes they do this between an opening in a presentation and a closing in the very same presentation. The same presentation. Just pay attention and listen to what so many of our representatives say.
Which Brings Me To . . .
Leslie Van Houten. You all know her, right? You all saw this coming, right?
Return With Me To Yesteryear
It was 1969. The highly sensational trials of Charles Manson and his family accused of a number of gruesome back-to-back murders, including Sharon Tate and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.
Van Houten was one of the members of Manson’s family, then a 19 year old high school homecoming princess from a “good” family that somehow lost her way and hitched up with Manson. She was not present on the night pregnant Tate and friends were slaughtered. She was present shortly thereafter when the LaBiancas were murdered. Van Houten was in attendance on that night. She stabbed Rosemary LaBianca 14 times. It’s unclear whether LaBianca was still alive when Van Houten thought she was slicing up the supper turkey. However, it didn’t matter. Under the felony murder rule, Van Houten was guilty of murder. Leno’s as well as Rosemary’s.
Fast Forward to The Present
Some 50 years to the present time. Van Houten was recently up for her umpteenth parole hearing to “determine” if she is “fit” to be released out into society. In at least the two most recent parole hearings, the parole board concluded that Van Houten, now a 68 year old women looking every bit her age and more, no longer poses a threat to society and should, therefore, finally be set free. Governor Brown rejected the parole board’s recommendation the last time. He’s now deciding whether to acquiesce. I guess someone thinks Brown should conclude that Van Houten is somehow different today than they were a few years ago when Brown overruled the parole board.
The Pros and The Cons and . . . The Pivot and The Divot
The “Pros” are pretty simple–albeit not simply achieved–and are very much beyond debate. Van Houten has been a truly extraordinary and exemplary inmate. An absolute model prisoner. She has undergone decades of therapy to learn how she fell prey to Manson and did what she did. She acknowledges her wrongs and she acknowledges that she deserves what the criminal justice system meted out to her. She has earned both a college degree and a graduate degree while behind bars. She counsels women inmates on how to live a proper life behind bars and to prepare to do so when returned to society. She is as rehabilitated a wrongdoer as one could possibly be.
The “Cons,” however, are far more complicated.
Yes, has reportedly undergone decades of therapy to learn why she fell from grace. And as far as she did. Perhaps she has shared what she learned with her parole board. But she hasn’t shared it with society. Or the families of those who were bludgeoned. Is Van Houten not entitled to her medical privacy? Ordinarily, yes, of course. We all are. But is it the same for one seeking to be paroled and turned loose on society? Perhaps not. But she could stray again. Maybe too old and (supposedly) decrepit to wield 14 blows with a knife as she did previously. But hardly too old and decrepit to pull on a gun trigger once or twice? Hardly too old and decrepit to inflict a lot of harm. Again.
It should be noted that Van Houten already had to be retried a second time because her lawyer in her first trial mysteriously disappeared and turned up dead before her first trial was concluded. Another untimely death in close proximity to Van Houten. What do, or should we, know about that before she’s possibly turned loose?
And how do the families of the victims feel about Van Houten’s possible release?
Would Manson, now 82, be paroled? Doubtful would be putting it mildly. Would the felony murder rule possibly suggest that she should fare better than Manson? Her rehabilitation doesn’t undue her status as a multiple murderer. Does it entitle her to sever her ties from the Manson cult today? Is that possibly too little, too late?
And has Van Houten paid her “debt” to society? Can she ever? The families of her victims can never get those murdered returned to them.
Who pays for the cost of all the trials that put Van Houten behind bars? Who reimburses the state for all of Van Houten’s room and board these past 50 years, for all that therapy she has reportedly received? How much must a civilized society pay and absorb to be considered civilized?
And Now The Envelope Please!
In years past, it was an easy call for this writer. Hey, did you think this blog was about our political representatives? What about our philosophical representatives? Our writers, the ones who stimulate our thinking?
Back to what I was saying. Years ago this was an easy call for me. No parole, not ever, not for heinous crimes such as the ones in which Van Houten partook.
But, hey, back then I wasn’t as civilized and thoughtful as I am today. 🙂 As I matriculated, I drifted in the direction of giving Van Houten a second chance given the strong showing she has made over these past 50 long years.
Then I thought about it a bit further and the pendulum brought me back to the conclusion I had originally reached, although for somewhat different reasons. There are simply too many unanswered questions. And it’s so easy to fire a gun. But most important to me: If Van Houten is genuinely redeemed, as she maintains in seeking her release, she should understand and accept that she can and should continue her exemplary life right where she is today. Behind bars. Society will be no less civilized for that. And she will be even more rehabilitated in accepting that permanent fate.
So, perhaps I should now have a better understanding–a greater tolerance–for all of the pivots and divots and pendulum swings of our political representatives. But I don’t.
Join the discussion either by logging in just below or by signing into your favorite social media outlet. If you’re having trouble, please follow these instructions to guide you! Thanks!
