Reply
Sat 14 Jun, 2008 09:21 am
LINDA DEUTSCH AP Special Correspondent
© 2008 The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES ?- Susan Atkins, the former Charles Manson follower who confessed to killing pregnant actress Sharon Tate during a murderous rampage in 1969, has a terminal illness and has asked for compassionate release from prison in her final days, authorities said Thursday.
Atkins, 60, who has been incarcerated at the California Institution for Women at Frontera for 37 years, has been held longer than any other female inmate in state history.
Department of Corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton declined to specify the nature of her illness.
"She is very ill" and has been hospitalized, said Thornton.
"Her condition is very serious and her prognosis is poor," she said.
Thornton said a doctor determined that Atkins has less than six months to live, which could make the application for release futile because of the length of the process.
"Sometimes inmates being considered for compassionate release die during the process," Thornton said.
Atkins was the most notorious of the three women charged with Manson in the grisly slayings of Tate and six other people in the summer of 1969. She enabled authorities to break the case after it had remained unsolved for three months by confessing to a cellmate when she was arrested in an unrelated crime. It was Atkins who disclosed that the Manson Family, a rag tag cult living in a ranch commune, had been responsible for the murders.
Her statements led police to a Death Valley hideout where they found Manson and other members of his cult. Her lawyer later complained that prosecutors broke a promise to her of leniency for breaking the case.
In a sensational 10-month trial, Atkins, Manson and co-defendants Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten maintained their innocence. But once they were convicted, the women took the stand in the penalty phase and confessed in graphic detail to the killings.
Atkins calmly recounted her own role in stabbing the pregnant Tate, who pleaded for the life of her unborn baby.
In her chilling testimony, she said, "I don't know how many times I stabbed her and I don't know why I stabbed her.... She kept begging and pleading and begging and pleading and I got sick of listening to it, so I stabbed her."
She said the killings were done under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.
"I was stoned, man, stoned on acid," she testified.
She expressed no remorse until years later when, at her parole hearings, she apologized. But she also suggested she may have exaggerated her role during the trial and that she did not actually kill Tate. The claim was dismissed by prosecutors as self-serving.
At the end of her trial testimony, she said, "I feel no guilt for what I've done. It was right then and I still believe it was right."
A psychiatrist who examined her at the time said she was mentally ill. Jurors heard about her troubled childhood and the trauma of losing her mother at a young age to cancer.
She and the others were sentenced to death but their terms were commuted to life in prison when the U.S. Supreme Court briefly outlawed the death penalty in the 1970s.
Atkins became a gray-haired matron who worked in various jobs at the prison including serving as a receptionist at the front desk. She said no one recognized her. She became a born-again Christian in prison and she married more than once. Her current husband, James Whitehouse, has been acting as her lawyer.
He did not immediately respond to an after hours call Friday seeking comment.
Thornton said the prison had given "a positive recommendation" for her compassionate release.
"Because of her failing health it is not likely she would be a danger to society," Thornton said.
She said the matter would next go to the State Board of Parole which has the power to release Atkins so she can die with loved ones, at their expense.
Such releases are relatively rare ?- only 10 of the 60 requests made last year were granted, Thornton said. The prisoners must have family members willing and able to care for them.
The matter could be referred to the sentencing court in Los Angeles, she said, which could delay the decision even further.
Los Angeles County district attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said the office had not yet decided what position it would take on the request.
Positive: She would cease to be a state expense.
Negative: Life without parole was issued for a good reason.
Did Atkins show compassion for Sharon Tate when she sadistically murdered her? I remember the story very well. She deserves to rot in jail.
Phoenix32890 wrote:edgarblythe wrote:Positive: She would cease to be a state expense.
Negative: Life without parole was issued for a good reason.
And where do you think that she would get money for her care on the outside? From the state, of course, through Medicaid and SSI.
THe article says her relatives would assume her expenses.
if george bush and dick cheney et al can retire rich and comfortable.... why not let Susan Atkins go? Kill a couple of people and you're a murderer... issue orders to kill thousands and you're a president and to some, a hero. Let her go. Ot put those ass holes in prison. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Did Atkins show compassion for Sharon Tate when she sadistically murdered her? I remember the story very well. She deserves to rot in jail.
I agree completely.
She should have met her maker long ago.
Not just no, but hell no.
I vote "Hell NO!"
Sharon Tate didn't have the option of dying of a terminal illness at almost 60 years of age.
If Susans family can assist with the cost of her medical care were she released... Hey, how 'bout they conribute to it while she's in prison? Do the right thing to try to balance best thy can the drain their relative has been on society?
Bear - Of course you don't mean that ... We'd have to let every prisoner out if that were how we measure justice.
my point my darling... as I'm sure YOU know... was not to let Susan go... but to lock the others up. I think she should be executed. Cheaper. :wink:
no, and chances are she'll be spending significant time in the hospital over the next 3-6 months so it doesn't much matter where she is between hospital stays. There are few cases a gruesome as this one. Leniency for the comfort of those involved in the murders doesn't make it into my compassion realm.
frankly Charlotte I don't give a damn. she will die in a hospital bed no matter what else occurs, I don't think she needs handcuffs to die.
My comment is that there is a great deal of irony in someone asking for compassion when that someone showed no compassion in the course of several brutal and sadistic murders, and who subsequently showed no remorse.
If all those posting on this thread had a legitimate decision that would determine where Susan Atkins spent the last few months of her life, knowing that she will die no matter where she is, I would go along with the majority decision.
My personal opinion is yes, she should be able to go home to die. She really lost her life 37 years ago. What she did was so heinous that it is beyond the comprhension of most of us here, but what does compassion mean?
What I'm hearing here sounds much like revenge for the horrible act she commited. The attitude is--"she did it, so nothing, under any circumstances, should be done to provide momentary compassion in her dying days."
Doesn't compassion rise above the elemental, prehistoric, need for revenge that does not take into consideration the present circumstances? Letting her die at home does not mean condoning what she did, it only means that we, as a society, can understand the need for compassion even when the person involved, no matter how vile, has already paid her debt to society by losing any chance at a normal life and being aware every minute of every day that she will never live like everyday people do. I agree with that punishment completely.
I just hope and wish that compassion was looked on more generously. It doesn't make us 'wimpy," it doesn't make us disrespectful of the law, it shows that we, as a society, are capable of showing mercy for the death wishes of even the most horrible human being. It shows that we can rise above that primal need for endless punishment.
This woman does not seem truly human to me, but she also lost her life when she was convicted. Maybe she hasn't paid enough for what she did, but her dying days, to me, should be spent with family.
As for the expense, even if her family can't pay for her treatment, we all have been paying for it anyway and we will continue to do so no matter where she is when she dies.
Only maybe if she is eligible for parole, otherwise hell no.
I'm not doing it for revenge.
She is supposed to be serving a life sentence. She will have completed paying her debt to society when she dies in prison
If there are people she wants to see before she dies, let them come to her.
Diane
Diane, your response is why I love you.
Rather than releasing her for her sake, I say release her for her family's sake. Her family was punished for something they didn't do. Let them use the last days to reconcile and make peace between them.
BBB
they can do that by going to the prison and seeing her.
why not release everyone from prison, since it's punishing someone that loves them for something they did not do?