Should Susan Atkins Go Free; She is Dying

how is the fact that she's older and is dying mean justice? that happened to Sister Teresa.

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.

Diane wrote:

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.

We already TOOK our revenge.
WE won; she lost. We kept her in a cement box for 37 years.

Heavy odds thay will wait until she is dead
before deciding whether to grant her compassionate early release
( as if it were worth anything ).


.

We have not 'won'


Her sentence was a death sentence with out parole.

Give her parole and she does not serve the term she was told she would.

She is approximately dead

Quote:

She is approximately dead

If her victims were approximately dead.. she would not have gotten a life sentence,
nor would she be considered a murderer.

I see your point. I really do.
I was ... in my first couple of posts..
not seeing the issue of letting her go home and wondering why
she as still in jail to begin with.
Then I remembered what she did and how many she killed..

and most anyone else who has killed that many people are already dead
( by the hands of the state) or they have absolutely NO chance
of getting out no matter what.


So what makes her the special serial killer?
Because she is a woman?
ppbbthh.. nah

So what makes her the special serial killer? Because she is a woman?