Opinion: Leslie Van Houten’s crime isn’t the only consideration in deciding whether to parole her

To the editor: I certainly agree with your position that a parole for convicted murderer and former Mason family member Leslie Van Houten is a “complicated call.” I also agree with your opposition to the death penalty and feel life sentences give society a chance to correct its mistakes. (“Leslie Van Houten committed an act of terrorism. She should stay behind bars,” editorial, Sept. 7)

But I think you missed one important issue.

As other inmates watch Van Houten being denied a parole despite her years as a model prisoner, they will no doubt conclude that good behavior and accomplishments while in prison will do them no good. More importantly, they will be management and safety problems for prison administrators and guards.

Paroling Van Houten will encourage other prisoners to better themselves.

Kevin McGill, Chula Vista

..

To the editor: The Times’ editorial is spot on, though I would go one step further.

Van Houten was engaged in an act of first-degree murder and, at the time, she was sentenced to death. The sentence was changed to life after California’s death penalty was determined to be unconstitutional in 1972.

I believe that the term “life in prison” means just that for those who are found guilty of premeditated homicide. As one who unalterably opposes the death penalty, I do believe that our moral compass as a society dictates that an individual forfeits her freedom once she is convicted of first-degree murder.

Van Houten should live out the rest of her life in prison.

Bob Teigan, Santa Susana

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook