Susan Atkins was one of Charles Manson's followers in the 1960s, and she stabbed pregnant actress Sharon Tate to death nearly 40 years ago, while Sharon Tate begged for mercy.
Susan's in jail for life now, has brain cancer, and < 6 months to live.
California has denied giving Susan a compassionate release from jail before she dies.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPEaudS_lS_tnlNi3-I1WezJD6WwD91UKP5OA

Think she deserves a compassionate release ? nope.

Hell no, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. She's lucky she wasn't executed.

Even Manson gets parole hearings. She was a victim of Manson's cult, they should have some sympathy for her. It's just political.

It's cheaper. She's no more threat, why go to the expense of incarceration?

Even Manson gets parole hearings. She was a victim of Manson's cult, they should have some sympathy for her. It's just political.

Maybe if the U.S. became a Nazi State with concentration camps, then they'd release Manson and his minions to become SS guards. :)

It's cheaper. She's no more threat, why go to the expense of incarceration?

Something tells me that you wouldn't harbor the same attitude if the victim was your daughter?

Maybe if the U.S. became a Nazi State with concentration camps, then they'd release Manson and his minions to become SS guards. :)

I guess you haven't heard of Guantanamo?

I guess you haven't heard of Guantanamo?

Oh pleaseeeeeeeee.
If people had to choose between having to goto Auschwitz or Guantanamo, I bet you'd find 99+% of them would beg for Guantanamo.
Guantanamo is no Nazi concentration camp.

They torture people there.

They torture people there.

Really? and your proof is?

Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html)

Susan Atkins was one of Charles Manson's followers in the 1960s, and she stabbed pregnant actress Sharon Tate to death nearly 40 years ago, while Sharon Tate begged for mercy.
Susan's in jail for life now, has brain cancer, and < 6 months to live.
California has denied giving Susan a compassionate release from jail before she dies.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPEaudS_lS_tnlNi3-I1WezJD6WwD91UKP5OA

Think she deserves a compassionate release ? nope.

No. She should rot in jail. And I'm not being sarcastic either.

Susan Atkins was one of Charles Manson's followers in the 1960s, and she stabbed pregnant actress Sharon Tate to death nearly 40 years ago, while Sharon Tate begged for mercy.
Susan's in jail for life now, has brain cancer, and < 6 months to live.
California has denied giving Susan a compassionate release from jail before she dies.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPEaudS_lS_tnlNi3-I1WezJD6WwD91UKP5OA

Think she deserves a compassionate release ? nope.

your kidding me...right? compassionate release? :bugeye: electric chair time.

Time won't heal this wound; she should have been beheaded forty years ago.

Kadark the Reserved

Time won't heal this wound; she should have been beheaded fourty years ago.

Kadark the Reserved

what wound? :bugeye: dude...when people die...there are no wouds. :)

death is an escape.

you know letting this person out for the last few months of her life might actually be quite a nasty punishment - leting her tatse freedom knowing its both temporary and her only repreive is death - really bringing it home to her what a huge and terrible fuck-up she made and how her life was absolutely wasted.

Just a thought

It depends on her.
Does she recognize what she did was wrong?
What has she been like as a prisoner?
Does anyone think she is a threat to anyone?
ETC.

As mitigating circumstances, Manson was a deft hypnotist. He seriously fucked with people's brains. This does not excuse her actions, but I think it does mitigate our judgment of her.

As mitigating circumstances, Manson was a deft hypnotist. He seriously fucked with people's brains. This does not excuse her actions, but I think it does mitigate our judgment of her.

Yeah alright. He is a moron.:D

Although there was one manson family member who got off with no prison time. Cant remember her name because it was so long that this case interested me. I was extremely attracted to her though and i cant say for sure what attracts me to females who are sociopaths but i...i just dont know.

Although there was one manson family member who got off with no prison time. Cant remember her name because it was so long that this case interested me. I was extremely attracted to her though and i cant say for sure what attracts me to females who are sociopaths but i...i just dont know.

her power of will?

How old is she? She's probably had a very VERY long time to think about what she had done.

If only there was a way to tell if a person like that had actually changed their mindset since the time of imprisonment.

I believe the article mentioned that still as of now she's demonstrated no remorse for her actions.

How old is she? She's probably had a very VERY long time to think about what she had done.

If only there was a way to tell if a person like that had actually changed their mindset since the time of imprisonment.

Age: 60.

Susan Atkins was one of Charles Manson's followers in the 1960s, and she stabbed pregnant actress Sharon Tate to death nearly 40 years ago, while Sharon Tate begged for mercy.
Susan's in jail for life now, has brain cancer, and < 6 months to live.
California has denied giving Susan a compassionate release from jail before she dies.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPEaudS_lS_tnlNi3-I1WezJD6WwD91UKP5OA

Think she deserves a compassionate release ? nope.

No Let her rot in jail until she dies.

We actually just watched the movie Helter Skelter last week. I saw it a long time ago but kind of forgot it. For those who haven't seen it, it's worth watching.

Susan Atkins was one of Charles Manson's followers in the 1960s, and she stabbed pregnant actress Sharon Tate to death nearly 40 years ago, while Sharon Tate begged for mercy. Susan's in jail for life now, has brain cancer, and < 6 months to live. California has denied giving Susan a compassionate release from jail before she dies. Think she deserves a compassionate release? Nope.The question must always revolve around whether justice is served by the decision. When you get to the point that you're not punishing the convict any more but just punishing the people who love them and had nothing to do with the crime, that's not justice.

Government exists to protect civilization from our ugly emotions, and revenge is the ugliest of emotions. The people who lost their daughter will not get her back by punishing the people who love Atkins and probably put a great deal of effort into trying to make her a better person than she turned out to be.

The point of letting a terminal cancer patient out of prison is not to make her happy--which it presumably will not do in any case--but to bring peace and closure to the other people in her life.

That's the flaw in capital punishment. You don't punish the criminal, he's dead now and can't feel anything. You just punish everyone who loved him and they don't deserve it. Some of them will hate you for it and we'll end up with a vicious cycle of revenge such as the one that rules the Middle East.

You killed my daddy so I'm going to kill you. Well you killed my daddy so I'm going to kill your entire family. Hey your father killed my grandfather and all of my cousins so I'm going to bomb your entire village.

Your great-great-great... granddaddy killed my great-great-great... granddaddy over something neither of us can remember any more, so I'm going to destroy your entire ethnic group. If you don't think this is where revenge-killing leads, take another look at the newspaper.

No Let her rot in jail until she dies.

We actually just watched the movie Helter Skelter last week. I saw it a long time ago but kind of forgot it. For those who haven't seen it, it's worth watching.

Are you basing your judgment on the movie?

Government exists to protect civilization from our ugly emotions, and revenge is the ugliest of emotions. Probably will seem like mere quibbling, but I think the government exists, in part, to protect us from performing certain ugly acts. I don't think any emotion, in a contextless generalization, is ugly. This may be controversial. I certain do not think the government has any business aiming its power at removing or controlling these emotions. Or even pursuing the goal of protecting us from each other's emotions. I hope this is not controversial.

I do not think a criminal should be protected from the emotions of his or her victims. Protected from a variety of acts, yes, absolutely. And likewise citizens in general. Protected from acts, but not from emotions.

They really got lucky because they were supposed to have gotten the death penalty but it was abolished in California during their trials.

As far as revenge, things are much different when it is your father who is murdered but in this case mother. I think that argument is so funny because these poeple are also usually the first to go ballistic when they personally are slighted in the least way. At least that is what i have noticed. You step on their lawns or bump into their cars and they go nuts.

As Richard Pryor once said after visiting a prison - "Thank God for prisons"

Perhaps we should simply have people apologize after murdering innocent people.

I believe the article mentioned that still as of now she's demonstrated no remorse for her actions.

One of the relatives of her victim said she hadn't. She did apolagize for the crime, eventually, but we cannot tell if she meant it or wanted sympathy or parole.

She is a paralyzed amputee with three months to live. She has nothing but suffering ahead of her. Keeping her in prison punishes primarily her family.

Too bad.

I have never understood the premise behind this kind of punishment. Does punishing a paralyzed amputee achieve anything? Let her die with dignity.

Too bad.

Good point.

Perhaps we should simply have people apologize after murdering innocent people.
Oh, is that what people are saying. Oh, that I disagree with.
Good point.

I have never understood the premise behind this kind of punishment. Does punishing a paralyzed amputee achieve anything? Let her die with dignity.

It full fills the Law.

The law requires punishing paralyzed amputees?

It full fills the Law.

So would a compassionate release.

Compassion doesn't have to have anything to do with it, if you don't want it to.

Spending a lot of money and effort to incarcerate the dying, when the point and purpose of incarceration is long past, is bizarre wastage. Justice has been done, the State has done its job, we need the cell.

interesting metifor FR, when im trying to bash that idea through peoples heads i usually use the mob war senario with the state being nothing but another hitman if you have capital punishment.

revenge is a vicious cycle and is compleatly useless

Compassion doesn't have to have anything to do with it, if you don't want it to.

Spending a lot of money and effort to incarcerate the dying, when the point and purpose of incarceration is long past, is bizarre wastage. Justice has been done, the State has done its job, we need the cell.
Quite right. Rational allocation of funds could be a motivation.

The law requires punishing paralyzed amputees? It could in a specific case. But then compassionate release and other forms of pardon are also tucked into the law and could be applied. The law can be fulfilled by her release AND by her continued incarceration so BR's argument is null.

Bollocks to that, let her rot in jail.

As far as revenge, things are much different when it is your father who is murdered but in this case mother.No, it's not different. That's just the point. It feels different to be the person involved in the scenario. Your hormones and hopes and fears all get dragged into it and you're very likely to become irrational. That's where the government is supposed to step in and protect civilization from the irrational acts of angry people. Unfortunately the U.S. government has become as irrational as a rabid polecat so we can't depend on it to help civilization survive. When we were attacked by the Muslim cesspool known as Saudi Arabia on 9/11 our government attacked the Saudis' neighbors in revenge, not even their families. That is a new level of irrationality.Perhaps we should simply have people apologize after murdering innocent people.I have no problem with putting people in prison, at least for serious crimes, not just consenting adults selling each other drugs. What I have a problem with is killing somebody whom you've already captured and incarcerated. The fundamental rule of civilization is that you can only use deadly force in self defense or defense of others. Killing someone who is captured and incarcerated does not qualify. It demeans us all and shames us as a culture that tolerates vengeance.She has nothing but suffering ahead of her. Keeping her in prison punishes primarily her family.Too bad.What do you have against her family? I realize that some families are dysfunctional and can be held at least partially to blame for the antisocial behavior of their children. But before you punish them I want to see them receive due process and I want to see you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are in fact culpable. Otherwise this is the despicable cycle of revenge that Abrahamists are so notorious for, despite that crap they claim to believe about "turning the other cheek." That seems only to apply to their enemies, never to themselves. As Jung pointed out, "No wars in history have been as bloody as those among the Christian nations." War is nothing but revenge writ large.Bollocks to that, let her rot in jail.She deserves no special mercy but her family does. Just because she did permanent emotional damage to her victim's family doesn't mean that we have any right to do permanent emotional damage to her family.

Two wrongs still do not ever make a right. Or is this another one of those moral principles that Abrahamists are exempt from because they're so special?

The law requires punishing paralyzed amputees?

Sharia' does.

I say, she poses no threat to society and she is repentant. So let her go home. Remember the virtues, "but the greatest of these is charity".

The law requires punishing paralyzed amputees?Sharia' does.Thank you for illustrating the point I frequently stress on this website: As civilization advances, the Abrahamic religions increasingly work against it. There is nothing civilized about that kind of punishment. It's just vengeance. Abrahamists must all think they're god because their little holy book clearly states that only god is allowed to engage in vengeance.

Are you basing your judgment on the movie?

No.. I am basing it on everything I have read and the documentaries I have watched about The Manson Family.

No.. I am basing it on everything I have read and the documentaries I have watched about The Manson Family.Fair enough. Given the wording of your last post I had to ask, and now I know.

No, it's not different. That's just the point. It feels different to be the person involved in the scenario. Your hormones and hopes and fears all get dragged into it and you're very likely to become irrational. That's where the government is supposed to step in and protect civilization from the irrational acts of angry people. Unfortunately the U.S. government has become as irrational as a rabid polecat so we can't depend on it to help civilization survive. When we were attacked by the Muslim cesspool known as Saudi Arabia on 9/11 our government attacked the Saudis' neighbors in revenge, not even their families. That is a new level of irrationality.I have no problem with putting people in prison, at least for serious crimes, not just consenting adults selling each other drugs. What I have a problem with is killing somebody whom you've already captured and incarcerated. The fundamental rule of civilization is that you can only use deadly force in self defense or defense of others. Killing someone who is captured and incarcerated does not qualify. It demeans us all and shames us as a culture that tolerates vengeance.What do you have against her family? I realize that some families are dysfunctional and can be held at least partially to blame for the antisocial behavior of their children. But before you punish them I want to see them receive due process and I want to see you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are in fact culpable. Otherwise this is the despicable cycle of revenge that Abrahamists are so notorious for, despite that crap they claim to believe about "turning the other cheek." That seems only to apply to their enemies, never to themselves. As Jung pointed out, "No wars in history have been as bloody as those among the Christian nations." War is nothing but revenge writ large.She deserves no special mercy but her family does. Just because she did permanent emotional damage to her victim's family doesn't mean that we have any right to do permanent emotional damage to her family.

Two wrongs still do not ever make a right. Or is this another one of those moral principles that Abrahamists are exempt from because they're so special?

I dont base laws on religion, that does not factor in on my point of view. But Christians themselves are very diverse and many would agree with you. War is revenge writ large? That is very simplistic. As far as no wars being as bloody as those among Christian nations, that is false too. This has nothing to do with the subject but Hitler stopped being a Christian long before he took power. This is easily documented, especially the SS had nothing to do with Christianity. In fact many symbols they used were taken from occult literature and when you see people measuring heads you know something else is going on there. We can surmise where that came from and you know exactly what i am talking about. I think you have skewed history to the point of severe distortion.

You say her family but what about the families of the victim's? Her family can go visit her every day but her\their victims lost their family members decades ago. Which was a direct result of their actions. Just letting the families visit them in prison is far more compassion than they showed. The point is there are consequences, has nothing to do with revenge. I dont even think this can even fit into the description of revenge.

As far as i can tell your viewpoint lacks compassion. Do you even know what she did?

If you can't do the Time, don't do the Crime.

Life is for real, She and they took Lives for real, so the Punishment has to be real.

If you can't do the Time, don't do the Crime.

It's cheaper. She's no more threat, why go to the expense of incarceration?

One doesn't dispense justice simply to isolate the harmful for a time and then release them when it becomes financially expedient. Punishments exist for a reason, and while I don't believe in an unbending justice system, I do believe the ultimate crime deserves -- at the very least -- the ultimate punnishment. At some point in this woman's life she was in control and then she gave up that control to someone else and took another person's life. She knew right from wrong, she merely chose to jetison it because it was more convenient (for whatever reason) to do so. All the reasons and exuses matter little to the net effect-- she murdered a human being. Prison, in this case, isn't here to isolate a dangerous women. It's here to make a murderer suffer for her crime, and nothing more. And why shouldn't that be? Isn't that enough? She should remain in a cage until her heart stops beating. She, at the very least, earned that.

Don't fool yourself into believing that penance for crimes does not include the revenge of the harmed. It's only so cosmopolitan today to act like the only purpose of justice is to isolate the harmful and to rehabilitate the rest. There's much more to it and part of it is the peace that comes from knowing-- on a public scale-- that those who do wrong will get what's coming to them and there is no weaseling out of it. Mob rule it should not be, but the government still owes it to the victims of horrific crimes to assuage their pain by its ability to guarantee that those who commit the worst harm will never be fully "whole" for the rest of their life. Prison is the means of ensuring that reality and this women has, at the very least, earned all of it.

~String

Sharia' does.

And the US is under Sharia? Then they should have a Pardon Committee

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36299

Don't fool yourself into believing that penance for crimes does not include the revenge of the harmed. It's only so cosmopolitan today to act like the only purpose of justice is to isolate the harmful and to rehabilitate the rest. There's much more to it and part of it is the peace that comes from knowing-- on a public scale-- that those who do wrong will get what's coming to them and there is no weaseling out of it. Mob rule it should not be, but the government still owes it to the victims of horrific crimes to assuage their pain by its ability to guarantee that those who commit the worst harm will never be fully "whole" for the rest of their life. That's just mob rule, with fancier paperwork.

"What's coming to them" on the scale of bringing peace to the harmed is not something a government is competent to decide. Attempts at assuaging pain through formal revenge via governmental power don't work all that often, and have serious side effects.

The Christian Bible has a couple of verses that are very wise, and one of them is famous in this context: "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord". He wasn't claiming it as a chosen reserved power - he was stating an unalterable fact. And the recommendation would be to act accordingly.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.

iceaura: Where do you draw the line? At what point is a criminal no longer held responsible for his or her crime in the traditional sense? When can we decide to let people free? As soon as they're old? As soon as they're disabled? As soon as they have arthritis?

That's just mob rule, with fancier paperwork.

"What's coming to them" on the scale of bringing peace to the harmed is not something a government is competent to decide. Attempts at assuaging pain through formal revenge via governmental power don't work all that often, and have serious side effects.

Perhaps, but the concept of justice, at least in this country, involves giving the harmed (and the public) a sense of peace from the whole affair. This peace is usually from some internal mechanism of schadenfreude at the other person's suffering for having done something terribly wrong and suffering the consequences. For this very reason the justice system asks the injured party's input when sentencing the perpetrator.

In a republic, individuals cede certain "powers" to the government and the government carries out those powers for them. All government IS, is very organized mob justice. You can't take another person's money to engage in some building project, the government can. You can't lock a person up for doing something wrong, the government can. You can't send a person to fight for you in a far off land with the expectation that they die, the government can. The government is an extension of our national consciousness (at least in theory it is). It has the right to exact "revenge" on behalf of the public. It may be barbaric, but it's one of the very reasons why a justice system exists. The hope is that the government does this with a steady and fair hand, but don't pretend that "revenge" isn't tightly woven into the fabric of the criminal justice system.

The Christian Bible has a couple of verses that are very wise, and one of them is famous in this context: "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord". He wasn't claiming it as a chosen reserved power - he was stating an unalterable fact. And the recommendation would be to act accordingly.

Great. The same bible talks about stoning people in the town square, admonishes husbands that it's better to keep his wife in the corner of an attic than to live with a quarrelsome woman, and talks about suffering witches not to live (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/witches.html). I generally avoid quoting myths in the defense of my opinion, especially when those myths have done so much harm.

~String

And the US is under Sharia? Then they should have a Pardon Committee

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36299

Yes, well, we've seen how well the Pardon Committee works in nations with Sharia.

~String

If you can't do the Time, don't do the Crime.

Life is for real, She and they took Lives for real, so the Punishment has to be real.

If you can't do the Time, don't do the Crime.

yep. wonder if that ever came up when 'Baretta' went to trial.:D

yep. wonder if that ever came up when 'Baretta' went to trial.:D

Would be intresting to see if it did, but remember he was found innocent, so he wasn't ever faced with doing the time.

It was amazing when he said he went back to the restaurant because he forgot his gun. In a way you would wonder why someone would add that to their story. The thing is that even with just a shred of doubt the jury is very likely to acquit.

She deserves no special mercy but her family does. Just because she did permanent emotional damage to her victim's family doesn't mean that we have any right to do permanent emotional damage to her family.


I hear you, and you do have a point, but where do you draw a line regarding where to not punish for the sake of not 'harming' the family? Having one of your family members go to jail, after all, is also traumatic.....?

If you can't do the Time, don't do the Crime.

Life is for real, She and they took Lives for real, so the Punishment has to be real.

It seems like being incarcerate until a few months before you die paralyzed and in pain is real punishment.

I understand you think she should have received the death penalty. But I cannot see how her punishment is unreal if she is allowed to die outside prison.

I hear you, and you do have a point, but where do you draw a line regarding where to not punish for the sake of not 'harming' the family? Having one of your family members go to jail, after all, is also traumatic.....? And this also is a good point. But in the case at hand we are talking about someone who does not even need an ankle bracelet to be tracked. She is sick and paralyzed and dying. She will not 'enjoy her freedom' and is not a threat to society.

I think a lot of factors should be weighed into such decisions, but I am not sure how the family of the victims loses out.

It also makes us, as a society, humane.