Susan Atkins was denied parole for the 13th time today. Over the years I've read a lot about the Manson murders and about Susan Atkins in particular.
She's now 61 and is suffering from terminal brain cancer, has had a leg amputated, and is paralyzed over most of her body. That makes me feel kinda sad for her, but then I think of that 21-year-old that she used to be and remember how she actively participated in that horribly brutal murder scene and then smiled and sang as she came into court each day during her trial and giggled and laughed at the charges brought against her.
Vincent Bugliosi, the original prosecutor in that case has recently said that it's wrong to say that "just because Susan Atkins showed no mercy to her victims, we therefore are duty-bound to follow her inhumanity and show no mercy to her."
and he's also said... "Shes already paid substantially for her crime, close to 40 years behind bars. She has terminal cancer. The mercy she was asking for is so minuscule. Shes about to die. Its not like were going to see her down at Disneyland."
I'm not sure what I really think about all of this. The thought of her and who she was and what she did in the past makes me absolutely sick, but then I think of her current condition and what she's asking for now and what Bugliosi has said and then I kinda go back and forth.
I think they should cut her lose and let her die at home. Just my gut feeling about it.
Granted, the people she killed and helped kill didn't get that mercy, but what's the point of keeping her locked up now. Unfortunately I think the celebrity of the crime is working against her, which is a shame.
Anyone who has read about her testimony and her courtroom antics cannot possibly think she deserves anything more than what she's getting. She stabbed a pleading, 8-1/2 month woman to death...repeatedly...tasted her blood and then wrote "PIG" on her door with the blood. Then she testified that she killed her because she wouldn't stop begging and pleading. She even told the judge that he better lock up his kids. Put yourself in the Tate family's shoes.
She was young and in a cult. She deserved the sentence she received but it's highly unlikely anything bad would come from letting her out.
If she is let loose, I wonder how her medical care will work out. I guess she'll qualify for medi-cal or medicare or whatever, but I wonder if there's a waiting period.
And also, I just read that Bugliosi supports her release. She would be paroled to my neighborhood, and I don't have a problem with that.
"Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Atkins, said he was not opposed to her release given her current condition, adding that she had paid "substantially, though not completely, for her horrendous crimes. Paying completely would mean imposing the death penalty." Bugliosi also stated that he supported her release in order to save the state money. The cost for Atkins' medical care since she was hospitalized on March 18, 2008 has reportedly surpassed $1.15 million with additional cost of over $300,000 to guard her hospital room." Bugliosi stated that he was challenging the notion that "just because Susan Atkins showed no mercy to her victims, we therefore are duty-bound to follow her inhumanity and show no mercy to her."
What sort of message would a compassionate release send?
The state was going to kill her when she was in good physical health.
How can they go back now and say that she deserves to be set free?
Should every frail inmate be set free?
Should there be an age/health limit for keeping people in prison?
The fact that the death penalty was overturned for a time isn't her fault. She got a sentance that allowed her to be eligible for parole, like it or not. What message does it send to release her? I don't know, if anything else would qualify other than having a few weeks to live, getting a leg amputated and being barely able to move or speak doesn't get you some compassion I don't know what does. The fact remains that not everyone who kills someone dies in prison. And frankly although she clearly participated, there isn't a lot of evidence to show she killed anyone. This is backed up by the only people it can be, the other people who participated in the murders, and her own grand jury testimony which hasn't changed in more than 30 years.
Anyway, it's no skin off my nose if she dies in jail, and that's what is going to happen, looks like. I just don't see the point of it.
I dont get it. If YOUR daughter was brutally and mercilessly murdered as Sharon Tate was, would you feel the same way? I already know what your answer will be.
Sharon Tate's parents are not alive anymore. The only living immediate relative she has is a sister. And her husband at the time, currently still on the lamb for statutory rape. I would like to think if it were my sister and the person lived a perfectly spot free life in prison for the last 35 years and was in this shape, I'd be willing to let her die at home. But since it's an idiotic hypothetical, who cares. Plus, there is a reason they don't let family members decide these things.
Honest question: Won't the state pay her medical bills either way? She's never had an income given how long she's been in prison, so ain't it going to be some other state-run facility that winds up with her?
I guess I tend to agree on this one that life means life, and not life until you're even more pathetic than you were as a misanthropic youngster. It doesn't seem like it matters much what happens here to anyone but Susan Atkins herself, so maybe she should experience this final denial too as a continued reminder of what robbing yourself of freedom means really.
Well then, she'll either raise your and my insurance premiums by entering the health care system with heavy needs without ever having paid into it, or she'll be denied for pre-existing conditions because current laws don't prevent that!
in my humble opinion you have to look at the purpose and principles of sentencing, decide whether they have been met, and if they have, there isn't any reason to continue with the sentence.
I have to assume that each state would have their own objectives legislated, but since I'm not that fluent in looking up US or Cali laws, I'll just use the Canadian ones.
So under s.718 of our criminal code it lists the following purposes and principles of sentencing.
a) denounce unlawful conduct
b) deter the offender from committing offences in the future
c) separate offenders from society (only when necessary)
d) assist in rehabilitating offenders
e) provide reparations for the harm done to victims and the community
f) promote a sense of responsibility in the offenders.
So looking at those, at this late stage in the game, really what you're still playing with is (a), (e), and (f).
As someone said, she WAS given a sentence that contained a chance for parole, so granting parole doesn't automatically mean that the offence she committed was not sufficiently denouced.
Is it possible to provide reparations to the victims or the community? If it's not, that principle doesn't really apply either.
Does she take responsibility for her actions. This is probably the biggest flag for me in denying parole. If she doesn't take responsibility then that would tie in with (d) with her not being rehabilitated.
But really, sentencing really boils down to deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation.
Deterrence has occurred. She wont commit crimes, and the general public
knows that using a 'cult' as a defence wont work
At her age (health status) If she can accept what she did as wrong, then that would suffice rehab for me.
Punishment, I've never been a proponent of eye for an eye, so I don't see the need to keep her in there longer than she has been already as long as she no longer is a risk to the community.
I am against the death penalty and believe that at some point people are no longer threats to society.
I wouldn't have cared if they released her 20 years ago. Charlie could be released too for all I care.
I was just thinking that if they let her out, wouldn't that be like the state admitting that the death penalty wasn't warrented in the first place? It's the ultimate case of "throw away the key". By a fluke, she was not executed but in order for California to save face, she can never be let out.
Our justice system is stupid.
Easy for any of you to say. If you were personally affected by their crimes, you would like feel different. It's easy to sit back and say, it doesn't matter to me, so let her out. Whatever. If your daughter was savagely murdered, it wouldn't be that easy of a decision, would it? Of course you'd like to think you would refer to the judicial codes to carry out the terms of her sentencing, parole, etc. But the bottom line is you wouldn't want her to be released. Anyone on this board that says that they would is a bold faced, fucking liar.
For me, I hope my sense of justice would win out and that I would be able to view the situation objectively. I have been a victim of crime in the past (although nothing as tragic) and know that no amount of punishment can undo the pain caused. So it boils down to whether we as a society want to inflict more pain than is necessary.
It's about a woman who forgave the man who delivered a fatal blow to her husband. Although there was no premeditation, it does show that humans are capable of forgiving and moving on.
If a young man at a loud, crowded, unsupervised party kicked Dan in the head FOUR TIMES, killing him, simply because he'd asked them to keep it down and/or go home, I don't think I'd ever be able to meet with the young man without wanting to claw his fucking eyes out.
Dammit, Kathleen. Next time a serial killer dies - can you like send me a text message and let me know so I can tell the board? I was really excited about doing so :-p
![[linked image]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E7A3hYlZMiM/SA6zs3KHnoI/AAAAAAAACm8/o1l2QsAGDlE/s400/Susan+Powter+weight.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://forum.lush.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif){kind=icon}
