Should Susan Atkins Go Free; She is Dying

Her body. As a person, she left it long ago. Close to forty years.

These arguments have not changed my mind about releasing Susan Atkins since she is so near death that she has no hope of escaping 'prison' since her body is now her prison.

The concept of mercy is sadly missing in our society, including in the Christian community.

Release should be on strict conditions. I agree with the ruling of no possibility of parole. But to have mercy in cases of terminal illness is to acknowledge the importance of treating people humanely, even when they have done something as vile as the Manson murders.

It shows the importance of society's priorities. Even for the most obscene members of our society, I think extending mercy in cases of terminal illness gives a good example of the divide between those outside regular society and those that want to show by example that showing mercy in extreme situaltions isn't weakness, it is being above the horror and desire for revenge and total incarceration, and opting for mercy in the most extreme cases.

If mercy were placed as high in importance as sports or Hollywood scandals, it might actually affect the behavior of the worst among us.

VERY TRUE.

I read somewhere that she is even blind.

California has no power to release her;
only death can do that.
Any release wud be insignificant to Ms. Atkins.

I wonder what Sharon Tate wud say
if she cud be heard on this matter ?

Has she been avenged enuf already ? or not ?

My response for today: I'm not sure whether I posted a response on this thread before, but I wouldn't want to make that kind of decision on any criminal for any reason.

when we begin adding conditions for release of convicted lifers, and reassigning the definition of "life imprisonement", we alter the conditions of her incarceration and original sentence. Thats not our duty. She's in prison and , by law, she must stay there till she dies. It sounds like she may be fullfilling those conditions as we speak. When she finishes her term, then, perhaps, the legislature can debate under what conditions does "life without parole" no longer mean that. I hate these special interest alterations and "pity paroles". ANy such changes can only occur as a result of her case, not allow her to participate.

Of course I realize thats a perfect world answer but its gotten so that life imprisonment can mean anything fro m"almost life" down to 12 years and then parole.


Are there no prisons? are there no work houses?

farmerman, That's part of the reason why I wouldn't want to make that kind of decision; the laws we have on the books mean very little when judges, govs and the president that make changes without any consequence. It's really a "human" system where "life in prison without the possibility of parole" is not 100%.

We do.
We have that option,
as long as it is not to the defendant-prisoner 's detriment.




Yes; it is not,
but it is our option.
" The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath "


Its a human law,
and within our power to change.
Its a moot point, in that she is effectively already dead.






Your emotions shud not be taken into consideration
in deciding what to do.




There is no logical reason
in support of that limitation,
but again, its a moot point in this case.

It wud be significant, if she were in decent health
and had at least a few years of life left in her.

david I beleive that, Im being more dispassionate than are you. So the reproof, is invalid unless you look into a mrror

Consistency dave, you seem only to apply consistency in your gun threads. Transfer that skill to this one. If the issue of compassionate release was actually considered in this case, Id have called for its review. Apparently the parole board voted my way last PM, so you are coreect, this is all moot.

Diane
I could go with your argument, but for one reason. My hard attitude is a trade off with staunch death penalty advocates. Aware that victims' families are generally crying for bloody retribution, I feel that if said vengeance is not forthcoming, the alternate, life without parole, would ring hollow to them, if sentences were later altered. I feel we have to compromise that much to get rid of a death penalty that so often gets misapplied.

^^ my thoughts exactly, edgar.

Farmerman wrote:



Our laws have changed considerably over the years, including the removal of the death sentence in many states. Also, pisoners are no longer drawn and quartered. Was that decision a "pity parole?"

I believe that society, not just the legislature, should determine how "we" want to live as well as die, especially when it comes to picking the time for someone else, even a stone cold killer.

I too detest the flexibility of sending a murderer to prison for 25 years only to see some parole board release him 10 years later. That is why your statement make sense and should be applied, to level the playing field and make it impossible for some smart lawyer to play with the constitution. That is why I am limiting this to the most extreme cases. This, for me at least, doesn't include prisoners with lesser sentences. That is another thread.

Your logic, as well as Edgar's," is something I agree with, most of the time. At the same time, our laws do have some flexibility and, if used properly, mercy can be shown and has been in several states.

Don't mistake my statement as a "pithy (or pity) with no conditions. I only ask that prisoners be included, appying the most humane characteristics of a counntry, instead of one that sets sentences without any possibility of argument.

If there is never any hope, it begins to sound like the most radical sentence set by unmerciful countries or the most radical groups in those countries.

And how should that mercy be applied? Yikes! I realize the near impossibility of making such a decision and that is why a commision meeting, say, every ten years, might solve the conumdrum in a wise, humane and practical way.

I write from the context of being from Texas, the greatest proponent state of the death penalty, and living in the city that sends the most people to their death. In order to achieve a more humane situation, here at least, we have got to address the concerns of the majority, which doesn't believe prisoners get punished enough as it is. I am willing to make the trade off, because I don't believe another approach can work. Not here, anyway.

Edgar, understood and appreciated. And maybe your idea is the right way to go. I really don't know and I admit that as Farmerman said, I am arguing for something that, I suppose, would only happen in a perfect world and that isn't ever going to happen.

In other words, you have begun to change my mind, at least in Texas.
(You are such a good guy that is is almost impossible to disagree with you.)

With the knowledge that we don't live in a perfect world, I'm more than happy to let the legal system of our country determine decisions that has to do with incarceration; I'm totally against the death penalty.