Ex-Manson follower dying, seeks release from prison (Susan Atkins)

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: CNN

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former Manson family member Susan Atkins has requested a "compassionate release" from prison because she has less than six months to live, a California prisons spokeswoman said Friday.

Atkins, 60, was convicted in the 1969 slayings of actress Sharon Tate and four others. She had been incarcerated at the California Institution for Women in Frontera, California.

But Atkins has been hospitalized since March 18 and is listed in serious condition, state corrections department spokeswoman Terry Thornton said. Because of privacy laws, Thornton would not disclose the nature of Atkins' illness.

But Atkins' husband and attorney, James Whitehouse, was quoted as saying she has been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, according to a blog called Manson Family Today. She also has had a leg amputated, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday, citing sources close to the case.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/13/manson.atkins/index.html

---

Susan Atkins is led from a Los Angeles grand jury room after her indictment in the 1969 "Manson murders."

[Scairp]

1. Let her out

As a matter of fact, let all the girls out. Except Squeaky Fromme. She's nuts.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DBoon]

83. No one deserves to die like that

that is the difference between us and the Manson family

[Benhurst]

112. Well, at least in prison she is getting medical care.

There are millions of Americans who aren't.

[Twig]

131. In addition to medical care

She's getting food three times a day, a roof over her head, able to watch TV, a free education, showers, a gym, and more - yeah, let's let her out, the poor thing.

Gawd....

[Flagg]

138. Ever been to prison ?

[JeanGrey]

184. Excuse me? Why is that? She BUTCHERED someone and

her unborn child with no thought whatsoever. She does deserve to "die" like that. She's lucky she wasn't executed as she deserved.

[Javaman]

233. Neither did the people they murdered. Sorry but she stays in prison. nt

[JeanGrey]

200. For all those waxing mercy for this bunch, go to:

http://members.tripod.com/~VanessaWest/crimescenephotos.html

And check out the murder crime scene photos and autopsy pictures. Check out the sorority house girls Ted Bundy bashed to death while you're at it, and ask yourself does anyone deserve less than death for these horrors and the very least life. And the last I read she was still NOT apologizing for anything at late as the 90's.

I'm sorry, leave her there. No, I'm not sorry.

[Robbien]

2. Hopefully they release her

and hopefully her remaining family has the financial resources to provide the health care that she will need.

[ben_meyers]

3. "I told her I didn't have mercy for her," she said.

"I was just sitting in front of her," Atkins said.

"What did she say?" Commissioner Manny Guaderrama asked.

"She asked me to let the baby live," Atkins said tearfully.

"And what did you say?" Guaderrama asked.

"I told her I didn't have mercy for her," she said.

Burn in hell.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

6. The judge should ask Sharon Tate and her unborn baby, butchered like hogs, what THEY think.

OH!

They CAN'T.

I can't get past the heinous nature of Atkins' actions.

I wish I could, but I can't.

[crikkett]

77. whatever.

(self-edit)

[superconnected]

96. Neither can I. So to you, "whatever" (said in the dumbest voice that this unintelligent remark

deserves.) Interesting what some people will tolerate. :eyes: <- (goes along with the juvenile "whatever".)

Oh, I feel so... nine years old now.

[crikkett]

166. well excuuuuuuse me for realizing that I had nothing useful to say

to this person who is so ready to condemn a complete stranger who is dying and asks for mercy --but not from us so what do we have to say about it anyway-- and so taking my comment off the Internets.

It's the first time I've been chastised for shutting up.
:eyes:

[superconnected]

212. Yeah, the eyes definitely suit the mentality.

Somewhere under 8th grade...

[mr_hat]

9. Amen. And I mean that in

the worst, biblical, burn-baby-burn sense.

Not that that's biblical.

Should be, though...

[closeupready]

12. 100% agree.

n/t

[Scairp]

16. Hmmm

Sounds as if she's suffering greatly right now. And how do you know what's in her heart almost forty years after the murders? She has one leg and is dying. I would allow that she is deeply regretful of what she did, and I highly doubt she's any kind of threat to the public.

[chelsea0011]

23. If I'm not mistaken, she is the last of them to show no regret to her actions.

[Scairp]

52. Oh, you've spoken to her have you?

I wasn't aware of this. She told you herself, she still has no regrets about what she did?

[superconnected]

97. Shes documented as not showing regret for years.

It usually takes someone missing that compassion sense to do something like this. That's why serial killers usually don't show or even have regret. I don't believe she could come up with real compassion late in life when she didn't have it in her 20's and 30's. I doubt it's part of her chemical make up.

She is a serial killer - over 3 killed, you know. She's convicted of killing a music teacher before the manson family murders, and she did slit Sharon Tates throat while Tate was begging for mercy for her child.

[Scairp]

146. So what is her state of mind now?

Don't you think it's very possible that she is appalled by her own actions at this point and is deeply remorseful? How do any of us know what is in her heart, especially after so many years to reflect on what she did? I really find it hard to believe she isn't at all sorry, and would change it if she could. Nevertheless, I don't believe in capital punishment, nor cruel and unusual punishment, and given her condition, not allowing her to leave prison to die after serving so many years is cruel and unusual. I guess I'm just a ridiculous bleeding heart liberal. There seem to be a lot of them around here. Go figure.:shrug:

[tidy_bowl]

182. Anyone who says...

....she should be let out is sick. Did she show mercy to her victims? Nada. She deserves to die the most horrible death imaginable right where she is.

[JeanGrey]

186. It DOESN'T MATTER. That only matters to her maker

once she is gone. I am just sick to death of people giving excuses why we should not only not execute these types, but as soon as they show "remorse" or serve a little time, why let them out! BS!!

[superconnected]

211. Shall we ask Gary Ridgway(the green river killer) what his state of mind is now too and

let him out if he says he regrets it? How about we ask all mass murders(killers of over 3 people which is relevant here since she's convicted of 4)? You want to do that for the child molesters too then? May as well be fair.

Gee, imagine the people we could kill and how fast we'd be out of prison if we followed your reasoning.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

156. This is patently false...

Adkins became a born-again Christian in 1974 and has expressed remorse in parole hearings on several occasions.

None of which means that she should ever be released from prison, mind you, just that your characterization of her is not accurate.

[zonmoy]

167. What makes you think being a born again Christian means a damn thing

in some cases it just means that any nastiness a person has gets redirected into pushing christianity on others.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

180. You don't have to be a Christian to be small-minded and intolerant...

if you know what I mean.

[Medusa]

176. So all you have to do is say "I'm sorry"

and it doesn't matter how many people you kill?

Good to know. I'll remember that if I ever go on a killing rampage and take out a few people. Just say you're sorry and everything is hunky dory.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

181. I think if you check her record...

you'll find that she's been a model prisoner for 36 years -- longer than any other woman held in California history. She was a young woman from a dysfunctional home who fell under the influence by one of the most notorious criminals in history.

I personally believe she should remain in prison regardless of the extenuating circumstances, but that doesn't excuse people playing "fast and loose" with the facts or being holier-than-thou on the subject.

[JeanGrey]

193. So her parents drank. So what? Think she's the only one who

ever dealt with that? My father was a drunk and my mother was bipolar. I did go out and butcher someone because of it. I'm sick of the excuses.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

198. It's clearly made you the person you are today...

[JeanGrey]

Well it certainly made me strong, and self sufficient.

Sometimes when I see kids today I want to puke. They act so helpless and unable to cope with life. It wasn't always a bed of roses and I certainly would've loved to have been from a middle class beaver cleaver family, but my Mom always loved me and I always knew that. My sep dad was just a drunk and I guess he did the best he could.

But would I have used that as an excuse to butcher people like slaughter? No.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

205. and vindictive...

A lack of empathy is one of the characteristics of a sociopath. Keep away from the sharp objects, OK?

[JeanGrey]

206. I have a strange way of having no empathy for butchers.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

208. When I say a lack of empathy...

I mean that sociopaths tend to see people not as human beings but as objects. Rather than relate them on a human level, then tend to give them convenient labels (i.e., butcher) so they can more easily rationalize their abusive behavior.

[JeanGrey]

199. DUPLICATE

[Dreamer Tatum]

89. Fuck her.

Much blood is shed here over the use of the death penalty. Killing a woman begging for the life of her unborn child is
as heinous as crime gets. If she can't be put to death, then she can rot in prison. This view comes close to confirming
my theory that many opponents of the death penalty also oppose the most logical alternative.

I could not give a damn what's in her heart, now or ever, one leg or no legs.

[ninety lives]

149. How can someone do that to the victims' families?

She can get "compassionate" treatment in prison, I don't care.

The law is the law.

We have veterans and elderly in this country who won't even receive that consideration.

[MadMaddie]

69. Well...can't say much more than that.....if she does have brain

cancer I would think that it God's tortuous punishement for her sins. It doesn't matter where she dies......God has spoken.

[Critters2]

128. My mother died of brain cancer. And never killed anyone.

What do you think she was being punished for?

I'm glad I don't believe in the God you do.

[Skittles]

232. why didn't god speak when she was butchering those people? n/t

[depakid]

226. "Burn in hell."

Fair enough, but seems to me that if there's an option at this stage we might let that happen rather than pay big money to assuage our primitive instincts.

Americans are good at that- cutting off noses to spite faces, don't you think?

[bluestateguy]

4. If they cut her loose, CA won't have to pay her massive medical bills

Just somnething to think about.

[Semi_subversive]

33. Not completely correct

When an inmate is paroled or released in CA, Corrections doesn't have to pick up the medical tab, but it's likely, unless she's covered by medical insurance, that Medi-Cal will now be on the hook. It's still tax dollars, just a different source.

[Freddie Stubbs]

195. Perhaps the Manson Family has a good HMO?

;)

[End Of The Road]

5. Let her out.

It's been almost 40 years, she's not a threat to anyone.

[tabasco]

63. Too bad. There's this thing called punishment.

Atkins deserves the punishment to die in prison.

[End Of The Road]

67. Where did we get this culture of permanent punishment?

She was a monster 40 years ago. Is she still that monster? Has the monster been tamed, transformed, and adequately humbled? I cannot abide the idea that the young do not mature. Show me that she maintains, to this day, that she did the right thing in 1969, and I'll be the first to condemn her to die in prison. Else, well-considered compassion is the nobler part.

[DBoon]

84. Even if she is still a monster

our respect for her life is what makes us civilized.

We are different from her and from the rest of the Manson family.

Our ability to show compassion for the evil is what prevents us from being as evil as they are.

[girl gone mad]

100. She deserves compasssion, but not freedom.

She can be cared for and treated in prison. She should serve out her term there.

[barb162]

217. Do you really mean to write this: "compassion for the evil"

[np33]

91. Ah

its called a "life sentence" and notice that sentence doesn't come with stipulations of "if you get sick we'll let you out" "if you seem really sorry and probably won't be a threat to society we'll let you out". Some crimes go past showing any type of compassion.

[superconnected]

98. Has she appologized yet? She was showing no regret for at least the

first 30 years.

[1Hippiechick]

136. More than fair trade: life in prison rather than being put to death

[Journeyman]

7. Susan Atkins, aka "Sadie Mae Glutz". . .

Atkins testified before a Los Angeles Grand Jury, hoping to avoid the death penalty. She revealed how she held down Sharon Tate as she pleaded for her and the baby's life. She recounted how she told Tate, "Look, bitch, I don't care a thing about you. You're going to die and there's nothing you can do about it." To cause more suffering, they held off killing Tate until all others were dead, and then stabbed her repeatedly while she called out for her mother. . . . Just prior to leaving the residence, Atkins wrote "Pig" on the front door in Sharon Tate's blood.

Posted without comment. Ms Atkins actions speak more than words ever could.

edit: formatting error corrected

[applegrove]

8. She's a mass murderer. She shouldn't be let out. Falling under the

magic of a psychopathic is no excuse for what she did.

[Scairp]

54. No one said it's an excuse

But it is an explanation. She was very young, they all were, and Manson was able to twist their minds and their thinking and break down all boundaries they had regarding what was right and what was wrong and manipulate these very young, vulnerable women into doing these horrific acts. And certainly dropping LSD hundreds of times didn't help them keep their minds right. Quite obviously it had the opposite effect. None of them are threat at this point, and I say let Van Houten, Atkins and Krenwinkle out of prison. They've paid their debt to society, as much as they can anyway.

[applegrove]

71. How many people did they kill? 3 adults and a baby I think. And they've only spend 40 years in

prison.

[superconnected]

99. 7 documented, and estimated to be more - at least two runaways added to that.

Atkins, was convicted of 4 murders.

After the tates they killed two more people the next day. Atkins killed a music teacher before the manson family killings. The manson family are known to have killed runaways besides.

[1Hippiechick]

137. Wonder how many years Shrub should get?

[girl gone mad]

101. I've been young and vulnerable.

I've even been manipulated by men. Did some lsd, too. But I've always had the good sense not to kill.

[Dr.Phool]

10. Some people deserve mercy.

Not her.

[JeanGrey]

25. Ditto.

[Phred42]

11. Let her rot

[raystorm7]

18. Unless you have seen actual footage of what these bastards did to innocent people, STFU!

[lakercub]

196. uhh

I think the person you replied to agrees with you

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

13. Having read a lot about The Manson Case...

And noting that in the group dynamic that led to the crimes, Ms. Atkins was a very dominant figure and personality in all of this. She was not some shy and mysterious creature who was sucked up in some malign vortex, not of her own making. I don't know if I would be entirely sanguine about releasing her. On the other hand, easing her way out of this life with compassion and effective, state-of-the-art terminal and hospice care is society's responsibility. Allowing her to just die? If we are gonna lock them up, then you gotta care for them. Correctly.

Mark this post well. I am no fan of the American System of Revenge, Blood Oaths, Bread and Circuses(Justice? Ha.). It is corrupt, uneven and too often the innocent are convicted of crimes to serve a prosecutor's or cop's career. That said, there is little doubt in my mind that the Manson, et al, ad nauseaum Case was a good one and Ms. Atkins is where she ought to be.

[Matariki]

45. Oh, but women have no volition of their own - they must have been controlled by a Svengali-like male

:sarcasm:

[Chovexani]

203. Exactly.

A sorely needed voice of reason. I'm with you 100% on this.

[NM Independent]

14. WTF?

I mean seriously :wtf:

You're going to hell, bitch. I hope before you get there you suffer as much as humanly possible. You deserve to die in prison, hopefully alone, and hopefully crying for your mommy like you did to Sharon Tate. To quote you (as you killed an innocent woman, PREGNANT woman), "I don't care a thing about you."

You know what would be even better, if that brain cancer put her mind into a permanent loop of the horrors she committed for the last miserable days of her miserable life. A good reminder so she won't be asking "why?" when she feels the fires of hell, or gets reincarnated as a shit eating slug - no offense to shit eating slugs.

Sorry, but I did tone down what I really feel :grr:

P.S. This is the first time I've felt this way about a victim of cancer, but she deserves whatever she gets.

[ronnykmarshall]

17. Don't hold back!!

Let it out, it's good for you!

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. You believe in hell?

:rofl:

It's like Never-Never Land in here sometimes, with hell and the devils with the pitchforks.

Ooga booga!

:rofl:

[geomon666]

48. You've gone and done it.

[NM Independent]

75. While that made me chuckle...

Kindly Kiss My Ass!

You, nor I, know for certain what happens after we die. Satan, demons, fire, pitchforks and all that, no. Maybe the center of a Neutron Star, being forced to live another life through the eyes of someone you did great harm, eternally. Maybe your next life will be filled with bad luck, as a shit eating bug. But maybe, just maybe in my fears, a soul doesn't exist and hence we just cease to be.

I won't accept that, and billions among us feel the same way, whatever their religion. It's honestly better for us not to know what happens, and to believe that living an honorable life will pay off some how (and not monetarily).

You're fulfilling one of the stereotypes of the right that "liberals want to destroy religion." Stop doing that and they won't be able to complain about it. Keep in mind the Freedom of/and from Religion, and remember that the Democratic party means to take the higher ground when it comes to rights afforded by Constitution (among other documents.

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. I don't want to destry religion

I just think it's hilarious when grown people believe in Santa Claus.

[DBoon]

85. Someday you will find yourself in hell

looking at yourself in a mirror, telling yourself that you deserve no mercy or compassion

[NM Independent]

Maybe

Then again I could just be a snail.

[NM Independent]

104. Maybe

Then again I could just be a snail.

[clixtox]

108. Mirrors in hell?

If you believe that you will believe just about anything. Make that anything...

Think for yourself!

Non-sensible fantasies are best kept private, not expressed publicly.

Just because a lot of people believe something definitely doesn't make it true.

Because convention suggests overlooking such wishful thinking, most folks ignore those comforted by simple-minded blind faith.

These expressions of religious beliefs are as disturbing to me as those who express revengeful personal emotions in threads like this one, as if their hateful opinions are interesting to others.

Politics and religion are a bad mix, they really don't go together, so it would be inappropriate, IMHO, to express your personal, superstitious fantasies here in DU's LBN category.

Please don't...

[NM Independent]

155. Say what, now?

You want everyone to just keep their religious beliefs to themselves. This is a progressive site that believes in Democratic American values, like upholding the Constitution and promoting acceptance of diversity, and you apparantly want any non-atheists to just STFU? I frankly don't give a rats ass what you think is appropriate, thank you very much.

It's not like anybody was preaching or shoving anything down anyones throat. It was a mere mention of hell.

Calling those who decide to have faith simple-minded, only shows your own simple-mindedness. Don't insult others because you can't find comfort in any spirituality.

Just FYI for the rest of you, I don't believe in an actual hell (even though I talk about people going there...it's figurative), and I don't believe in Santa Claus either...smart asses :)

[clixtox]

159. Nobody gives a rat's ass....

What you believe, or don't believe.

Since you asked: Yes, keep your "religious" beliefs, sophisticated or simple minded, spiritual or whatever, to yourself. Politics and religion don't, and shouldn't mix.

It is boring to hear about others beliefs and what credence is given buy some to outlandish superstitions, primarily because these expressions generally lead to cascading stupidity.

As you have so adroitly displayed.

Please desist.

Who cares...

Really

[workinclasszero]

15. Let her out

when her innocent victims rise out of their graves.

Until then she should rot in prison forever.

[SheilaT]

19. So no one here

thinks that someone can repent or be forgiven?

[slackmaster]

20. Maybe she can, but can you really ever trust someone who did what she did?

I can't.

[Critters2]

35. She's got terminal brain cancer and has had a leg amputated.

Do you really think she's a threat?

[slackmaster]

41. I don't know if she's a threat or not

I have to trust the "authorities" to make a sensible decision.

[Scairp]

56. Oh please

Since when are "authorities" sensible? Your trust is misplaced.

[slackmaster]

119. OK, then fucking let her rot in prison

:argh:

[np33]

92. Again

Its about PUNISHMENT!

[Critters2]

123. You call it punishment. I call it revenge.

For me, the job of the criminal justice system should be public safety. There are people I don't want wandering the streets. They should be in prison. I'm not afraid of one-legged women with terminal brain tumors. But that's me.

[Gormy Cuss]

158. No, actually it's above removing a threat to society.

Death penalties and life sentences are judgments that the person can never be rehabilitated and thus must be removed from free movement in the community. Prisoners who are so close to death aren't a threat to society anymore and compassionate releases are issued on that basis.

[ronnykmarshall]

115. Even if she is parolled she's not going leave the hospital.

I read another article in the LA Times today that while she is still a "prisoner", she's in a local hospital. It's very unlikely that she leave the hospital.

So there really isn't a difference if she's released or not.

[Melinda]

21. Without question, absolutely.

Speaking for myself, I believe in mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. However, I can't begrudge nor disparage those who disagree with my viewpoint, just as I would hope they would show me the same respect.

I believe that's 4 of us now. :hug:

[chelsea0011]

24. Of course they can. But getting out of jail isn't part of the deal.

[EFerrari]

36. She's dying. She'll never really be out of jail whether she's in or out. n/t

[JeanGrey]

26. That is up to God, not us.

[Critters2]

124. Jesus said "Blessed are the merciful." I'm pretty sure he meant us. nt

[JeanGrey]

187. We have LAWS. If she is truly saved, she will have her

reward in the next life. She has to answer for this one.

[bluestateguy]

28. I'm not aware that she has expressed any remorse at all

Correct me if I am wrong, but has she?

[shadowknows69]

30. Sure they can, but her sentence says that she does it in a cage.

[geomon666]

31. Sure, but not in this case.

If this woman wanted to truly repent she would've done it a long time ago, not before she's about to die. As for forgiveness, that's kind of impossible isn't it? The people she should be asking forgiveness from are dead.

Personally, I think she should die in prison. She'll get a more comfortable, dignified death than her victims did and she would have paid her debt to society. Win/win.

[Wagara]

46. IMO

Unless you've had a family member die in the prison system, that's a broad assumption to make. The prison infirmary is not equal to a regular hospital and visiting hours are adhered to regardless of a patient's condition. She'll probably die alone or with a fellow inmate who works in the infirmary. I'm speaking specifically of SC but don't imagine it's much different elsewhere.

As for her, it wouldn't harm to let her out but would probably cause an uproar with everyone having valid points.

[geomon666]

49. Well I didn't say it'd be like dying at the Hilton.

The point was is that she'll die "better" than her victims did. I'm in favor of letting her fulfill her life sentence.

[Baby Snooks]

44. Please

Doris Tate visited Charles Manson in prison and found herself forgiving him. But she always opposed his release. As does Sharon's family and quite a few others. Quite a few in California who opposed the death penalty had second thoughts about it with regard to the Manson family.

Even in prison they have served as mentors for the malcontents in our society who seek to blame society for their lot in life and who do from time to time strike out at society in the most evil of ways.

And there is no other word for what happened in Benedict Canyon and Los Feliz and on the ranch itself but just evil.

You can forgive the person but not the evil. And all of them are evil. Even the "innocent" ones like Linda Kasabian. She acted as if she didn't know what was going on. As if she didn't hear the screams. How could she not have heard the screams? Everyone in Benedict Canyon heard the screams. They didn't know where the screams were coming from. But she did. And she did nothing to stop the screams.

[madmusic]

73. Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau and the Prison Guard union

That's why we spend more on prisons than on higher education. Terrible crime and the families suffered but why take it out on everyone they can?

"The CCPOA has been active in funding and promoting the victims' rights movement in California. In 1991 the CCPOA assisted the movement in creating the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, and in 1992 the Crime Victims United of California, a political action committee which received over 95% of its startup costs from the CCPOA. In addition, the CCPOA has supported campaigns pushing longer prison terms and more "punitive" sentences for criminals. The CCPOA made large contributions to the 1994 campaign for Proposition 184,* the "three strikes" initiative which put repeat offenders behind bars, and is credited with helping the proposition to pass with over 70 percent of the vote."

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htCaliforniaPrisonUnion.htm

[Baby Snooks]

87. You have obviously never been a victim...

Only victims can understand the anger - some people simply have no place in society. No amount of education is going to change them. No amount of psychotherapy is going to change them. They are just evil.

The foundation Doris Tate founded is now the iCAN Foundation. As in I can have a voice. For myself and my daughter. Or my son. Or my friend.

www.ican-foundation.org

[madmusic]

121. www.ican-foundation.org is a good thing overall

That people get the support they need is a valuable service. I didn't criticize that and am genuinely glad you have support. What I do criticize is their support in conjunction with the Prison Guard Union of the overly broad Three Strikes Law that is sentencing some people to 25 to life though their 3rd felony is a petty theft. This argument is not dismissive of victim's needs.

This general rejection of any criticism and the insinuation that any debate is a preference of criminals over victims is extremely dangerous. That is what gets bad laws accepted and passed. Though victims deserve respect and the opportunity to be heard, their rights should not trump rational debate because like with any group not everything they want is ideal. The overly broad Three Strikes Law is but one example. An interesting poll would be to ask victims if they would want to do away the the Bill of Rights for criminals altogether. Maybe then we could get to the heart of the issue.

[psychopomp]

110. I have met one of those people

You would not believe how sweet and Innocent that little south Asian girl looked when she showed me the lock of Manson's hair she said she received from him. Charlie still has his "fans." I come from California and that Manson stuff is too close to home.

Bad juju amongst the Manson people. Real bad.

[ronnykmarshall]

117. I never heard that Doris met with Manson.

Where did you read that? I know that Manson refused to appear at many of his parol hearings whenever a member of the Tate family was there.

Doris Tate was a wonderful woman.

[NYC Liberal]

70. Of course they can.

That doesn't mean that murderers like her should be let free. If she's sorry, fine. But she still did what she did.

[JNelson6563]

118. If she's repented and been forgiven

then she gets to go to heaven, right? Just think of Paul's advice in the bible to those suffering the oppression of slavery. I believe the jist of it was "Be a good slave and keep your heavenly after-life in mind to get through it." Well, if Susan's now a born-again Christian she should look to her bible and Paul's "enlightened" advice to others who are not-free and also "children of God".

Julie

[Critters2]

125. Interesting that you quote (misquote, imo) Paul, but not Jesus. nt

[JNelson6563]

129. I know, it sucks

there's so much crap in the bible many would prefer was not there. The mental gymnastics required to see it as "enlightened" can be challenging.

Julie

[Critters2]

130. I think it is "enlightened". It calls for mercy for all, not just the repentent.

It was your statement that scripture teaches that she'll only be freed after death that I was taking issue with. Scripture talks about eternal life, which is NOT something that happens after death, but something that happens in this life.

Scripture also calls us to be merciful and kind. To love our enemies. I think that's enlightened.

[lolly]

145. Repentence not sufficient

If we only needed to repent (or prove we were no longer dangerous) after a crime, we'd all get a freebie.

Hey, I killed the neighbor who woke me up w/his lawnmower every morning, but I'm sorry now and I won't do it again!

OK, you can go.

Plenty of people have repented--truly repented--their crimes, but that doesn't mean they don't have to complete their punishment.

[frickaline]

154. you can repent and be forgiven while still accepting the consequences of your actions nt

[chelsea0011]

22. She still is getting six more months than the people they slaughtered.

Solitary for the final 6 months would be fine with me.

[shadowknows69]

27. Did you give your victims a compassionate release?

Fucking rot.

[Doctor_J]

29. Sure, you can go

Just kidding :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Glorfindel]

32. I'm glad it's not up to me. I hope they won't release her, though

She could, at any time, have shown one shred of compassion or of remorse. As far as I know, she never has. I'm really not sorry that she's dying, which probably makes me no better than she is. :(

[cyr330]

34. If she has brain cancer. . .

Then she may not even be in her right mind (not that she was in her right mind anyway given what she did!)to even remember what happened 40 years ago. . . It was an awful, cruel, violent, terrible thing to do, but should we keep her in prison? I have mixed feelings about it, but I am certain that her dangerous days are over with, and she won't be hurting anybody else. I say let her out. . .

[demwing]

37. Let Her Die In Prison

She was originally given the Death Penalty, and should have been executed. California's law changed, and her sentence was commuted to Life in Prison.

Evereyone who can do a little research knows she had no mercy when she killed. She was a brutal little psychopath, and enjoyed what she did. Let her spend the final months of her life, in prison, just as California required. She was already shown mercy when her sentence was changed. What has she done to deserve more?

Becomming terminally ill does not make you more of a human.

[Forrest Greene]

38. "Manson Family Today"

...bet that's a cheery, upbeat little site.

[ohio2007]

39. ..it seemed like a good idea at the time to -> KILL PIGS

no remorse back then.
but,
maybe
The board should take it under review


next year....

[Baby Snooks]

40. Unbelievable

I cannot believe anyone would support releasing her after what she and the others did.

Quite a few people who lived in Bendict Canyon heard the screams that night and called the police but in the canyons, no one could tell where the screams were coming from.

Quite a few people had nightmares long after that night and the following morning and some still do - I wonder if Susan Atkins ever had nightmares.

She is allowed to apply for the release as are other prisoners in California and other states that offer it.

Shame on California if they grant it.

[ronnykmarshall]

116. Someone that never recovered from that was Mrs. Champan.

She was Sharon and Roman's housekeeper. She escaped being killed herself. It was very hot that night and Sharon invited Mrs. Champan to stay the night instead of going home. She declined.

Mrs. Champman was the one to discover the slaughter the next morning. I've read that she never recovered emotionally from it and died years later.

[latebloomer]

43. Her husband is her lawyer?

I'd love to know the story behind THAT romance!

[Baby Snooks]

50. Another spawn from Hell

How could anyone love someone who would brutally murder a woman the way Susan Atkins did? Only a spawn from Hell would.

It's bad enough that attorneys defend people like Susan Atkins apart from guaranteeing their rights under the law are defended but to fall in love with them?

He fell in love with the evil obviously. He's just another spawn from Hell. Embracing its own. Enabling it. Loving it. Nurturing it.

Tex Watson was allowed to marry and have children. How could anyone give life to a child of someone who would brutally murder people the way Tex Watson did? Only a spawn from Hell would.

I worry about our society when people defend evil. Evil begets evil. And only evil defends it. Whether it is in Baghdad or Benedict Canyon.

[alcibiades_mystery]

80. You are, quite literally, insane

"Spawn from Hell."

Eeesh.

[Baby Snooks]

86. What he is

What people are who would fall in love with evil. Spawns from Hell.

[alcibiades_mystery]

95. Kooky

and ridiculous.

[kath]

90. Yeah, what the heck is up with THAT??

Jeebus.

[northernlights]

47. the manson murderers

are why I support the death penalty in extreme cases, such as theirs, where there is no doubt who did it. As cold-blooded and viscious as could be. Ted Bundy as well. And Jeffrey Dahmer.

But not for revenge, not as punishment, not as a deterrent, and not for "justice." Just as euthansia.

Personally, I think such killers should be viewed as failures of society. Can't be rehabilitated, a life in a cage is more cruel than a quick and painless death. So they should be euthanised, but it should be viewed soberly, sadly and as our failure. But necessary.

If they were dogs, badly bred or badly raised, that turned into biters, never mind killers, we'd euthanise in a heartbeat. Everybody would be sad about it, but recognize that life in a cage for them would be cruel, but they are too dangerous to allow outside a cage. So we euthanise. They don't suffer, and they don't get the opportunity to kill again.

There are many deserving people who don't get 1/10th the healthcare that Susan Atkins is getting. Save the resources for those who contribute to society, not those who are a danger.

[InvisibleTouch]

64. As you say, I think of the wasted resources...

...the resources used up to keep cretins like this alive and locked up and even medically provided-for, when those resources are so badly needed by others who haven't done any harm. I do support the death penalty when there's no doubt about the crime, but it's not about revenge/bloodlust to me - it's about the wasted resources, the unfairness of providing for those who don't deserve it, at the expense of others who could use the help.

[Chovexani]

202. You do realize multiple studies have proven the DP is more expensive?

[johnfunk]

51. Release her -- shackled to a gurney -- to Roman Polanski's personal custody...

... and make sure Polanski has already been provided with a fresh set of Ginsu knives.

[madmusic]

53. Oops

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/reviews/tv/la-et-polanski9-2008jun09,0,4732641.story">Plagued by a rabid American media and put in the hands of a judge known for his love of the spotlight, Polanski came to feel that his chance for equal treatment under the law was slim to none.

[Scairp]

57. Well, he has his own legal problems now doesn't he?

He's a fugitive in this country, so I don't think the parole board in California gives two shits about what Polanski feels or thinks regarding the murder of his pregnant wife and her friends.

[LTR]

105. I was going to say...

...nahhh, she's too old.

:hide:

Bad joke, bad joke.

:spank:

[johnfunk]

139. ROTFLMFAO

:rofl:

[happygoluckytoyou]

55. ok... let's check out the "race card".... if she was a black man? if she was a redneck? sorry..

sorry.....life without parole.... be glad you got life.....
.....do i forgive her ?

i dont forgive General Powell for lying the troops into harms way
i dont forgive Dubya for lying the nation in this mess

they shouldn't worry..... jesus will forgive them..... and about that same time i will too

[brentspeak]

58. No.

She should receive palliative hospice care within her prison, or some such facility, but she does not deserve to be released - period.

[bronxiteforever]

59. In 2002 she filed suit against the government

"In 2002, Atkins filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that she is a "political prisoner" due to the repeated denials of her parole requests regardless of her suitability."see wikipedia


Her parole was denied BECAUSE she is a cold blooded killer.
She should continue to serve the life sentence she gave all the family members of the victims.

[AwakeAtLast]

60. She should receive the same kind of mercy she gave Sharon Tate, her child, and the others.

I do not believe in the Death Penalty. I do however believe in life imprisonment when it is warranted, as it is here. Life in prison means life in prison, even if it is painful. That was her sentence and it should be carried out, IMHO.

[LTR]

107. I agree

I'm mostly against the death penalty because I see it as the easy way out for our country's most heinous criminals. It's like, 'hey, we'll spare you all those miserable years to come staring at concrete walls, eating shitty food and fearing for your life. We'll end it all now with this needle.'

Life imprisonment is a much harsher sentence than capital punishment, and a much more just one. Besides, I feel it's rather hypocritical of our government to decide who dies and who doesn't, and administer the same penalty to the perpetrator that he/she did themselves. How does that make us better?

The life sentences being served by the Manson crowd are adequate, and I hope they're quite miserable for all of them. These are very nasty, vile people that should never see freedom again.

[Twig]

132. I used to be rabid about "Let them FRY"

But over the years I've come to realize that life imprisonment is a much more just sentence. I would hate to be the juror deciding to let her live or die, and there are soooo many people being exonerated now for crimes they didn't commit - I can no longer justify capital punishment.

I believe the worst sentence should be solitary confinement. To never have contact with another human being for their lifetime. My gawd, I can't believe I just wrote that - it sounds far worse than death.

Twig

[edbermac]

61. The article also says that Prosecutor Bugliosi has no objection to her release.

I read his book on the case, Helter Skelter. I was a little surprised since he is quite vocal in his position that the Manson Family members should remain in prison.

[madmusic]

72. Bugliosi is a bleeding heart liberal.

Wait, where am I?

[Baby Snooks]

88. The hidden justice

Beneath the apparent compassion on the part of the man who prosecuted her is a knowledge that she is receiving better care at this point inside the prison system than she would outside the prison system whether she is put on MediCal or her husband has to pay the bills.

There is a hidden justice in it. Given the abominable state of "public health care" in California, most likely she will die on a gurney in a hallway in a hospital completely unattended by anyone. She will reach out the way Sharon Tate reached out to her. And be shown the same level of compassion as she showed Sharon Tate.

I am, again, just appalled, disgusted really, by anyone who would have compassion for Susan Atkins.

[madmusic]

122. Compassion and sympathy

http://jerrygrubbs.blogspot.com/2007/10/lady-justice.html">Lady justice isn't sure what you mean.



Compassion and sympathy are often confused with impartial and compassion is often neglected as perhaps the only check on the rush to judgment at the expense of impartiality. How that came about is something to ponder.

Justice and Mercy
Located in the plaza between the Beeson Law Library and the Robinson Hall, the statue grew out of a phrase Mrs. Lucille Beeson wanted to have placed on the Law Library, "Seek wisdom to temper justice with compassion". The concept is that the Angel of Mercy is seen encouraging the Lady of Justice. She is staying the sword of justice to keep it from being used too swiftly, tempering it with compassion. The sculptor is Glynn Acree from Roswell, Georgia who also created statues for Emory, Georgia Tech, Mercer, and the University of Georgia.

http://www.samford.edu/buildings.html#

[Scairp]

147. Thank you

Well said. And your image is appropriate, considering the topic of this thread.

[madmusic]

197. The key is wisdom

I don't claim to have it and in fact am very unwise at times, which is good reason for me not to be elected or appointed to some office as important as the parole board, but that the rush to judgment can only be tempered by compassion makes sense. What else can do the job? A lynch mob never considers compassion. Nor can I claim to know if she should die outside the walls or not. The parole board has more facts and wisdom though it may be swayed away by public outcry if it even considers it.

But the blood lust here reeks too much of past abuses. Where will it lead? Maybe to thousands of troops along side the police like in Italy right now.

[catnhatnh]

65. Sadly, I must vote "no" to release....

even while admitting that nearly 40 years in prison is a horrible fate.I could support a less secure facility and increased family contacts.Life sentences must sometimes mean that based on the crime or they are worthless. Others face death at sixty without alleviation of suffering.I would like her to complete her sentence WHILE being shown a degree of mercy by the state. If as many posters posit, there is a Hell, she may burn in it, but if that IS so and judgement IS inevitable, then would not earthly mercy be a good thing in the eyes of your Lord?

[Festivito]

66. Vengeance, retribution, punishment, ... are cheap forms of justice.

... unsatisfying.

How should we treat those pushed into heinous actions, unconscionable actions, due to the Milgrim styled goading authority undermines within ourselves and our soldiers.

I don't know if she should go free.

Justice is the first and foremost establishment of our country.

We are a rich nation of too many unreached ideals and too many cheap hoods.

[superconnected]

102. How is keeping a mass murderer in prison, vengence?

How is wanting her to serve her life sentence, bad?

People who slit other peoples throats, and taunt them, really should do their jail time. Not only if they finally show remorse (has she yet?) but even when they get old and have physical issues. They should consider that when they're murdering people and about to be incarcerated. The familys of the victims STILL deserve the justice of knowing this woman is off the streets, serving her sentence.

[Festivito]

114. ...because it is to punish... not heal... What would be V to you?

How is keeping a mass murderer in prison, vengeance?
There are more vengeful avenues. There are less, incarceration is punishment, not hoping to heal the perpetrator, but to harm him/her -- in order to avenge the criminality, not to correct it.

How can you find incarceration as not at least somewhat vengeful?

How is wanting her to serve her life sentence, bad?
It's not bad. I did not say it was bad, nor did I say it was good.

I do notice that your desire to keep her there arises from how bad was the crime, rather than from what can be done to help the victims: family, friends, et. al.

People who slit other peoples throats, and taunt them, really should do their jail time. Not only if they finally show remorse (has she yet?) but even when they get old and have physical issues. They should consider that when they're murdering people and about to be incarcerated.

Then you address the family as a second thought.

The familys(sic) of the victims STILL deserve the justice of knowing this woman is off the streets, serving her sentence.

And, this address assumes incarceration as satisfactorily just for them.

Your response seems to be knee-jerk stereotyping to things you thought you were reading.

Understandable, since it is one of the most outrageous crimes in the world. Sadly, one of many.

EDITING TO ADD:
My point remians for me: Vengence is not bad, nor good, but that it is cheap, a cheap form of justice. And, if you think that victims should be happy enough with cheap justice, so be it.

[ninety lives]

148. Out of sensitivity to the friends and families of the victims....

She should be in a place where she is not hurtful to them.

Some people - a lot of people - speak as if the victims are all horrible repressive "unforgiving" people.

As long as a murderer lives and breathes, he or she is hurtful. That person should therefore be contained in such a way that they are less hurtful.

I'm not sure if someone that violent can be "healed". Are you a physician or psychiatrist?

What is really hurtful to victims of crime is when politicians and "activists" decide what is and what isn't "fair" or "healing" to victims.

[superconnected]

213. So is everyone who goes to jail uh... really paying actually the price of vengence?

Gee I don't think you need to ever be on a parole board.

[Festivito]

224. A rather glib use of "everyone."

Perhaps you should not be on any board with that.

[Scairp]

179. It is when the law allows for parole

She's been denied, in my opinion, due the infamy of the case. I think that any other senior citizen who had killed almost forty years ago and was now about to die would get compassionate parole. It is vengeance, it's politics, it's public relations, it's anything but justice in the case of all the girls, now women, who participated in these terrible murders. And without a doubt they were some of the worst this country has ever experienced, but the law says they can be paroled, so keeping them when they are clearly remorseful and clearly no threat to society is vengeance, which is very plainly unconstitutional. The emotional responses here are not about the law in any way, form or fashion. It's a visceral reaction to the crimes.

[Festivito]

225. Vengeance in NOT unconstitutional.

Incarceration is neither cruel nor unusual. I'm just saying that we can do better than only an old cheap standard.

[barb162]

218. "pushed into heinous actions"

Who pushed her? She did it willingly. There's a concept called personal responsibility too.

[Festivito]

223. Manson. And try google on milgrim experiments./nt

[bitchkitty]

68. Let her go to a hospice where her family can stay with her.

What she did was godawful, but she's old and sick, and having pieces cut off already hasn't helped - she's dying.

If she wasn't so sick I'd say keep her in prison, but it's not like she'll do anyone any harm in the state she's in now.

[moobu2]

74. Let her go for christ’s sake.

[crikkett]

76. is this woman, 'squeaky'? --oops nevermind she's not.

Manson was before my time, and my question was posted before I read comments. Thxkbai

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. Ironically, Atkins is the reason Manson and his crew are even in prison

She was the first to turn states evidence on the Tate-Labianca killings after she told a cellmate while temporarily incarcerated for car theft conspiracy. The LAPD Robbery Homicde unit had no fucking clue who did it, and may have never even caught the perpetrators were it not for Susan Atkins crazy big mouth. She testified before the Grand Jury, testimony which led to the indictments. It was only afterwards that she recanted, but Bugliosi had found a better witness in Linda casabian, who at least had the virtue of not having actually killed anyone (and feeling remorse). Casabian - initially charged in the slayings - got a walk in exchange for testimony, while Atkins, the original state's witness, became one of the loony three "Manson Girls" who stood trial with Charlie.

Much of the braying on this thread is embarrassing. The murders were indeed horrible, but likely no more horrible than any number of other murders that took place at the time. People are so emotionally invested in them because they took on a mythical cultural status, not least because of their (supposed) tie in to social change in the 1960's. The notion that these women (Leslie van Houten was, I think, 18 at the time of the slayings, and was not even present at the Tate slaying) should "ROT IN HELL FOREVAH!!!!!" is transposing the cultural fantasy of these murders for the law. These women should have the same objective criteria applied to their parole bids as any other prisoner in the same category. That doesn't mean they should get out, but that fair and objective standards should rule the process, rather than the obvious and embarrassing emotionalism displayed by so many posters on this thread.

[treestar]

120. Reasonable Post

On thread of general hysteria.

It's a good thing none of them had a really good lawyer, either. Much could have been made of the insanity defense. Manson himself wasn't present at the murder scenes, and a really good lawyer might possibly have gotten him off due to that. Though they were all BSC, and needed to be locked up somewhere for the safety of society.

[Critters2]

126. Nice to see a voice of reason. Thank you. nt

[Sultana]

82. "compassionate release"

yea rigggghhhttt. She didn't have compassion for the people she murdered.

Burn in hell, Susan

[smiley_glad_hands]

93. It's one thing to be compassionate, it's another to be stupid. n/t

[np33]

94. Also

if this was some poor smuck who was in prison for holding up a convience store would this even be making news and would the poor smuck even have a chance of getting this type of release?

[LTR]

103. Let her rot in prison

Sharon Tate and the other victims didn't get much sympathy from these evil scumbags.

I try not to be vindictive, but Atkins at least deserves at least as painful and miserable a death as her victims. She's a serial killer who deserves no sympathy.

[PittPoliSci]

106. no mercy.

she didn't show tate any, why should she receive any?

[PittPoliSci]

109. why life without parole in this case?

i'm not a supporter of the death penalty by any means, but why imprison someone for life without parole if the state is to let them out before they die because they are sick?

life without parole = life without parole. illness does not account for their crimes, and it does not justify an early release.

[alcibiades_mystery]

133. She wasn't sentenced to life without parole

Her sentence was commuted to life in prison after the death sentence was struck down.

There was no "life without parole" statute at that time, and, indeed, all inmates in this case are entitled to the same parole hearings as any other inmate sentenced for similar crimes under the law at that time. Compassionate release for illness can be petitioned for by any prosner, and there are objective standards by which these petitions are evaluated.

Please know what the fuck you're talking about first.

[PittPoliSci]

222. tell me honestly...

the unnecessary swearing at me, was that because you're 13, or developmentally arrested? i'm going to say the latter because i've read your other responses in this thread. grow up.

[alcibiades_mystery]

230. Who says the swearing was unnecessary?

:rofl:

Do you live in a world where only teenagers swear, because that's a strange world indeed!

Oh, and your pretend catching of the vapors over a little f-word (gasp!) doesn't hide the fact that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about in that post. Nice try, though. :rofl:

[Lasher]

111. Just as soon as Sharon Tate gets a compassionate release from death.

But not until.

[lynne]

113. Sorry, Susan, you need to stay where you are -

- let her family come into the prison to be with her until the end. She not only butchered Sharon Tate and her baby, she confessed to the murder of Gary Hinman and was doing armed robberies before she met up with Charlie. She received the death sentence for the Manson murders which was later changed to life in prison when California law changed.

She's lived 30 extra years and there is no reason to let her out to die when other felons don't have the same luxury.

[alcibiades_mystery]

134. Any prisoner in the system can petition for compassionate release

due to terminal illness, so your claim "when other felons don't have the same luxury" doesn't make any sense at all.

[AngryOldDem]

127. Less than six months to live....

...release her to a hospice. Keeping her in prison will not bring Sharon Tate, nor anyone else, back.

I'm curious to know the Tate family's opinion on this...from what I hear they still attend every scheduled parole hearing.

[np33]

135. Okay

let me get this straight many people on DU are against the Death Penalty which in most cases agree. And now apparently some people want to take it a step further and say anyone (because if one person should get this treatment then everyone) who is old and ill in prison should be released? Are some of you prepared to say open the jails to any and everyone with a terminal illness? Furthermore if someone who was on the lamb is caught and found to be old and sickly should they be absolved from serving their punishment? Where exactly does this "compassion" end before we start saying hey you committed a crime and now you'll have to serve the time regardless of your age of physical state.

[alcibiades_mystery]

141. Get a clue

"Her request for release has already been approved by the California Institution for Women in Corona, where she was housed from April 1971 until March, when she was transferred to a local hospital for treatment.

Officials at the Corona facility concluded that Atkins should be considered for release because of her failing health and because she no longer posed a risk to others.

Several obstacles remain, however. Her bid for release must still be approved by officials at the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Thornton said. A positive recommendation would send her case to the state Board of Parole, which would conduct an investigation and issue its own findings, she said. That hearing could include public comment.

Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Atkins, said she deserved the death penalty in 1971. But the former prosecutor said he believed now that Atkins has sincerely renounced Manson and that her 37 years in prison, along with her illness, changed things.

"She has paid substantially, though not completely, for her horrendous crimes. Paying completely would mean imposing the death penalty," Bugliosi said. "But given that she has six months to live, and the loss of her leg, I don't have an objection to her being released."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-atkins13-2008jun13,0,4594356.story

Compassionate release for terminal illness is not the fairy-dust desire of a few DUers, but an official policy with established protocols and procedures, your philosophical musings notwithstanding. In Atkins case, it has already been accepted by the prison officials (notorious liberal lah-dee-dah-dees, to be sure...), and even Bugliosi himself is not against it. Atkins has been in prison longer than any other living woman in the state of California.

[np33]

161. Good job

of contibuting to the inequality of our judicial system. Because if Susan Atkins was some poor minority this would even be an issue and definetly wouldn't married some Harvard Law Grad.

And someone how I doubt that if Susan Atkins was some former gang banger serving life you would be advocating for them with such zeal. I hate to say this but some people still after all this time cannot wrap their mind around the ideal that this moosy looking white woman could have willingly participated in such horrible crimes.

btw
Is everyone aware that this woman has written two books and married twice behind bars. So she isn't living in Gulag.

[alcibiades_mystery]

163. I'm not advocating for Ms. Atkins

She should probably remain in jail. Injdeed, I'm utterly indifferent about whether she is granted compassionate release or not. I don't care whether they let her out or keep her in.

As is obvious to anybody with a lick of sense or 8th grade reading comprehension, I'm advocating precisely for the same criteria to be applied to the "gang banger serving life" and Ms. Atkins. You're the one who wants a different set of criteria for the two, not me. Nice try, though.

[np33]

164. No

actually I think they both should remain in jail. As I mentioned before because of her race and the high-profile nature of her crimes she is probably being granted more privileges then your average prisoner.


And what exactly is your point other then showing; I'm sure your intellectual supeority because you googled compassionate release.

[alcibiades_mystery]

168. Huh?

Try coherent sentences next time.

My point is simple: the same criteria (for parole, compassionate release, or whatever dispensation) should be applied to everybody in the system (based, of course, on category).

Your personal desires relative to parole, or Ms. Atkins conditions of incarceration, are completely beside the point, so I see no need to respond to those.

[np33]

173. Okay

"My point is simple: the same criteria (for parole, compassionate release, or whatever dispensation) should be applied to everybody in the system (based, of course, on category)."

I would think anyone most would agree with this however in reference to what this ENTIRE THREAD is about Susan Atkins' crimes go beyond any consideration of parole and she certaintly should not be granted "compassionate release".

capiche

[alcibiades_mystery]

178. That's the nub of the issue

I'm glad you finally recognized it.

But that's exactly the question: would an objective determination land on the same answer that the emotional hysteria on this thread lands on? I don't know. In any case, you'd have to show that similar crimes are treated similarly. Your single-minded focus on this particular crime, lacking any comparative evidence or additional criteria suggests that the evaluation is far from sound.

Whether people on this thread would claim to agree with objective criteria being applied equally is one thing. The behavior on this thread, which drums up the specificity of this crime again and again says quite another. There's no doubt that the severity of the crime should be one criterion, and arguably the most important (and arguably not the most important). But its severity is relative to other crimes in the same category. If other people guilty of other crimes in the same category are or have been paroled, then the severity argument gets a little weak. In fact, the severity of the crime here is certainly influenced by its status as a much mythologized media event. That's well and good, but it's hardly an objective evaluation based on the crime itself (somebody paroled for a similar crime 15 years ago, for example, could be said to just have been lucky that the public and media didn't raise that particular crime to the level of a media mythology). A roll of the dice on whether people feel a certain way about a crime is not an objective evaluation if its severity.

[AngryOldDem]

185. I didn't know she has been in prison longer than any other woman...

What about Leslie Van Houten, who, apparently, has had a genuine religious conversion while in prison? Other than Squeaky Fromme, are Atkins and Van Houten the only remaining Manson Girls incarcerated?

[alcibiades_mystery]

188. Van Houten actually saw some release time during her retrial

She was also apprehended after Atkins, originally, I believe.

Squeaky Fromme wasn't incarcerated until after the Ford assassination attempt. The other woman incarcerated for the Tate-LaBianca murders is Patricia Krenwinkle, who was actually - in my view - more viciously involved in the actual killings (especially at Ciello Drive) than even Atkins. Atkins, van Houten, and Krenwinkle were the three who were tried and convicted with Manson.

[AngryOldDem]

183. On second thought, you're right.

Let her rot. She only has six months left anyway.

Feel better?

(On the lamb????)

[Skittles]

215. Sharon's mother, father and youngest sister are dead

one sister Debra survives and she is against release for any Manson family members

[Deja Q]

140. Was she compassionate to her victims?

[asthmaticeog]

142. The appeals to pathos on this thread are why we have a justice system, not a vengeance system.

If the justice system were contrived to satisfy the bloodlust of vengefully-minded screamers, it would suck even WORSE than the problematically racist and classist system we have now. And it's why laws should be made and sentences decided by sober-minded people at a remove from the heat of anger instead of being left to the mob, so easily swayed by emotional appeals. Some of the punishism on this thread is sickening.

[LeftyMom]

144. I may never say this on DU again, and somebody should bookmark this for later blackmail

but you're absolutely right. :thumbsup:

[readmoreoften]

204. Wait, but isn't TEX WATSON getting out? Why no outrage there?

What? He became a prison chapelin?

[ninety lives]

150. I agree with you, however....

When someone has already confessed to a brutal crime, saying "let her rot" is hardly the same as "bloodlust" or "screaming".

One can be "sober minded" and "angry" at the same time.

I've had more than a few authoritarian jerks tell me that what I have to say is worth nothing at all because I'm not "at a remove" from this or that issue.

If only those who were "at a remove" from an issue were the ones who should judge or opine, we'd have the same old authoritarian WASP system we had in the 1950s. Or the 1980s.

"At a remove" is the same sort of phrase that is used by the media to marginalize black people and their opinions on just about anything, for an example.

So, while I agree with you in some ways, I disagree with your assumptions. If I'm reading you correctly, you think it is actually possible for some people to be "removed" from issues like violence. Is that true? Doesn't violence - especially spectacular violence like this - affect ALL of us?

[alcibiades_mystery]

151. Application of objective criteria is the same process as racism, then?

Ay yay yay.

[EFerrari]

170. No. It's not possible to be angry and sober minded at the same time.

Anger is a reaction, not a thought.

[np33]

165. Unless human beings

become computers with absolutely no emotions, prejudices, etc then your idea is pretty moot. I would really like to see the person who could look at crime scene photos of the Manson killing and feel absolutely no emotion. Thats kind of silly when you think of it. Though I agree our justice basically grinds up those too poor and particularly minorities who lack the resources for adequate defense; however if this was just "punishism" this woman would have been strung up and hung from the nearest tree.




Also if you are convicted of heinous crime you should absolutely be punished to the full extent of the law. Why is that sickening?

[asthmaticeog]

172. Three!

Three straw man constructions in your post! You'll do GREAT here at DU! :thumbsup:

People needn't be emotionless robots, np33, but they should make laws and judgments dispassionately, and not in the heat of anger. We CAN do that, and in fact that was one of the Founders' ideals when they were framing this country's laws to begin with. So my idea is not "pretty moot." I don't think one should look at a photo of the Manson killings' crime scenes and feel absolutely nothing. Such a person might be a sociopath. I'm saying that passions so aroused have no place in criminal judgments. As for your last bit, the fullest extent of which law? Is it just that someone can be executed for a crime in Texas but not for an identical crime in Michigan? Is that disparity not sickening, or at the very least does it not give you pause? The "full extent of the law" is an arbitrary construct, better-defined in Joe Don Baker films than in real life jurisprudence.

[np33]

174. In your last

part are you then in favor of the Federal Government determining the "full extent" of the law? How do you remedy this other then having one final authority telling each state what their final form of punishment should be. I agree that its ridiculous how a criminal could murder 4 people in one state and live the rest of his/her life out while another person for the exact crime will be executed. But I just don't know if there are any easy solutions.

[asthmaticeog]

175. That is in fact how it was

for a time when the SCOTUS banned the death penalty -- which, ironically or fittingly in the context of this discussion, I can't quite tell which -- is why Ms. Atkins is even alive today.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

194. You say it like it's a bad thing

"How do you remedy this other then having one final authority telling each state what their final form of punishment should be."

So, if one state decides some crimes should be punished with Mengele-like torture in a public square, and the Federal goverment steps in and says no, it's a bad thing?

And in the very next sentence you contradict yourself.

"I agree that its ridiculous how a criminal could murder 4 people in one state and live the rest of his/her life out while another person for the exact crime will be executed. But I just don't know if there are any easy solutions."

Easy I don't know, but there is one RIGHT solution, which is banning the death penalty. The reason it isn't easy is that too many people are unhealthily bloodthirsty, and they vote.

[EFerrari]

171. It's frightening AND sickening. n/t

[silverojo]

143. Let her rot.

Do the crime, do the time.

[frickaline]

152. It is not about punishment, it is about containment

This is a mass murderer. We are suggesting releasing this person into society. We think she might have 6 months to live but no one can honestly know how long she has left. If she believes she has only a short time to live remaining, what might she do with her remaining time? I for one don't care to find out.

I don't want her to suffer in prison, however if my choice is between her potential suffering in prison and the potential suffering she might cause to innocent society, I'm afraid she loses.

[robcon]

153. She has to serve her sentence, even until her death.

Show her the same mercy she showed Sharon Tate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

160. Her sentence stipulates opportunities for parole

There was no "life without parole" (which is a barbaric and reactionary sentence, in any case) at the time Atkins' sentence was commuted. That's why Manson and all these people constantly come up for parole. It is not obvious that any of them should ever be paroled. Indeed, there are good reasons against paroling any of them. However, there are also good reasons for paroling some of them. The point is that they should receive the same consideration as any other prisoner in the same category and with similar offenses. Their crimes were not "special cases" that require another level of evaluative criteria. Rather, evaluative criteria for parole and other dispensations mean nothing if they are not applied objectively across the board. Needless to say, this does not mean that we ignore the specificity of the criminal act, but that its specificity fits into a category. As it stands, the "Manson women," are denied parole time and again when others in the same category are granted parole. Indeed, they have spent more time in prison than any other living women in the state of California. Obviously, then, there is at least evidence of uneven application of the parole criteria. The question, then, is why?

Some say that the criteria is not being applied unevenly, but that the nature of the crimes requires that parole not be granted. This would be a more convincing argument were there knowledge or even acknowledgment of other crimes in the same category. But none are ever mentioned. We never get a comparative analysis, because people don't know of other crimes. They know (often faintly, as some know-nothing posts in this thread indicate) of this crime, because this crime was a media spectacle of first order. Why? First, because one of the victims was a movie star. Notice that nobody in this thread mentions ANY other victim of the Tate-LaBianca slayings, not even coffee heiress Abigail Folger, who one would think would be equally memorable. Second, because the crime took on a mythic stature in a culture terrified of social change (dirty new-age hippies, which the Manson family at least resembled, even if their political philosophy was directly opposed to the SDS, and was fascist and racist in its essence).

Now, you might say "Show her the same mercy she showed Sharon Tate." If you want that to be an objective criterion, then you would have to argue against parole tout court. That is, if you're applying that logic as a general principle of law rather than as an emotional reaction to *this* crime, then you would have to be against parole in general, since the same could be said of any convicted murderer. Fine, then. You are against parole in general. Nobody convicted of (intentional) murder should ever be parole, because that would NOT be showing them the same mercy they showed their victims. Good. But that's not the law. If you're thinking objectively and according to the law, that cannot be your criterion. It simply cannot.

On the other hand, you might say "No, this is a special case." But then the argument cannot be "Show her the same compassion/ mercy/ etc." that she showed her victim. Rather, the only argument that would make sense is a detailed case for the "specialness" of this case. In other words, you would have to show why the same criteria should not be applied in this case relative to other cases of intentional murder in the same category (mass or multiple slaying with home invasion, etc.). If others have been paroled for similar cases, then you have a problem.

[robcon]

191. Boy, you really over-reacted with a long response.

All I was saying is that her impending death should have NO impact on her sentence or on her parole. If her sentence has not been completed, and she has no parole, she should serve until her death. If she's eligible for parole - so be it.

If she's not eligible for parole, don't create a unique reason for parole for her case. Show no extra mercy to her, any more than she showed for Sharon Tate. Let justice be done independent of whether she's dying.

[JeanGrey]

201. It is very obvious to many of us that they should not even

be coming up for parole, considering they missed what they truly deserved by the skin of their teeth.

[alcibiades_mystery]

220. That may be obvious to you, but it was the sentence, and she does come up for parole

as do dozens of others who you know jack shit about, and thus have no comment about. The system of parole for this category of offenders exists. The question, therefore, is not whether they SHOULD come up for parole: the law at the time of their sentencing already determined the answer to that. The question is whether they should be paroled, and for that you need an objective standard.

[superconnected]

209. At the time of her sentence she was sentenced to the death penalty

which is a little stonger than 'life without parole'. So even though that didn't exist, she wasn't supposed to be paroled anyway. She was to be killed for her killings.
The reason there's life with no parole is because they don't kill the people that should never get out but they still need to make sure they never get out.

Your reasons works great for the rehabilitated but most serial killers never show remorse and they do have a tendency to go on killing for their lifetime.

What next, do you want Ridgeway(the greenriver killer) out, when he says he's converted to christianity and he has cancer? Shall we trust him?

I'm for mercy but that mercy can be in prison while the person isn't giving the chance to harm others ever again. Her mercy was letting her live and not torturing her like she did to others. I have a friend whose best friend was killed by a guy in a wheel chair - shot to death in an angry argument, so don't even start with disabled people can't kill people. it's what's IN their head, it's not their disability that makes them safe or not.

[alcibiades_mystery]

221. Spurious all the way around

She was sentenced to death, but her official sentence upon commutation is life with parole. You may not like that, but that was the law. Sorry.

Ridgeway has been in jail for a few years. One could hardly compare that with somebody who has been in prison for forty years. Dubious at best.

Your rant about disability is weird and strawmanesque in the extreme, since nobody even came close to making such a silly argument.

[Ayesha]

216. Parole for murder?

I don't think that these killers are receiving less consideration than others who have committed similar crimes. Do you really think that the state regularly paroles individuals who brutally murder multiple people? Susan Atkins killed Sharon Tate and her unborn baby in a horrific manner. I can think of a recent similar case in which the victim and killer were not famous prior to the crime...Laci Peterson. Scott as you may recall got the death penalty. If the death penalty got outlawed again, I seriously doubt that Scott Peterson would ever get out of prison!

[alcibiades_mystery]

219. Perhaps so, perhaps not

The point is that you don't know. "I seriously doubt" could hardly be taken seriously as an empirically based comparative argument, which is what you need.

[Seabiscuit]

157. A one-legged sexagenarian with brain cancer on a killing rampage? I don't think so, Tim.

I don't think they're keeping her there to protect the rest of us any more.

[Dreamer Tatum]

162. Fatuous Post of the Day Award Winner

She's there because there is no reason to grant parole. She's sick? Well, no shit. Old people get sick.

The fact of the matter is that she is still in the joint because of the truly grotesque, cruel, and shocking
way in which she slaughtered her victims. California has NO CHOICE but to leave her in - that's the price you pay for
notoriety and fame (which, by the way, the Mansons sought out at the time).

Whether she is a danger to society now is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the faith that Californians have in its
justice system to do its job.

[Seabiscuit]

190. IOW, she's there to be punished. Not to protect us, and not for rehabilitation.

Nothing wrong with that.

Those are the three rationales for imprisonment, BTW: punshment, prevention (from harming society) and rehabilitation. Just wanted to make sure we're all clear about it.

[JustAnotherGen]

169. Here's the thing . . .

I don't believe in hell. It's hooey some man made up to keep people in line and/or to excuse their own non 'human family' behavior. Not possible in my vision of the Spirit that there's a devil either! LOL!

Human beings have the capacity for great evil when they turn or are turned away from their sense of belonging to the human family.

This is a person who has inflicted great evil on another innocent human being - who didn't ask for it. Who had done nothing to her. It wasn't an act of self-defense - it was just cold blooded murder.

If her 'hell on earth' is to die in prison - then so be it.

[Medusa]

177. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime

in Atkins case, it was multiple crimes (multiple murders). They calll it a LIFE sentence for a good reason. Life until you die. So be it. Under some of the very faulty logic I see being presented here some of you seem to think that we should open up all the prison doors and let everyone out just long as they say they're sorry or they're about to die. I'm glad there's a parole board in CA and that some of you aren't on it!

[jzodda]

189. I say let her rot till she dies in jail

From the CNN article

"According to historical accounts of the murders, Atkins stabbed Tate, who was 8½ months pregnant, and scawled the word "pig" in blood on the door of the home the actress shared with director Roman Polanski."

She got to live decades longer then Tate and the others did.

[mainegreen]

192. I'll side with the let her rot crowd.

At some point nothing you do should be allowed to undo previous actions.

[Scout]

207. let her die in the prison hospital n/t

[fbahrami]

210. Others who've committed worse crimes

are roaming free and wielding power. Rest assured there is justice.

[superconnected]

214. Sharon tate was 26 when she died. Atkins is 60 and dying of natural causes

yes brain cancer is a natural cause. She got to live to be old. Tate had a whole life ahead of her. Atkins help take it away. Atkins helped end 4 lives that weren't hers.



Sharon Tate - I picked this off her site because it shows how beautiful she was.

Atkins got mercy by not being executed - which she was sentenced to, and by living a life without torture, in prison. For Tate's family - (her sister is running a tribute site which I grabbed this off), Atkins needs to finish her life sentence and not be let go. All families of all serial killers deserve this consideration.

[chatnoir]

227. "Look, bitch, I don't care about you! You're going to die, and I don't feel anything about it!"

These poor ppl were slaughtered, begging for their lives. Sharon Tate, 8 1/2 months pregnant, left for last, watching while everyone else was butchered and then begging for the life of her baby, out of her mind with fear and terror.

"Look, bitch," Atkins sneered, looking Sharon straight in the eye, "I don't care about you! I don't care if you're going to have a baby! You had better be ready. You're going to die, and I don't feel anything about it".

Apologize in advance for the graphic nature but these are Atkin's own words:

"It felt so good the first time I stabbed her", Atkins gushed to a cellmate, "and when she screamed at me it did something to me, sent a rush through me, and I stabbed her again... I just kept stabbing her until she stopped screaming...It was just like going into nothing, going into air...It's like a sexual release. Especially when you see the blood spurting out. It's better than a climax."

This sociopath, who was "tired but elated" after that night, is living out her natural life with medical care. If only Tate, Sebring, Folger, Frykowski and Parent were allowed to live out their natural lives.

[katerinasmommy]

228. If You Deliberately Take a Life You Should Remain in Prison for Life

There are exceptions such as self defense etc, but for me that's the bottom line. Take a life, lose yours, at least the chance for any real one outside

[alcibiades_mystery]

229. That's a nice opinion, though it doesn't happen to be the law

in the state of California.

cheers.

[RNdaSilva]

231. If I'm on the parole board...

NO!