On January 3rd 2019 Beausoleil was granted parole
for the first time since his incarceration in the California State Prison
system June 23rd 1970. He first became eligible for parole in
September 1973 according to the California Inmate Locator website. He has had
many, many parole hearings. Governor Newsom reversed the parole board’s grant
of parole.
Bobby next came up for a parole hearing June 11, 2020, that
hearing was continued until the following month, July 1, 2020, at which time he
was denied parole for three years. On July 19 2021 he petitioned for an advance
on his next hearing. That petition was denied. Court documents were filed on
Bobby’s behalf regarding advancing the next parole hearing date and the court
found in Bobby’s favor. He had a parole suitability hearing January 28, 2022
and was again denied for three years.
February 8, 2022 and March 23, 2022 Bobby again filed for an
advance on his next parole hearing. He was denied. September 23, 2023, he
applied again for an advance and it was rejected. Another court action was filed
and on October 2, 2024 the parole board was ordered to conduct a new hearing.
According to CieloDrive.com Beausoleil had successfully petitioned
the Superior Court to vacate the 2020 and 2022 parole hearings. Vacating a
parole hearing means, in this case, that the denials have been set aside. There
are three reasons why the Bureau of Parole Hearings (BPH) would vacate a parole
hearing decision.
*The BPH may vacate a decision if it finds that there was a
prejudicial error.
*The BPH may vacate a decision if new evidence of innocence
has been discovered.
*The BPH may vacate a decision if the defendant was
convicted based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.
In this instance the BPH was ordered by the court to vacate
the two hearings so I’m assuming that at least one of those three reasons is
why the 2020 and 2022 were vacated. My money is on the first reason.
So, we arrive at January 7, 2025 and the new hearing found
that Beausoleil is suitable for parole for the second time.
Bobby's parole hearing transcripts
It takes 30 days for the transcripts to become available so the 2025 transcript hasn't been posted yet.
12 comments:
I offered Bobby employment during one of our regular convos - 26 years ago! I recall like yesterday when my letter was read at a Parole Hearing- surprised the heck out of me. Under normal law he would have been out in the late 80s (of course under moral law no killer should ever walk free). Even though like LVH he "only" killed one person - he's a guy. A very unaware guy. There would be zero harm in letting him out but. don't think he gets out. Let's see.
wow seems like they really don't know what they are doing in regards to him.
how so Amy?
I think that the correct thing to do is to follow the governing law.If this includes parole, then that should be a possibility.
I also think that in a traditional morality-based system, those directly involved in the Manson killings should have been executed, but the law is that law, or else you've got chaos.
Basically, what Manson envisioned after his postulated race war.
If only it were so straight forward - the law was he died in prison. Then the law became he stays in prison forever. But the guidelines for 99 out of 100 other people would have meant freedom in the early 80s. Life is complicated, man.
" Life is complicated, man."
The existing power of the governor to not only reject a parole recommendation, but to commute his sentence, is a part of the system. Recognizing this, what's happened so far is still within the expected norms.
It ends up making the parole of a well-known criminal a sort of popularity contest.
Oh, well!...
I might be very ignorant when it comes to US law , but do they really think that any of the remaining incarcerated members of the so called Family could be a danger to society if they were released ? I really think that you have much more to be concerned about ... Do people think that they will just be released and let to carry on with what little time they have left without being watched 24/7 by the powers that be ? Not mentioning any names, but a couple of them were definitely very dangerous back in the day, but I doubt very much that if they were given the chance of a last few years of freedom that they'd jeopardise it . Did those powers that be, really think that a one legged woman, dying of brain cancer was a threat to America ? If so , and I was Bobby or Patricia or Tex or Bruce, I wouldn't be getting over excited ... Greetings from Ireland
Charlie:
Incarceration to eliminate a threat to society by the convicted is only a part of what the sentence seeks to accomplish. Perhaps even greater goals are a) providing a sense of adequate "justice" (revenge) for the friends/relatives of the victims; b) providing a similar sense of justice, but less personal, to all of law-abiding society; and c) a concrete example of very serious consequences to the entire public, but especially those of marginal personal integrity who might have otherwise considered committing a similar crime.
Deterrence is never perfect, but as a general rule it tends to reduce crime, and the more dramatic the punishment, the more effective the deterrence.
Charlie, there is a political aspect to any of them being released on parole, too. Since the governor has a say in whether a prisoner should be released, no governer wants to be the one on record as allowing their release. Most California governors have higher political aspirations once they complete their terms. Any opponent will use the release of a Family member against him or her in an election. Leslie was released because her lawyer appealed to a higher court with a winable arguement. Governor Newsom could have appealed but chose not to because the odds of him winning an appeal were slight. Technically Newsom did not allow Leslie to be released, the higher court did that.
My memory isn't very good.
Doesn't Bobby have cancer or some other fatal disease?
Orwhut, I read on Ivan Pugh's FaceBook page a while back that Bobby had had a lung removed. I don't know why it was removed though. The parole hearings transcripts have information about the prisoner's health towards the beginning of the transcript. The prisoners are questioned about their health and any medical needs that they have so that they are assured of getting a fair hearing. It's part of the American's with Disabilities Act.
Thank you, Deb. That's probably what I was thinking about.
Post a Comment