Hey, no need to apologize. This is a really interesting read I rediscovered in the wake of this parole news. I bet you’d be into it.

I think everyone who works on her case or is close with her — and Leslie herself — has stressed that she has been out of the thrall of Manson since, I think, the early 80s.

I do public school advocacy work now :)

I eventually did and they were delicious and I am America success story for freedom.

True! The sort of unusual handling of the trial(s) and the commutation definitely casts a complicating shadow over the entire case and story.

Not a presumption! Mostly informed by a couple articles I read last time she came up for parole regarding her early work with a prison psychologist to “un-do” Manson brainwashing; her subsequent remorse; the programs and service she’s completed and helped others with; her being a “model prisoner.” You get the idea.

.... But Michelle Carter was found guilty and sentenced for that crime, to near-unanimous approval among commenters here?

You’re probably right that they’re / she’s not going anywhere. Not this time and not next time either. I’ve said as much on other threads tonight. I’d argue that whether or not Squeaky killed anyone, she attempted to, and to my mind at least she qualifies as the most recognizable “Manson girl,” so if the issue is that…

Right. As best I can, I try not to conceive of who deserves parole as a one-at-a-time or “instead” question, if that makes sense. Do I think this particular person has served her time and should be paroled according to a litany of metrics? Yes! Are there many people serving under harsher conditions for *waaaay* lesser…

That’s interesting and a compelling factor (truly) but I don’t know if, as far as serving justice is concerned, a court’s evaluation of the way she was manipulated should be judged relative to anyone else. Maybe you disagree.

True!

No, I really don’t expect that anyone who intends to be re-elected is going to stick their neck out for her. And that’s a genuinely interesting interpretation of what constitutes a threat to safety and I’ll be chewing it over 🤔✨

Interesting! And I do understand the spirit of what you’re saying. But I don’t know if it’s ethical, let alone legal, to imprison someone at least in part on someone else’s behalf and to tie someone’s release to someone else’s death.

I was one of two kids in my class in elementary school grade (year after year) who qualified for free/reduced. I had a special colored lunch ticket that I was humiliated by — so much so that I’d often opt to go without rather than flash that thing. So many kids would rather be hungry than embarrassed. I was one. I am…

Oh man I’ll echo this; it’s an EXCELLENT piece that effectively changed the trajectory of my life. That sounds like a huge exaggeration, but it ain’t. exileonmystreet, I believe the author of that piece has the feature story in the NYT Magazine this week. It’s the education issue and it looks great.

You are doubly correct!

I agree; our energies are better diverted to less high-profile cases. That said, I don’t think it detracts from other fights to look at this particular case and assess that, yeah, this woman now deserves to walk. I also want to stress that, unlike Browder and the many nameless and unknown like him, I don’t think she…

Vanilla Chex, and specifically just the vanilla pieces.

I’m just a young woman fighting for justice while I eat cereal with my hands.

I’m not sure! But I am certain that “We’re keeping you imprisoned because no one here knows what you would do if you were released” is no sufficient reasoning to keep someone locked up. But I guess you made clear you don’t think it is either.