Debra Tate: Manson family "should stay right where they are - in prison - until they die"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

After three decades behind bars, Manson family members Atkins, Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten have repeatedly been described as model prisoners who have accepted responsibility for their crimes.

Parole boards, however, continue to reject their bids for release, and a debate rages over whether the four should ever be freed.

Debra Tate told CNN in an e-mail she does not believe any Manson family member convicted of murder should ever be set free. She said the slayings of the victims, including some that may have not been discovered, were "so vicious, so inhumane, so depraved, that there is no turning back. "

"The 'Manson Family' murderers are sociopaths, and from that, they can never be rehabilitated," Debra Tate said. "They should all stay right where they are -- in prison -- until they die. There will never be true justice for my sister Sharon and the other victims of the 'Manson Family.' Keeping the murderers in prison is the least we, as a society who values justice, can do."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/30/manson.family.aging/index.html

[slackmaster]

1. I agree with her

:nuke:

[bluestateguy]

2. Why do these losers keep trying to ask for parole?

If they accepted responsibility for their crimes, then they should serve the life sentences. They didn't steal a car, they killed several people.

[kestrel91316]

13. They were given life sentences, NOT life without the possibility of parole.

So goes the law. They are legally entitled to be considered for parole. I don't consider them to be threats to society anymore. Manson, OTOH, will be a threat 'til he dies.

[CakeGrrl]

15. So if they had said to your pregnant daughter (as Susan Atkins said to Sharon Tate)

"Look bitch, I have no mercy for you. You're going to die and I don't feel anything about it."

but years later they've been deemed 'no longer a threat to society' or someone has decided that they've accepted responsibility for their crimes, you'd be OK to let them out to live their days in freedom?

I wouldn't.

They need to stay where they are. Their sentences were originally death but were commuted to life. They're damned lucky they get to live out their lives until their bodies give out of their own accord.

[blondeatlast]

25. Indeed. I went to art school with a young woman who frequently wore a Charles Manson tee-shirt.

One day a couple of us older students asked her if she knew why he and the the "family" were in prison.

"Yeah, they killed some Hollywood fuckers," went her answer.

My friend went on to describe Bugliosi's account of the murders and ask that she read "Helter Skelter".

All I know is that she never, ever wore that shirt on campus again that I could tell.

[tomreedtoon]

26. Blond Eat Last, thank your friend for me.

Blowing some light into ignorant minds, who go along with stupid trends without thinking, is the most noble thing human beings can do. (And I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist playing with your user name.)

[bluestateguy]

36. Yes, I know what the law says

The law says they are allowed to ask for parole every few years.

I am asking them not to.

That is, if they are sincere about taking responsibility for their actions.

[Jawja]

38. They were originally given the death penalty.

After California did away with the death penalty, their sentences were commuted to Life.

The original sentence did not provide for the possibility of any kind of parole.

[LostinVA]

40. Patricia Krenwinkel doesn't

Bugliosi has even said he believes she is the only one who REALLY feels remorse, and is doing her best in prison to be a productive member of society. He has even stated that he thinks she poses no danger to anyone, and would be "good citizen" IRL. However, he doesn't think she should be paroled.

Watson, Atkins, and Van Houten have NEVER expressed true remorse, and ahve all done questionable things in prison. However, Atkins needs to be released. If nothing else, it's not fair to prison resources.

[bluestateguy]

43. You may have a point about Atkins

Just dump her out on the street. She'd be gone in a few days. She's just a burden on the taxpayers.

[LostinVA]

46. She's married -- she's her husband's responsibility

Let other inmates have the bed and medical care.

[Politicalboi]

48. Atkins should never be released

She was the worst of the women of the family. The others like Krenwinkel just followed. Atkins was the craziest one aside from Manson and Watson. They should have executed them a long time ago. It's cases like these that make family members relive the crime and they shouldn't have too. The death penalty does have some final justice. If the evidence is there and the crime is 1st degree murder then they should be executed. No more parole boards. No one who has been a victim should have to go through this.

[LostinVA]

50. Krenwrinkel didn't just "follow" -- good god -- and, you apparently didn't read my post

I'm 100% anti DP. Never going to change.

[sharp_stick]

3. I agree with her

they shouldn't even give these assholes parole hearings. I don't care how rehabed they are now, sometimes people should never be let out of prison.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

7. I don't believe that anyone could be completely rehabilitated from that kind of crime

Guy walks into a bank, robs it, goes to prison, 50-50 chance of living the rest of his life as a model citizen.

Woman holds a pregnant woman down while she's begging for mercy for her unborn child and stabs her six times and then writes "PIG" on the wall in her blood?

I'm going to agree with Debra on this one.

[Cleita]

4. They took lives for no reason other than the thrill of it.

I agree they should stay put.

[Sugar Smack]

I'll bet his release would bring about Spahn Ranch II.

Probably for the best if he stays locked up.

[closeupready]

5. Rot in hell.

:mad:

[NeedleCast]

6. I agree

They're where they belong.

[Bicoastal]

8. Doesn't matter if they feel responsible or "sorry" or not...

...they took away innocent lives as a joke. What they feel now is irrelevant compared to what they did then.

Screw rehabilitation for the "Family." They deserve no less mercy than that which they showed their victims--zero.

[aquamarina]

9. Their sentences were for life so they should be made to serve it.

And even if they are rehabilitated, let them demonstrate it in prison where they should remain.

[closeupready]

17. Actually, at least some of them received the death sentence, but

the Supreme Court ruled the death sentence unconstitutional before their appeals expired, and the sentences were commuted to life.

[aquamarina]

39. You are absolutely correct and in essence the system did

grant them mercy. They have no right to ask for anything else.

[derby378]

10. Only one Mansonite linked to Tate/LaBianca/Hinman was ever released...

Steve Grogan, aka "Clem." He was involved in Gary Hinman's death somehow, but he also meets the legal definition of mental retardation. He was sentenced to life, I believe, but paroled a few years later under the strictest conditions. Grogan got hired as a painter and, to the best of my knowledge, has stayed out of trouble ever since.

[H2O Man]

14. Shorty Shea.

[derby378]

16. Actually...

...I'm too lazy right now to consult Wikipedia, but I think Shorty offered to tell investigators what he knew about the Family, and disappeared soon afterwards. Some of Manson's followers were finally convicted of his murder, even without his body being found.

[H2O Man]

18. Luckily,

I don't need to consult any ther source. Grogran was convicted of participating, along with Bruce Davis, in the murder of Donald Shea. "Clem" was 18 at the time of the murder, and as Bugliosi described him, "unhinged." Both Davis and he were convicted, even without Shea's body being found.

In 1977, Grogen was willing to draw a map that led investigators to Shea's body. Though the "Family" had started rumors that Shea's head, arms, and legs had been cut off, this wasn't true.

Clem was paroled in 1988.

[derby378]

23. Gotcha

Thanks for the clarification! :hi:

[Politicalboi]

49. My brother

Went to school with Steve Grogan. We lived in Simi Valley in the 60's and many people had seen the family members digging through trash bins to feed the bunch at the ranch. My sister in law sisters saw them one day while horse back riding. Back then it was easy to join cults and get away from square parents and friends, smoke dope and drop acid. Hippies heaven on earth till the murders.

[endarkenment]

11. manson should never be released

I'm not convinced about the others. Most of them were quite young at the time.

[Bicoastal]

21. So were many of the people they murdered in cold blood.

Their victims didn't have a chance to grow old--the least we can do for their families is ensure these people never fully enjoy the benefits of a long life.

Many Nazis and other indoctrinated murderers were "quite young" as well. It's no excuse for killing for the sake of killing.

[endarkenment]

28. yes I understand that they murdered people in cold blood.

my point is that Manson was the leader of this group, and the group consisted of a bunch of whacked out kids. Some of them, perhaps all of them except Manson, are simply not a danger to society and their age and situation at the time of the crimes should be taken into consideration.

[Bicoastal]

29. But as was pointed out by someone else, Manson never actually killed anyone..

Never admitted or convicted, anyway--he was the ringleader and The Family did all of his dirty work. Now I'm not saying we should let HIM out, but you'll never convince me they're any less of a danger to society than he is. I don't care how young or confused you are--anyone who submits themselves to the whims of a madman that easily, and commits unspeakable, senseless crimes in his name while he himself keeps a safe distance--I don't really think people like these should permitted to walk the streets at any age.

I mean, if this was normal behavior for young, confused kids, we'd ALL have ended up in a Manson Family.

[Politicalboi]

51. I'm not defending what they did but

They did drop a lot of acid and that in itself could make you do shit you would never even think of doing. They were rejects from their true family, and Charlie took them in. Fed them housed them and brainwashed them. The only news they got was from Charlie. He was their Rush Limpballs of the day. Just imagine a commune filled with ditto heads and Rush was your only source for info.
Oh wait....

[NNN0LHI]

12. I am completely against the death penalty but I am completely for life with no parole

Some crimes demand the worst penalty and this is one of them. I was 14 when this happened and it still haunts me.

Don

[lunatica]

19. I think they should stay in prison

I am absolutely against the death penalty, but I'm a true believer in life sentences without possibility of parole when people commit horrible violent crimes for no other reason than to do it. In prison they can redeem themselves in any way they want to. And in prison they're role models for what happens when you do the crimes.

I also believe in let out the minor offenders first when emptying prisons. None who are violent should serve a single day less than what's coming to them. But there should be real rehabilitation programs for all of them.

[pmorlan1]

20. I'm sure I'll take some heat for this but...

<snip>

The Web site says Atkins, now 60, is paralyzed over 85 percent of her body and cannot sit up in bed or even be moved into a wheelchair.

<snip>

Despite her declining condition and spotless prison record, the site says, "there is still a very real chance the Parole Board will nonetheless insist her release would be a danger to society."

How is she a danger to society?

<snip>

By her own admission, Atkins held Tate down as she pleaded for mercy, and stabbed the eight-months-pregnant woman 16 times. In a 1993 parole board hearing, Atkins said Tate "asked me to let her baby live ... I told her I didn't have any mercy on her."

<snip>

Atkins' compassionate release was opposed by Tate's sister, Debra, Los Angeles County prosecutors and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, among others. However, the former prosecutor who won her conviction, Vincent Bugliosi, said he supported Atkins' request for release.

We have a lot of murderers who have committed gruesome crimes like this yet the state says a woman with terminal brain cancer is a danger to society? I'm afraid I have to agree with Bugliosi on this one. I support her release because unlike Susan Atkins, who refused to show mercy to her victims, I don't think the state should refuse to show mercy to someone who quite obviously is no danger to society at this point and because I think it's important to show that we're better than she was.

[Bicoastal]

27. It's not just about protecting society...

...it's about meting out justice in an injust world. In a just world, Atkins' victims would have also survived to their 60's. And unlike other murderers, some of whom eventually get released, Charlie's family robbed those people of that privilege for no tangible reason.

Atkins should spend the rest of her life, INCLUDING her declining years, in atonement for what she did. As bad as her situation may be, she's going to die the natural death her victims never received--and for what? Sorry, but I remain unmoved. I'm conflicted on the Death Penalty, but not on life imprisonment for "thrill killers."

[pmorlan1]

33. I Still Think Atkins Should be Paroled

In California you can't use only the original crime to deny parole. Here is an interesting article about a case before the San Jose Appeals Court that deals with parole boards using the original crime to deny parole recommendations. Here's a snippet:

San Jose appeals court weighs state's pattern of denying parole to

<snip>

In general, the judge concluded that the board relied on boilerplate language regarding the heinous nature of the original crime to justify denying parole, instead of providing specific reasons.

Under the law, defendants convicted of first- and second-degree murder are typically eligible for parole at some point, usually after 15 to 25 years in prison, and the parole board must justify keeping them behind bars. Critics of the parole board, including Condron, say the board's reliance on the original crime to deny parole undermines the system because it ignores an inmate's record of reform in prison.{blockquote}

<snip>

In its August ruling, the state Supreme Court chastised the governor for relying too much on the heinousness of the original crime to deny parole, ordering a new parole hearing for a Los Angeles woman who spent more than two decades in prison for killing her lover's wife. Now, the San Jose appeals court is evaluating whether the parole board is making the same mistake, even before cases reach the governor's desk.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20090111/ai_n31194476

[LostinVA]

41. No flames from me, and I'm a strict "life with no chance of parole" person for murder and rape

[NNN0LHI]

47. Why should you take any heat over that?

You made a clear and substantive argument that made me reconsider my original position.

Nothing the matter with that.

Don

[ljm2002]

22. Totally agree with her...

...these were horrific crimes, and the only reason they got life with the possibility of parole is that life without parole was not an available sentence. Here's hoping the parole boards stick with the very sensible policy of keeping this lot behind bars.

Whether a person can be "rehabilitated" after committing such heinous acts may be debated. However, as a matter of public policy, it seems to me we must err on the side of protecting society from the worst among us. Their crimes put them squarely in that category.

It is interesting that some here think Manson -- who never, as far as we know, actually killed anyone -- is the one who should be kept in while the others should be released. Eek! Anyone who could be "persuaded" to kill someone the way these murders were done, is not someone I want on the outside -- i.e., someone who is both weak minded, and an active and willing servant of evil. No thanks. And as we all know, Manson is still crazy after all these years. Let any of these perps out, and who knows but they might communicate with him and commit more crimes. Stranger things have happened.

No, all in all, please keep them behind bars. They earned it.

[Siwsan]

24. Thoughts on the issue

Carol Fugate, who accompanied Charlie Starkweather on a major murder spree, in the 1950's, was paroled, and went on to become a nurse, and live a productive, quiet, "under the radar" life. I believe she still lives in the Lansing, Michigan area. These were horrific murders, and there was some mind control issues raised, relating to her participation.

However, in the current socio-economic environment, how would the woman (Leslie VanHougen (sp) and Patricia Krenwickle)ever survive, in the outside world? Under the circumstances, prison might be the most humane plase for them to live out their days.

[juno jones]

35. There is the cult aspect to this.

Charlie did mind control very well.

They could finally be past the brainwashing they were given in youth. I hope for their sakes they are. But do they posess the self-knowledge necessary to avoid having something similar happen again?

I would just worry that in the outer world these women would be easily vulnerable to another charismatic leader who could exploit their already demonstrated potential for violence.

Why didn't everybody go out and join a cult like that? Because Charlie probably only picked people who were susceptable to his charms and later commands. Not everybody is good cult fodder.

edit to add: As for Susan Atkins, there should be a compromise, like release to a half-way house or other supervised facility. At 85% paralyzed, I'd have to invoke the 'cruel and unusual' punishment clause as well as the classic "Whatever you did to the least of these you did to me also" quote. What she did was reprehensible. However, inflicting further pain and cruelty upon a cancer patient is sadistic as well.

[kiva]

30. I agree with her.

Not just because of the horrific nature of the crimes, but because there is a valid reason to keep violent criminals in prison for the rest of their lives. I oppose the death penalty, but fully support actual life sentences--and there aren't too many people who deserve it more than 'the family'.

[old mark]

31. They are eligible for parole because they did their crimes and their

sentences in California, where life for murder means about 10 years.
They should all die in prison.


mark

[Vinca]

32. I thought one of them had been released a few years back

and was living in either Vermont or New Hampshire. It was a woman, but I can't remember who. (I took a brief look on the 'net and YIKE there's a web site devoted to this bunch complete with addresses so you can drop them a note.) Edited to add the name that just hit me: Linda Kasabian. I wonder what became of her.

[AzDar]

34. IIRC, Linda Kasabian was given immunity in exchange for her testimony against the

Family, so she was never imprisoned. She accompanied the killers on at least one night (10060 Cielo dr.), but refused to participate in the murders.

[tonysam]

37. I Agree the Manson Bunch Should Never Get Out, and They Won't.

There is a blog called the "Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog," which isn't really connected to anybody involved in the case and isn't really official, but the bloggers there don't think too much of Debra. Check out their latest post which mentions Debra.

Nobody but blog members are allowed to post.

[LostinVA]

42. She and her daughter have had several drug arrests

Pretty trashy, but not a murderer.

[tammywammy]

44. I agree, they should remain in prison. n/t

[Politicalboi]

45. This August will be

4 decades.