Should Susan Atkins Go Free; She is Dying

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.

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.

I agree completely.

She should have met her maker long ago.

I voted "no".

Terminal illnesses are often quite expensive to manage. Unless these relatives are very rich, I don't think that they would be able to handle her medical expenses. That still does not alter the fact that this woman was an important part of a monsterous crime. It was only because the death penalty was not applied during that time that she did not get the death penalty, which she so richly deserved.



I think that says it all.

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?