Should Susan Atkins Go Free; She is Dying

Diane wrote:

Doesn't compassion rise above the elemental, prehistoric, need for revenge that does not take into consideration the present circumstances?

Compassion does not obligate society to let individuals out of their obligations simply because they seem to be nearing death. Not letting her spend her last days as she wants to speaks towards our commitment to justice, and the legal process. This should not be about her and what she wants, it should be about letting justice prevail.

0 Replies

Chai, of course we should never let everyone in prison out in order to please their families.

Hawkeye, haven't you ever bent the rules in very narrow circumstances? She doesn't seem to be dying, it was stated that she has about six months to live.

What I'm talking about is a specific situation, not a change in the general process. This woman can no longer do harm to others. She is dying. Yes, her family can come to her, but there is a huge difference between a prison hospital and ones' home.

Would it satisfy you more if she was just hours from death? OK, if that is the only way to give her family some peace. I would take a little, tiny bit of compassion rather than none.

0 Replies

If you do it for her then you must do it for all, out of compassion for the others as well as sense of fair play. I am not in favor of having prison sentences which contain an out clause for those who can find doctors to say that they are near death. There-for, nobody should get sprung simply because they are near death. She can die behind bars like so many before her have. She is not special.

0 Replies

what makes this womans situation different from anyone elses diane?

if charles mason was diagnosed with a terminal illness, death in a short time, should he be released as well?

when she was sentenced, it was life imprisonment, unless something really unusual happens, that doesn't concern proving your innocence.

would it be different if she was hours from death?

hell no.

0 Replies

No, she should not be released. It's not about revenge, it's not about compassion - it's about justice!

0 Replies

soozoo wrote:

No, she should not be released. It's not about revenge, it's not about compassion - it's about justice!

Yes, exactly.

0 Replies

My question is why is she in prison for so long?

There are other murderers out there that get out sooner and have done more.

People who have raped many kids can get out of prison sooner then she has been.

The man who microwaved his baby about 8 years or so ago was let out in under two years.

why is she serving a life sentance? Because she killed someone famous?
Because she killed that famous womans child? ( unborn at that)
Because , in the 70's that sort of thing was un heard of? So she is still paying the price for shaking the Beaver Cleaver world?

Really.. her punishment I think should be done by now. Or she should be executed.

Why did the public have to foot her bill for so long? If she is so 'dangerous' she can join the other truly dangerous like Bundy..

0 Replies

I agree with what I understand Diane to be thinking (and others). We should let her go to die at home. No one should be denied that. Plus, I think her prison sentence is extra-ordinary for her crime.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Plus, I think her prison sentence is extra-ordinary for her crime.

I wonder if you actually know the nature of her crimes. She took a leading role in the murders of Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski (and was an accessory to the murder of Steven Parent). She was also a participant in the murder of Gary Hinman. These murders took place between July 25 and August 8, 1969.

The murders of the four people in Polanski's home (the so-called Sharon Tate murders) with the tragic coincidental murder of Steven Parent (Atkins did not directly participate in that murder, but was an accessory) were not just murders, they were brutal and sadistic murders. Forensic evidence showed that Atkins wrote the word "Pig" in blood on the door of the home--the blood was from Sharon Tate. Tate was eight months pregnant and pleaded for her life on that basis. Atkins initially agreed to act as a state's witness, and told the grand jury that she had stabbed Tate because, in Atkins' own words, she grew: " . . . sick of listening to her, pleading and begging, begging and pleading." Tate was stabbed sixteen times, and five of the wounds were in and of themselves sufficient to caused her death.

I have no sympathy for Atkins. Her behavior, in my opinion, shows her to be at least sociopathic, if not actually psychopathic.

0 Replies

soozoo wrote:

No, she should not be released. It's not about revenge, it's not about compassion - it's about justice!

I agree. Also, speaking of compassion.....where was the compassion for her victims?

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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."

I think that says it all.

Don' tell me. Tell the court. They are the ones considering allowing the relatives to assume her care.

0 Replies

By the way, I also voted no. I appreciate Diane's argument, but cannot go along with it.

0 Replies

let's give her every last ditch invasive surgery possible to prolong her life...... without anesthesia...... Twisted Evil

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

I agree with what I understand Diane to be thinking (and others). We should let her go to die at home. No one should be denied that. Plus, I think her prison sentence is extra-ordinary for her crime.

Here's the 64,000 dollar question....

WHY should "no one" be denied that?

That's one of those statements that rarely get questioned. It's something a person says, and no one addresses it, as if it's a universal truth.

I think she should be denied that. I think she should live out her sentence where she belongs, in prison.

Her prison sentence extraordinary for her crime? How so? She murdered in cold blood, for absolutely no reason, a woman and a baby. I do say a baby here, because at 8 months, it was viable, felt the pain, and fear.

Set, I remember when the murders happened, I would have been about 10 and a half. I didn't know about the worst of it, and I didn't immediately know about the baby.

When I heard that part, I remember being completely overwhelmed with grief. At that age, it never occured to me that a baby that hadn't been born yet could be murdered, and I just could not get to a complete understanding how that could be possible.

When I first read this thread, I told my husband about the news story. He got this completley disgusted look on his face, and just shook his head. Finally he said "I don't know why anyone would consider that, unless they weren't born when it happened, and can't remember how terrible it was."

For this heinous crime, a life sentence is completely reasonable.

0 Replies

I voted no. Life without parole is what again?

LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE.

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

I voted no. Life without parole is what again?

LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE.

Agreed. One of my primary points arguing in favor of doing away with the death penalty, is the "no parole" aspect of life without parole.

0 Replies

Diane wrote:

The attitude is--"she did it, so nothing, under any circumstances, should be done to provide momentary compassion in her dying days."

I didn't say that and altho I didn't read every response, I'm not sure anyone else said that either.
I voted no, she should not have the luxury of dying outside of that prison. Of course, she will be in the hospital and I'm sure they will administer drugs or do whatever they can to make her dying easier for her. That's damn sure more than what she issued out, isn't it? But no one is suggesting that she remain all alone in her cell, in agony until she's dead.

0 Replies

It was complete insanity. They murdered people right and left, they threatened and attempted murder, and only a few people with the guts to stand up to Charlie escaped the madness. Even after they put away Manson and "Tex" Watson and "the Girls," the rest of the "Family" continued the madness. The quirky but intelligent man who defended Leslie Van Houten disappeared after he argued with Manson, and tried to separate Van Houten's defense from the rest of the bunch. His body was found, badly decomposed, four months later. No one was ever charged, but other "Family" members have said he was murdered on Mason's orders. More than two years after the murders, three "Family" members were wounded out the six who had robbed a surplus store in Hawthorne, California of more than 100 rifles, but got into a shoot-out with the police, when one of the store clerks managed to set off a silent alarm. As late as 1975, Lynette "Sqeaky" Fromme attempted to assassinate President Ford. Three weeks later, another girl from the family tried to assassinate Ford.

That whole bunch was wacko, and even with Charlie behind bars, they were a serious threat to the community.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

eoe wrote:
I voted no. Life without parole is what again?

LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE.

Agreed. One of my primary points arguing in favor of doing away with the death penalty, is the "no parole" aspect of life without parole.

Me too.

0 Replies

I, too, voted no. Actually I would have voted NO, but that was not an option.

She committed a horrific crime. Her being sick doesn't change that.

No sympathy from me. None.

0 Replies

Should Susan Atkins Go Free; She is Dying

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know