Susan Atkins will stay in prison

Looks like life means life Sadie. Big props to V. Bugliosi for the slam dunk in 69.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/14/manson.follower.ap/...

she's got terminal brain cancer and has already had a leg amputated... I don't think she's a threat.

She did horrible things. She got life and got to live it.

but it was commuted to life when the death penalty was outlawed.

She is lucky to have her LIFE, even if in prison. IMHO, her crimes were so heinous, she should die in prison.

I agree with you.

I thought they should let her out to die with her family.

Don't get the blood lust that comes from this. What she did was beyond awful, but letting her out would be the compassionate thing to do.

I think people who want to see her serve her full term are simply seeking justice.

1. Atkins was released from prison in March. She is in a local hospital.
2. OP states "Atkins will stay in prison" while the linked CNN article says "Keep Manson follower in prison, DA urges".
3. She will never return to prison as she will die in the hospital. The only relevant point is whether she dies in the hospital or at home.

We've had plenty of threads on Atkins, but the whole thing is moot.
It's over.

what she did to the poor victims.

It is a tremendous challenge to the person of conscience to extend compassion and mercy to all persons, especially those who do not "deserve" it.

But if we do not, we risk being caught up in a cycle of hate and revenge, which is something I want no part of. And no, do not ask me if I would feel differently were it my family member who was murdered by this person. Maybe I would. I would like to think that I would not. I would strive to find compassion for this person, undeserving as she might be.

It's not about her. She's either beyond redemption or she isn't (we'll never know). It's about you. It's about making you the better human being by taking the higher road.

where Manson didn't kill anyone (that we know of), but rather, gave orders to have people killed, and given that there are other similar instances of this known to us, for example, Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind, wheelchair-bound sheik who allegedly masterminded the plans behind the first WTC attack in 1993, if she is conscious, and if the fact of her remorse is in question, she's a threat, period. She's a threat to the citizens of California and anywhere else, frankly. Endangering the lives and welfare of the citizens of California is extremely irresponsible.

That you characterize setting such an individual free from incarceration as "taking the higher road" is simply bizarre.

She is (or is not) beyond redemption. Showing mercy to her when she is near death in no way excuses her crimes, which were horrible. Precisely because she deserves no mercy is why she should be granted it. It ennobles us, the merciful. She is out of the equation.

Maybe that is a bizarre way of looking at it, but I would do it anyway. I would always, always, always try to err on the side of compassion and mercy. On the occasions when I have had the opportunity to be compassionate and I have not done so, I have been angry with myself.

As I stated upthread, it is extremely difficult to find compassion for a person who has committed such awful acts. But try we must. At least that's what I think, and I've got some good thinkers behind me who have said as much.

"Gosh, look at what a miserable life she brought upon herself. I feel bad that someone who once was just an innocent baby somehow took a very wrong turn in life, and that it is necessary to continue to incarcerate her, despite her ailing health, because of the real threat she potentially poses to society, given the conspiratorial nature of the original murders, and the unresolved question of whether or not she is remorseful for her crimes. Hopefully, her victims and God somehow will have mercy on her in the afterlife."

I just don't think releasing a dangerous criminal into society ennobles anyone, or else why not release Charles Manson? He's 73 and probably not as healthy as he once was.

She is at present, dying. She will be dead very soon. Although I have not followed her condition and treatment, it does not sound to me as if she will be on the prowl for new victims. The motion to release her was simply to allow her to die at home with her family. She's not going to be at large.

As for Manson, if he were actively dying (i.e. close to death) and physically was unable to harm anyone, I might think the same thing--although drumming up any compassion for Manson is a pretty tall order. I don't know what the right answer is.

rather than hash this issue out endlessly (because I don't think we're going to come to an agreement), let's just accept the parole board's decision and let this go. Cheers -

Peace to you.

Probably nothing.

I'm sure there are some security restrictions in the hospital she's in, but I doubt she's unable to have any visitors at all.

By having her death penalty commuted Atkins has already been the recipient of more compassion than she ever showed her victims.

BUT: She should never be released from prison. Unless she's on hospice watch and will be dead in a day or two. Then I would relent and let her die someplace else. But at that point, who really cares if she's in prison or in a room somewhere else.

If for no other reason than the chance her situation will be a deterrent to other would-be murderers.

She showed no mercy to her victim. The victim's family lives with their loss every day... so should Sadie.

I have no doubt she was duped by Charlie and that she was high on serious drugs at the time. And if she could go back in time, I have no doubt she'd do things differently. But man -- I just can't get over the horrific nature of the crime.

I was just a kid. The images have stuck with me. They all laughed it up during the trials; absolutely chilling. Perhaps it will deter someone else from coming under the influence of freaks like Charlie Manson too. I think he had an unearthly control over these people, much like that of Jim Jones. It must be a sorrowful thing to be so empty that freaks like that can make you think you need to kill yourself or another. Creepy.

Kinda sounds like MY life.

Seriously though... Atkins told the grand jury that she held Tate down while Watson stabbed her. She also testified that Tate had pleaded for her life and that of her unborn child, to which Atkins replied, "Woman, I have no mercy for you."

No mercy for Atkins.

She got life, it was less than what she originally got (death), and that's what she should serve, period. There is no blood lust here. I do not want to see her tortured or mistreated.

Tate begged for the life of her unborn child (!) and this horrible lady laughed at her begging and stabbed her to death.

this cannot be forgiven.

Maybe they'll withhold a few cc's of pain meds. She still has a lot to answer for.

suffered a lot, more than her victims did, in terms of time knowing it is coming and physical pain. That's what people often complain about - the death penalty is carried out too mercifully, in their opinion. If she had died in the gas chamber, it would have been much faster. This way, you can be sure she suffered a great deal. Whether in prison at the very end or not, this would be so.

There is no fucking way you can know that she suffered more. And length of time is hardly the sole measure of suffering. She's received care from professionals instead of being tormented and tortured. I have no particular opinion about whether she should have been released but to claim that she suffered more than her victims is arrogant bullshit.

I hear that this administration could use a wonderful person like you.

Ask her victim. I wonder if she was tortured. Ya think?

And that makes it ok for you then I think you should find a "we support torture" forum to post your views in.

when she takes her last breath. That's all.

How is that torturing her? Torture is inflicting suffering on someone else. She(her body) is inflicting the pain on herself.

Letting her suffer is NOT torture.

if they did that to you in a hospital you would sue. but since she is a convicted criminal it is ok? Where has America gone? To make someone suffer needlessly is torture. So let's hope you are never warden of a prison or Gitmo.

I know a few freeper types who are really out there. But none of them would even go that far.

Stick a gun in someones face. Go to jail forever. End of story.

Trying to evoke sympathy or didn't think that little fact was important?

Though a former coworker did witness such an attempt once. Nutcase walked up to people with his fist stretched out in front of him. Eventually some woman panicked, gave him her purse and ran to two cops watching the whole thing.

"No, ma'am, he did not rob you. You just handed him your purse," they replied.

They did retrieve the purse then haul the man off to a hospital for the night. But they had a lot of fun laughing at the woman because, technically, she was not robbed. The guy made no demands or overt threats. She just freaked out and gave him her purse.

Also they stick their hands in their pockets and threaten people under the pretense of having a gun. When someone actually sticks a gun in someones face, They deserve prison for life. No chance of parole.

Actually, the Chinese are eagerly recruiting American quislings willing to help them modernize technologically. If you have any such skills, you might consider emigrating. If nothing else, they are seeking teachers of English. Unlike the typical online neanderthal, you do write properly.

You would love their legal system. They like draconian laws too.

Shes a convicted serial murderer. not your local smash and grab criminal.

So in the "new world order" we can act like savages and and justify it with "she was a mass murderer?" Ok that is working real well for shrub so i suppose we can just roll with that. Please submit yourself for public floggin the next time you get a jay walking ticket. have a nice day.

I'm here.

Why would you say that? How would you feel if it was you? Your sister?

She will either answer for her actions in the next world (I do not believe this, but I know many do), or she won't. I don't know enough about the case to know whether she has demonstrated any remorse up to this point. It doesn't matter. You are called upon to show compassion for others, regardless of the circumstances. I'm no Christian, but I don't recall Jesus saying, "Love your neighbor except if he does something horrible and then it's OK to do something horrible back." You want to reach back into the Old Testament to pull out the revenge crap, go ahead, but I find it repugnant.

Why, oh why, would you choose to be cruel to another human being? What do you stand to gain by that? How does that make you--or anyone--feel better?

and every civilian killed in Iraq on your hands.

Why would you choose to be cruel to another human being? What do you stand to gain by that? How does that make you--or anyone--feel better?

I mean besides getting to the mall faster.

Morality is not one from column "A" and two from column "B".

There is willful cruelty as in your example, cultural cruelty in mine.

What's the difference? The fact that you can ignore one??

I'm alive. I live. I'm not about to take myself out at this time, nor am I prepared to become a Jain. I am responsible for others, and so must provide for their needs as best I can. This regrettably but necessarily involves compromise at some level. It is unavoidable. The use of fossil fuels (to use your example) is several degrees removed from direct cruelty, however. I live in a world not of my own making and I am doing my best to get on with it, while creating as minimal an impact as I am able. I can choose not to perform certain actions--such as withholding pain medication from a dying person--but I do not choose to allow my family to starve. Therefore I drive a vehicle to a job where I do my utmost to ensure that the people I do business with don't use sweatshop labor (etc.) We are all of us just trying to get on with it. I didn't start the damn war. I did everything I could to stop it. So I think you have a hell of a nerve telling me that I have blood on my hands and making snarky comments about the mall (where I don't even shop).

So quit with your straw men and tell my why it's OK to withhold medication from a dying person.

Here I was hoping they'd run her down the street in a stockade so we could pelt her with tomatoes and sharp rocks.

Justice denied!

Eventually someone else will help to stab a pregnant woman to death while telling her "I have no sympathy for you, Bitch." Then you can chime in again.

Her family can come visit her in her jail-based hospital bed to say good-bye.

That's infinitely more than any of her victims' families ever got a chance to do with their loved ones.

I save my compassion and tears for those that deserve it. Atkins has done nothing to warrant either.

not wasting anymore energy now on a life self-wasted.

I do not envy her, death from infirmity is terribly awful. She however will have time to prepare, time that Sharon Tate did not have.

Good. SHe's a horrific person and I can't imagine what kind of thought process she must have to have stabbed a pregnant woman and tasted her blood, then written things on the door.

She is a monster and deserves far worse than the forty years of easy life in prison shes gotten.

but her sentence was life for multiple murder, and it was a just sentence. It's not revenge, nor is it bloodlust, to try, convict, and incarcerate someone for murder (or several). I hope she finds peace in her final days.

It is difficult to find compassion for someone who has done such horrible things. Still, we must try.

by Marie Gottschalk

Throughout American history, politicians and public officials have exploited public anxieties about crime and disorder for political gain. The difference today is that these political strategies and public anxieties have come together in the perfect storm. They have radically transformed U.S. penal policies, spurring an unprecedented prison boom. Since the early 1970s, the U.S. prisoner population has increased by more than fivefold. Today the United States is the world’s warden, incarcerating a higher proportion of its people than any other country.

How did this happen? Why didn’t politicians from Republican Barry Goldwater to Democrat Bill Clinton face more public opposition to the proliferation of harsh talk and harsh penalties, like mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws, life sentences, and capital punishment? After all, public opinion polls show that Americans’ views of crime and punishment are not uniformly harsh. Indeed, it wasn’t until the early 1990s--two decades into the prison boom and just as the crime rate was plummeting--that the public identified crime as a leading national problem.

Liberal disillusionment with rehabilitation beginning in the 1970s together with attacks from the right and left on sen-tencing policy (notably indeterminate sentences) certainly provided major openings for penal policy to shift radically in the United States. The profitable prison-industrial complex and conservative groups, like the National Rifle Association, were also key players in promoting hard-line policies. But the picture is more complex than that.

Other groups, some of which are not the usual suspects, helped facilitate, often unwittingly, a more punitive environ-ment. Four movements in particular mediated the construction of the carceral state in important ways: the victims’ rights movement, the women’s movement, the prisoners’ rights movement, and opponents of capital punishment. The distinctive origins and development of these movements help explain why such a massive carceral state took root in the United States but not in other industrialized countries facing similar crime patterns and similar temptations to exploit law-and-order issues.

more: http://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticle.aspx?arti...

Do you have any cites showing how the NRA was a part of the prison/industrial complex?

but not on crimes in general. Their concern was gun crimes.

... intent in California when they sued the state for not enforcing the law against a first time offender.

Everyone hearing of the law makes the false assumption it applies to a person arrested again after having served and been released on two previous occasions. But that is not how the NRA wrote the law -- and, yes, the NRA wrote the law that was introduced by a GOP legislator. The law simply requires mandatory life without parole for someone convicted of three or more violent crimes.

The prisoner they sued over committed a single armed robbery. During this single incident, he violated three or more separate crimes qualifying him for the 3-Strikes sentence. You point a gun at someone (armed assault), take his money (armed robbery) and tie him up (unlawful restraint) while making your escape. One incident can easily add up multiple crimes.

So the 3-Strikes law becomes a 1-Strike law. I quit the NRA over this and the Oklahoma City bombing.

They don't write laws.

Secondly. The guy committed armed robbery. He deserves to spend the reast of his natural life behind bars. He pulled a gun on another person with malice intent. Are you implying that this guy got a raw deal?

Third. It pains me to have to defend the NRA.

You have to be to propose the law in the legislature. Non-legislative bodies write proposed laws all the time then give those laws to elected representatives asking them to pass them into law.

In the case of California's 3-Strike law, the NRA wrote the legisltation. Or at least they claim they wrote it. I see no reason to question them.

No, I am not implying that this guy got a raw deal. I am stating it plainly. Life in prison for a one time armed robber is fucking insane. Even most rabid rightwingers would disagree with such a draconian law. Which is why the law had to be passed in such a stealth fashion. In fact, the law was rewritten following the lawsuit once the truth about it came out.

Your agreeing that a first time armed robbery should receive life without parole puts you well to the Right of even the average Rightist whackjob.

wants him on the loose. I doubt it. They're traumatized for life.

...to support keeping her in prison.

Supporting her early release just proves to me that the anti-death penalty folks really don't mean what they say (at least some of them).

Had the victims been "little" people, she'd be out.

That's the reason. It was front-page news across the country for years. Which, in turn, was probably because it happened in California in a rich, secluded enclave to rich white people. That was part of why it was so shocking.

But I don't buy your assertion that she'd be out if it was little people. We're still talking about multiple murders, horrific murders, and stabbing a pregnant woman to death.

Sure, but if it had been, say, poor Black people -do you really think it would have got all the play?

Lets not let our prejudices against the victims lessen the magnitude of the crime. I don't care if the victims were rich RW fundies. Cold blooded murder and mutilation is inexcusable, regardless of the perpetrator. Atkins will die in a manner far different than her victims, she will not die in terror, horribly alone in the presence of her merciless murderers. She will have time to prepare herself, time she did not allow her victims.

I said it got all that notoriety because it was done in a rich white enclave to rich white people. Please read before commenting.

But it does not follow that she would be out now if her victims had been little people.

killed someone famous and not a "Little people"?

How come I didn't read about all those famous people getting killed?

a "life sentence" hardly ever lasts that long.

It's the same thing with death sentences. Those sentenced to death are disproportionately poor, which because of how our econ system has been made to work means they're disproportionately Black.

We have a highly classist society. Nobody will admit to it, but it affects everything that goes on.

Are you saying that those guilty of 1st degree murder shouldn't be put to death because they're poor?

Are you saying that the poor who commit 1st degree murder shouldn't be put to death because they're poor?

as the rich. That's because the system eliminates many options for the poor. That's why almost no weapons violence is committed by the wealthy - they don't need to resort to weapons because they have other options for settling disputes and getting what they need.

A full array of social options shouldn't be a commodity available only to the monied.

Over here you complain about being separated by class.

We have a highly classist society. Nobody will admit to it, but it affects everything that goes on.

And here you want to create division by class.

I'm saying that the poor should receive the same or better treatment under law

It's all bullshit. No one should receive better treatment than another. That includes both the wealthy and needy.

I'm good with getting rid of all disparities, myself.

Dahmer was killed in prison after only a few years, and wasn't eligible anyway.

But California got rid of the death penalty so its now life.

invalidated the death sentences (pre-1972), and California was forced to commute all those sentences to life. There was no "life without parole" statute in the state of California pre-1972, so all inmates with commuted sentences became eligible for parole on the same basis as prisoners sentenced to life.

The Manson Family was a truly horrific gang of cult-like murderers. There's reason to believe that they killed and disposed of others on the land where they lived, before carrying out the Tate-LaBianca murders for which they were caught and tried. There are a number of suspicious disappearances connected to them -- hobos, drifters, hippie kids -- unimportant people, as you might put it. It's just that the bodies have never been found.

No, the Mansons who are in prison belong there forever. Atkins, like Manson himself, has never shown remorse, empathy, or insight. If she were released now it would mean going from the prison hospital to another hospital until she dies. Let her die where she is. She's not being abused.

Hekate

despite the fact that she is no threat.

It doesn't make much difference either way.

Oh the irony in all that. She gets food shelter and health care no matter what. The law abiding people? Not so much. Something is seriously wrong with that.

One thing about Americans- when push comes to shove, they'll cut schools, close libraries and parks- but never get in their way of exactly the very last pound of flesh.

Part and parcel to why the nation's in the sorry shape its in.

has a story to tell and (importantly) apparently has no remorse over what she did, there is no way her release could be viewed as anything but a travesty of justice. Further, look at these blind, wheelchair-bound sheiks who unhatch terrorist plots, and inspire (with their words) young men to go out and kill people? I'm sorry, but if she's not remorseful and doesn't understand the gravity of what she's done, then she IS a threat.

Omar Abdel-Rahman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Abdel-Rahman

You'll need to find another rationalization for your costly pound of flesh.

Sadie's been a Christian and remorseful for 30+ years now.

and further, if calling oneself a "Christian" were all one needed to redeem one's self and be released, every criminal in existence would do so. Calls to mind that expression about "the Constitution the last refuge of scoundrels."

In her book, she says that she deserves her conviction and her sentence.

Still, who can know what's in her heart?

I've got no problem with that.

But I wouldn't have had a problem if they'd let her out to die, either.

is to show what mercy is.
No doubt what susan did was horrible beyond words. But allowing her a tiny taste of what she has missed for the greatest portion of her life would IMHO or could be a great final lesson at the end of her life in what it means to have compassion and to show mercy. Not that I wish negative energies but by giving her a lesson in 'regret of what she's missed' for so many decades due to her choices could be more powerful than any iron bars.

I am not saddened by the fact she will not be released.. but that in a lesson now lost to her she will never know what true mercy feels like... not in this life anyway.

It's too bad that the lack of compassion and mercy on this board is seriously lacking, and no, I am not shocked by any means. Here's to NothingShocksMeAnymore.. I miss her so!

when she got life. Mostly she lucked out in not getting the death penalty.

If she were let out it would only reinforce those who demand the death penalty. They could point to the Atkins and say that even life in prison doesn't mean life in prison, therefore we'd better double down on death penalties.

Life has to mean life.

But yea I do get your point in that it would only strengthen the argument FOR the death penalty of which I am totally against.

It was part of the California Supreme Court's overturning of the death penalty.

Life does not mean life in most cases, and it shouldn't. Eligibility for parole is part of the sentencing except where it is explicitly denied in advance. If that's the case, then the question is whether the parole criteria are applied evenly.

By the way, I'm against the death penalty AND life without parole sentences. Both are barbaric, in my opinion.

For the sake of argument, let's say she continues to feel Sharon Tate got what she deserved.

Should such a person be granted compassionate release?

"Compassionate" has little to do with anything, here. The woman would simply be in a hospice- just not at taxpayer expense.

just not at taxpayer expense.

What is she going to do? Get out and get a job with benefits? Win the lottery? Marry a wealthy man? No, she will still be on the public dole.Tax payers will pay her every bill until the day she dies regardless if she is in prison or released.

She has had a long time to think about her actions. Remorse alone does not excuse crime, she has to live with a reminder of what she did everyday, so do the Tate and LaBianca loved ones. I hope that she doesn't pass into the night like her victims, terrified and in awful pain, but her punishment was life in prison, and so it should remain.

and OK I'll play.. let's ass-u-me she is not remorseful. First, you or I can't do anything about how SHE feels, and if she's not remorseful by now she never will be and second, how does one learn what mercy feels like, and to know what mercy is, except by experiencing it?

Atkins has never been remorseful, she has always played games about being remorseful in order to get out. She deserves to die in prison. Krenwinkel actually has shown the most self reflection and remorse about the crimes but I thinks she too deserves to die in prison. Those crime were heinous.

that has said "This (prison) is where I belong for what I did."

But I guess I see the Socratic nature of the question.

My position is this: She should get compassionate release if she meets all the standing and generally applied criteria for compassionate release. Since one of those would have to be acknowledgment and manifest remorse for the criminal act (a condition of all parole), your question is basically moot.

It does, however, put those arguing that her physical condition itself is grounds for release. But they're wrong: her physical condition is a necessary but insufficient condition for compassionate release. All the other factors have to be weighed as well.

The problem with Atkins' case is that the factors seem to be in her favor, if she was being treated like other prisoners in her category. But she is not and will not be treated that way, largely because her crimes were a famous media spectacle that have since taken on the status of a cultural mythology. So, she will receive special treatment, rather than general treatment, based largely on the accident of media coverage, which is outside the criteria. Now, that's either good or bad depending on your take, but that appears to be what's happened. Susan Atkins (and her cohort of Krenwinkle and Van Houten) has spent more time in prison than any living woman in the California Department of Corrections. Do you think that her crime was objectively "more horrible" than any other murder(s) a woman was convicted of in 1969-1970? If so, why?

She is a monster, she brutally murdered a pregnant woman along with others (and who knows how many the manson clan murdered that got chalked up to other causes) and she is at the end of her life. That isn't abstract, that is real, and so was the woman she killed. She has no remorse, never has had any, and is undeserving of even the slightest bit of compassion. She is lucky she is in the U.S., where our prison system is incredibly soft on the convicts. Why would you think that destruction of justice is worth it to 'teach her compassion'? She is a waste of life and deserves every last second of prison time.

I agree.

and then it goes to the sentencing court for final review.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_re_us/manson_...

n/t

I don't think Mrs. Polanski's status is going to change anytime soon.

for the life of her baby..who would have been born just a few weeks later.


This image was taken on the same day she was murdered:

This is one of my favorite pictures of her.

in the White House!

That's what she told Sharon Tate as she begged for her life and the life of her unborn child. Karma's a bitch.

That link just talks about how the DA was recommending that she remain incarcerated, but the final word will come from the parole board that meets next week - at least according to the article.

As for whether or not she should get out - I guess I'm agnostic. People can change and whatnot, but I'm not sure that either myself nor anyone here is qualified to comment on whether or nor that she has.

The 12-member California Board of Parole voted unanimously to deny Atkins' request for a court hearing that could have released her to die outside prison. Tellingly, opponents of Atkins' release spoke for only about 20 minutes. But that seemed long enough.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-atkins16-2008ju...