Should Susan Atkins Go Free; She is Dying

Intrepid wrote:

The last two posts have left me shaking my head
and questioning the sanity and moral fibre of the writer.

Please explain your reasoning,
as to each of the 2 posts.

David

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

Hang the Bitch!

:wink:

Just the last two, Intrepid?

If she can t even sit up in bed,
then u 'd be doing her a FAVOR !

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

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

original post wrote:

so - not special because she's a woman

the requests are occasionally made and occasionally granted (1/6 odds, not bad, better than "rare")

I kind of like the idea of the family picking up the tab vs the government paying, but not my money or my government's money, so <shrug> keeping her in for the last months costs Americans not me.

I 'll make a note not to bill u.

Her family must love her a lot
if thay r willing to pay major healthcare costs.

I cannot conceive of any reason that the family shud pay
any penalty of any kind for what she did.

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I cannot conceive of any reason that the family shud pay
any penalty of any kind for what she did.

David

Ya, well, it happens all the time. Most every man and woman taking up space in our prisons for using drugs has a family that must get along with out them. In many cases it is kids who lose a parent and who are either thrown into poverty or deeper into poverty because a parent can not support them from prison and has a difficult time doing it after prison as a Ex Con. Given that that the convicts get little help to get off of drugs or to get along in life because we no longer think that they are worthy of reform attempts, once the convicts get out the kids are then traumatized yet again by the drug lifestyle.

The point: America is not interested in your whining about families being hurt by our criminal warehousing practices.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
The last two posts have left me shaking my head
and questioning the sanity and moral fibre of the writer.

Please explain your reasoning,
as to each of the 2 posts.

David

If I thought you might understand it, I would. Perhaps you should read the posts.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I kind of like the idea of the family picking up the tab vs the government paying, but not my money or my government's money, so <shrug> keeping her in for the last months costs Americans not me.

If the cost was broken down to exactly what it would cost each tax payer, you would have to be filing a penny into a thousand pieces.

I doubt the amount each would have to pay would really be a big issue.
Especially considering the fact that , those same thousand pieces of a penny are used to house innocent, and others with much more serious issues.

She is just one person, on several million tax payers backs.
the mount.... Im sure is less then trivial.

( But i DO see your point )

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
The last two posts have left me shaking my head
and questioning the sanity and moral fibre of the writer.

Please explain your reasoning,
as to each of the 2 posts.

David

If I thought you might understand it, I would. Perhaps you should read the posts.

In other words, u r ONLY capable of mindlessly gushing emotion.
Analysis is beyond your ability; understood. Some folks r limited that way.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I cannot conceive of any reason that the family shud pay
any penalty of any kind for what she did.

David

Ya, well, it happens all the time. Most every man and woman taking up space in our prisons for using drugs has a family that must get along with out them. In many cases it is kids who lose a parent and who are either thrown into poverty or deeper into poverty because a parent can not support them from prison and has a difficult time doing it after prison as a Ex Con. Given that that the convicts get little help to get off of drugs or to get along in life because we no longer think that they are worthy of reform attempts, once the convicts get out the kids are then traumatized yet again by the drug lifestyle.

The point: America is not interested in your whining about families being hurt by our criminal warehousing practices.

That is NOT my position.
I 've never met her; she is not my friend.
If I 'd been there at the time,
there 's a 50/50 chance I might have shot her,
if thay did not flee the scene.

My point is that
refusing to let her out when she is at death 's door is petty.
We already got our revenge.
Its a small point.
As a matter of practical effect, she is dead now, in or out.

Additionally, her family 'd be stupid
to pay a significant chunk of cash for her medical care.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
The last two posts have left me shaking my head
and questioning the sanity and moral fibre of the writer.

Please explain your reasoning,
as to each of the 2 posts.

David

If I thought you might understand it, I would. Perhaps you should read the posts.

In other words, u r ONLY capable of mindlessly gushing emotion.
Analysis is beyond your ability; understood. Some folks r limited that way.

Your emotions are showing Smile

Your interpretation is far removed from reality.

It is through analysis of your lack of ability to write the English language in the way that it was intended to be written and, in some cases, unable to be understood along with your peculiar way of looking at things that I form my opinion of some of your posts.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:

We r avenging the guys, too, simultaneously.

Its sad; IF thay had 1 or 2 defensive guns
and if thay started popping off at the the intruders,
those children (almost) wud have fled in panic.

Literally, thay got killed for being helpless
and for allowing themselves to be tied up with rope.

They got killed for being helpless? They allowed themselves to be tied up? Even if they had guns in the house, they would have to have had them on their person. Get real.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:

If thay REALLY wanna be nasty about it,
thay can wait until she is dead, and (just to throw salt into the dead wound)
THEN grant her application for compassionate early release.
or magnanimously do it when she is in a terminal coma

This is just plain stupid and does not require any particular analysis.

0 Replies

Dave, this would be a decent topic if you would quit twisting it back to IF THEY HAD...

She did what she did, and she will die where she was sentenced to.

You reap what you sow, and if you can't do the time...

We are all a victim of the choices we make.

RH

0 Replies

Rockhead wrote:

Dave, this would be a decent topic if you would quit twisting it back to IF THEY HAD...

She did what she did, and she will die where she was sentenced to.

You reap what you sow, and if you can't do the time...

We are all a victim of the choices we make.

RH

I already agreed as to what will happen; it does not matter much.
My point is only that thay r being petty.

If u owe me $1000 and u come up a few cents short,
I will not be so petty as to make an issue of it; that 's all.

That shud not be too hard to understand.

0 Replies

If Susan Atkins were a man, would we even be having this discussion? If it were Charlie Manson who was dying, would anyone even consider letting him free to die at home?

To me a life sentence, is a life sentence. Period.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Quote:

We r avenging the guys, too, simultaneously.

Its sad; IF thay had 1 or 2 defensive guns
and if thay started popping off at the the intruders,
those children (almost) wud have fled in panic.

Literally, thay got killed for being helpless
and for allowing themselves to be tied up with rope.

Quote:

They got killed for being helpless?

Yes.
If thay had popped a few rounds toward
the Manson intruders, thay 'd have run like chickens.
Thay were not brave.

Quote:

They allowed themselves to be tied up?

The best odds of survival (and dignity)
lie in COUNTERATTACK, not in quiescent surrender.

Quote:

Even if they had guns in the house,
they would have to have had them on their person. Get real.

Of course.
That 's what guns are for.
The victims wud probably have survived the event.
That 's the difference. Maybe thay 'd believe that the difference was significant.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:

If thay REALLY wanna be nasty about it,
thay can wait until she is dead, and (just to throw salt into the dead wound)
THEN grant her application for compassionate early release.
or magnanimously do it when she is in a terminal coma

Quote:

This is just plain stupid and does not require any particular analysis.

Its not that its stupid,
its just that your intellect is too feeble to comprehend.
I expected too much of u; sorry for that.

David

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

If Susan Atkins were a man, would we even be having this discussion? If it were Charlie Manson who was dying, would anyone even consider letting him free to die at home?

To me a life sentence, is a life sentence. Period.

I would - the gender of the person would make no difference to me in this situation.

In fact I have a friend who is serving life in prison in North Carolina. He's been there for twenty-four years. He is forty-eight years old. I went to college with him. When I knew him, he was a wonderfully, kind country boy majoring in biology. He had a major drinking problem - that was obvious. The one time I went out with him on a date - I ended up having to hold him up so that he wouldn't fall down on the dance floor. That was the last date we went on - but we remained friends.

But two years after we graduated, apparently he became addicted to harder drugs and he was in the process of robbing a house to get money or stuff to sell to support his habit when the homeowner came home. I don't remember if Doug brought the gun or if he wrestled it from the homeowner - but the homeowner ended up dead. Doug was sentenced to life in prison. Even knowing him as I do - I don't think he should be treated any differently just because I know he was a good person who did something bad when he was on drugs. I'm sure that's probably true about a lot of people sitting in prison.

I agree with David - it's pointless at this point to worry about the person who is dying and where they'll die - either one way or the other - their life as they knew it is over and has been for a long time.

For me, it comes back to what kind of society do I want to live in - or what kind of an individual do I want to be? Do I want to be as merciless as these people who killed someone else and stole their chance for happiness and peace in their life? Or do I want to be different?

But I think it should be administered fairly. What's good for one needs to be extended to everyone or no one. Which is why I don't agree with the death penalty...or any penalty that is not meted out fairly and judiciously- with true impartiality. That's true justice.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

If Susan Atkins were a man, would we even be having this discussion? If it were Charlie Manson who was dying, would anyone even consider letting him free to die at home?

To me a life sentence, is a life sentence. Period.

There is a different and additional factor, qua Manson:
his mental instability renders him too much of a threat, IMO.

Susan is not a threat.

Again, its a trivial matter.
She is as good as dead now
and she will die in prison.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

As I said before,
I cannot understand how being released under these circumstances
wud add any happiness to her life.

HOWEVER,
About a week ago, I met Brook Carey
at the Mensa Annual Gathering in Denver.
(It was humorous; I arrived late at her lecture, and found no seat.
She had me go up and sit at the speaker's table by the podium.)
Brook was the former warden of the Manson girls.
She expressed approval of releasing Ms. Atkins.
I did not ask her what good wud come of that for Ms. Atkins.

David

0 Replies

I do not care about Atkins as a person. She has long ago left the human race. My focus is on justice for the ones wrongly accused and/or convicted.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

If Susan Atkins were a man,
would we even be having this discussion? [/size]
If it were Charlie Manson who was dying,
would anyone even consider letting him free to die at home?

To me a life sentence, is a life sentence. Period.[/color][/b]

Ordinarily, I 'd usually be inclined to give a chic a break,
but in this instance, a dispositive counterargument
is that Susan et al took out at least one other chic (Sharon Tate)
in addition to Mrs. LaBianca.

Thay both have a right to be avenged.

David

Should Susan Atkins Go Free; She is Dying

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know