California Governor Gavin Newsom has once again denied parole to Patricia Krenwinkel, the longest-serving female inmate in the state and a former devoted follower of cult leader Charles Manson. The decision, announced in mid-October 2025, marks the second time Newsom has reversed the state parole board’s recommendation to release Krenwinkel, citing her continued risk to public safety and insufficient rehabilitation after more than five decades behind bars.
Reversal of the Parole Decision
Earlier this year, in May 2025, the California Board of Parole Hearings had recommended parole for Patricia Krenwinkel, finding her suitable for release under the state’s current standards for elderly and rehabilitated prisoners. However, Newsom’s office blocked the ruling just months later.
In a detailed written statement, the governor explained that he believed Krenwinkel “still poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison.” He added that while she had shown some signs of introspection and rehabilitation, her “limited insight into the causative factors of her crimes and her tendency to externalize blame” made her unsuitable for release at this time.
Newsom’s decision reaffirms his 2022 stance when he similarly overturned a recommendation for her release on the grounds that she remained a threat. The governor emphasized that his review took into account her age, declining health, and decades of good behavior but concluded that these factors did not outweigh the brutality of her crimes and the danger she still poses.
Details of Krenwinkel’s Crimes
Patricia Krenwinkel was just 21 years old when she joined Charles Manson’s cult-like “family” and participated in one of the most infamous murders in American history. Over two nights in August 1969, Manson directed his followers to commit a series of killings meant to ignite what he called a “race war” that he referred to as “Helter Skelter.”
Krenwinkel’s involvement included the horrific murders at the residence of pregnant actress Sharon Tate, wife of director Roman Polanski, where Tate and four others were brutally slain. The following night, she participated in the murders of grocery store executive Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, where she helped carve messages such as “Death to Pigs” and “Helter Skelter” in their victims’ blood.
Krenwinkel was convicted in 1971 on seven counts of first-degree murder. She was originally sentenced to death, but that sentence was commuted to life imprisonment after California’s Supreme Court struck down the death penalty in 1972.
Decades of Incarceration
Patricia Krenwinkel has served over 56 years at the California Institution for Women in Chino. She is now 77 years old and holds the distinction of being the state’s longest-incarcerated female prisoner, a title she assumed after fellow Manson follower Susan Atkins died in 2009.
Throughout her time behind bars, Krenwinkel has maintained an unbroken record of good conduct. She has reportedly participated in multiple rehabilitation programs, earned college degrees, counseled other inmates, and trained service dogs for veterans and disabled individuals. Despite these efforts, the governor and the California Department of Corrections concluded she has not reached the level of self-awareness necessary to guarantee public safety if released.
The Governor’s Rationale
Governor Newsom’s written explanation laid out the reasoning behind his denial, indicating that he had reviewed psychological evaluations, witness statements, parole board documents, and Krenwinkel’s institutional record. He noted that although she has matured and demonstrated significant growth, evaluations continue to highlight underlying issues of self-awareness and accountability.
The most recent psychological report from 2025 cited “deficits in insight” and a continued “tendency to externalize blame.” Newsom’s statement reads, “While Ms. Krenwinkel has taken commendable steps toward rehabilitation, those steps do not adequately reduce her risk for future dangerousness.” He added that given the extreme nature of her crimes, “the evidence as a whole shows she currently poses an unreasonable danger to society.”
Support from Victims’ Families and Officials
The families of Charles Manson’s victims have consistently opposed parole for any surviving members of the “family.” Sharon Tate’s sister, Debra Tate, has spoken out during nearly every parole hearing since the 1970s, arguing that Krenwinkel and others should never be set free due to the nature and cruelty of their crimes.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman echoed this sentiment, agreeing with Newsom’s determination. “These were atrocities that shocked the world,” Hochman stated in an interview following the governor’s decision. “While we recognize rehabilitation efforts, our duty is to public safety, and we simply cannot say with confidence that there’s no longer any risk.”
Claims from Defense and Criticism of the Decision
Patricia Krenwinkel’s attorney, Keith Wattley, strongly criticized the governor’s decision, accusing him of allowing political factors to override fairness and compassion. Wattley argued that Krenwinkel is “not the same person she was in 1969” and that she has been deemed to pose “a minimal risk for decades” by multiple parole psychologists.
He further noted that Newsom failed to give sufficient consideration to the “great weight” requirement under California law, which mandates special consideration for survivors of trauma and domestic violence. “Patricia was a victim herself before she became a perpetrator,” Wattley said, referencing her history of abuse at the hands of Charles Manson, who manipulated and controlled his followers through physical and psychological domination. “By denying her parole, the governor ignored the reality of survivors of coercive control, especially during Domestic Violence Awareness Month.”
Rehabilitation Efforts and Personal Transformation
Over her decades in prison, Krenwinkel has become deeply involved in restorative justice efforts and volunteer work. She serves as a peer counselor and mentor to younger inmates, focusing on trauma recovery and responsibility. Reports indicate that she was instrumental in helping launch several inmate-led support groups focusing on recovery from substance abuse and violence prevention.
She also earned her associate’s and bachelor’s degrees while incarcerated and has spoken to officials about the root causes of cult psychology and social control. Correctional officers have described her as “a model inmate,” and former parole board members have praised her disciplinary record, which spans five decades without a single serious infraction.
Despite these advances, the state continues to weigh her original crimes more heavily than her rehabilitation. Under California’s parole system, the governor has the authority to independently review and reverse parole grants for prisoners convicted of murder, especially in cases drawing significant public attention.
Statistical Overview: Parole and Life Sentences in California
CategoryStatisticTotal California prison population (2025)~96,000Inmates serving life sentencesOver 33,000Average age of women serving life sentences58 yearsParole hearings for Krenwinkel17 (16 denials, 1 withdrawn)Years served by Krenwinkel56 yearsLifetime parole grants reversed by Newsom (since 2019)More than 60 cases
These figures demonstrate the difficulty for inmates convicted of high-profile crimes in securing and keeping parole approval, particularly when cases draw intense media and public scrutiny.
The Broader Context: Newsom and the Manson Family Parole Denials
Governor Newsom has built a reputation for consistently rejecting parole for members of the Manson family, following a precedent set by previous California governors. His office has argued that the symbolic and emotional weight of the Manson murders demands extraordinary caution.
Before Krenwinkel’s case, Newsom also denied parole multiple times to fellow Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, who was eventually released in 2023 after an appeals court ruled in her favor. Newsom’s decisions reflect a pattern of prioritizing perceived public safety risks and the gravity of past crimes over parole board findings, particularly in notorious cases.
The Manson murders hold a unique place in American memory, representing not just senseless violence but also the social chaos of the late 1960s. To many, granting parole to one of the participants would symbolize leniency toward one of the darkest moments in modern American history.
Legal Framework for Parole Decisions
California’s parole system is grounded in laws that require the governor to consider several factors beyond good behavior and rehabilitation, including:
The severity of the crime and the risk posed to society
Evidence of rehabilitation and remorse
Psychological evaluations assessing current mental and emotional stability
The impact on victims’ families and public confidence in justice
For prisoners who committed crimes under the age of 26, known as “youth offenders,” the law also mandates special consideration for diminished culpability due to immaturity. Despite acknowledging that Krenwinkel was only 21 at the time of her crimes, Newsom concluded that her maturity and experience in the years since did not mitigate the ongoing risk he believes she poses.
Elderly parole considerations also factor into such decisions. Inmates over 50 years old who have served more than 20 years are automatically reviewed by the Board of Parole Hearings for potential compassion-based release. Newsom noted Krenwinkel’s age and health concerns but ruled these “outweighed by negative factors related to her insight and accountability.”
The Role of Psychological Evaluations
Each parole hearing includes a psychological risk assessment. In Krenwinkel’s case, expert evaluators have consistently found her risk of violence to be low or minimal for over four decades. These findings, though persuasive within the parole process, ultimately remain advisory, not binding.
Recent evaluations, however, suggested that she still “struggles to fully internalize personal responsibility” and occasionally frames her actions within the broader control exerted by Manson. These observations likely contributed to Newsom’s assertion that she “lacks sufficient self-awareness,” the key argument behind the denial.
Public Reaction and Ongoing Debate
The decision has reignited public debate over the purpose of parole — whether it exists primarily as a reward for rehabilitation or a safeguard against releasing individuals convicted of heinous crimes, no matter how long ago.
Advocates for prison reform argue that lifelong incarceration without a realistic path to release undermines rehabilitation and contravenes California’s emphasis on restorative justice. They contend that if prisoners who demonstrate rehabilitation are constantly denied parole for political reasons, the system itself loses credibility.
On the other hand, victims’ families and many members of the public see the decision as an affirmation of justice. For them, the horror of the Manson murders cannot be erased by good behavior in prison; the crimes are simply too extreme to justify release.
The Evolution of Manson’s Legacy
The Manson murders have remained a fixture of American cultural mythology for more than half a century. The case continues to inspire documentaries, films, books, and psychological studies exploring the nature of cult influence, manipulation, and evil.
The lingering legacy of Charles Manson ensures that every associated parole hearing becomes a public spectacle. This enduring infamy has undoubtedly shaped official decisions and maintained an atmosphere of public hostility toward even the notion of forgiveness or release.
Conclusion: The Continuing Controversy
Governor Gavin Newsom’s denial of parole for Patricia Krenwinkel underscores the enduring legacy of the Manson crimes and the complex interplay between justice, rehabilitation, and public sentiment. Despite compelling evidence of personal transformation and over half a century of incarceration, Krenwinkel’s name remains indelibly linked to one of history’s most horrifying episodes.
While her attorneys continue to explore possible appeals — including judicial review of the governor’s authority — the broader debate will likely persist. Should time and demonstrated reform be enough to open prison doors, even for those who committed the darkest acts? Or are some crimes simply too heinous ever to warrant redemption?
For Patricia Krenwinkel, now approaching 80 years of age, the answer remains uncertain — but, for now, her fate once again rests behind the prison walls of Chino, California.