Skip to main content

Should Susan Atkins - one of the Manson murderers - be released from prison to die at home? Having been diagnosed with terminal cancer, she has been given approximately six months to live. Susan Atkins has put a request in to be released from prison so she may die at home with her family. What do you think? Should she be released to die?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I think its wrong, she got a death sentence, then it was changed to life. She should die in prison, but from what I have read, she just may get her release.

From the Los Angeles Times: Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Atkins, said he doesn't have an objection to her being released. The release request has been approved by the prison, and is under corrections department review. If the department approves, the Board of Parole Hearings and the sentencing court in Los Angeles also must sign off on the request.
A "Life" sentence servies more purposes than just keeping a dangerous criminal off the street. She's probably not a threat to society at this point. But it's also a deterrant. The point of it being that you spend the REST of your life in prison. You die there. Alone!

Whether that deters anyone else from committing a henious crime is anybody's guess. But it makes a statement. That's her sentence and that's where she needs to stay.
The bill passed in Alabama last week. They are not going home for the most part, they are just having legal custody changed.

I lived in LA for over 30 years. Its my understanding that California does this also on a case to case basis. This getting so much publicity, they might not let her go, but believe me they do in most cases.
Susan Atkins has been diagnosed as a Sociopath. Such diagnoses are not approved by all psychiatric bodies, but I personally believe they exist. Such individuals are like sexual predators and rarely respond to treatment.

That being said, it should be noted:

1. This is for the California authorities to decide, not anyone in Alabama. We don't want Californians' opinions concerning our government, or at least I don't.

2. Atkins, like all the Manson family, was not given a life without possibility of parole sentence. Her sentence was life with the possibility of a parole. Other members of the Manson family have already been paroled. She and Manson himself are considered the worst offenders of the lot and have never been given serious consideration by the board.

3. I assume the California Parole Board is similar enough to the Alabama Board to believe that it mainly considers the amount of time already served and any self improvement the prisoner has made while incarcerated.

4. In this particular case, both the Parole Board and a judicial panel have to approve the release. I would think it's doubtful, but it would be expedient financially.
quote:
Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
quote:
Originally posted by hoss gal:
no, she should not.

a life sentence means until you die. those people she killed didn't get to go home to their families - why should she get to?


No, she did not receive life without. She and Manson both have had periodic parole hearings.


Yes, BUT she was originally given the death penalty along with Charlie before California wussed out and voted it down later. To address your earlier comments as well, I DO live in California and I say let her rot.
quote:
Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
The manner in which a poster comments speaks volumes. To say "let her serve the entire sentence" or "let her rot" basically says the same thing, yet tells us much about those who choose these words.


Thank you so much Fire - I was afraid I wasn't going to be able to express myself strongly enough on this topic. Your comment says that I got my point across EXACTLY as I had intended. I personally think she should have been fried a long time ago. Charlie too.

And before you take the time, YES, I'm aware I could have chosen the much more genteel and sanitized term of "electrocuted" but, again, I call 'em like I see 'em.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
No. And we should not be paying for any medication, either. Her victims were not afforded painkiller, why should she be?


Now you sound as cruel as she was when she killed Tate. That is not the way our system works.


I know...It's not something I could ACTUALLY do...
Maybe the courts and prison board could ask the families of the victims what should be done.

I don't have a dog in that race, but if I were a family member of one of the victims I would think I would be given the opportunity to voice my opinion on the matter.

I don't think any cancer paitent should go without pain meds. Have you ever witnessed anyone dying with cancer? If you have you would not feel that way. I would not want my worst enemy to go through that. It is absolutely horrible!
quote:
Originally posted by yankeewitch:
I have witnessed someone dying with cancer. I think not giving her any pain meds is just what she deserves.


Then you are just as cruel as she was at one time. She is going to die slowly and after having spent her entire life in prison. Our system is not one of torture. She may have been an animal - we are not.
quote:
Originally posted by TNFAN96:
Maybe the courts and prison board could ask the families of the victims what should be done.

I don't have a dog in that race, but if I were a family member of one of the victims I would think I would be given the opportunity to voice my opinion on the matter.



I don't think any cancer paitent should go without pain meds. Have you ever witnessed anyone dying with cancer? If you have you would not feel that way. I would not want my worst enemy to go through that. It is absolutely horrible!


The Tate family has been involved in every one of the Parole Board hearings since they began. I imagine they will be consulted.
quote:
Originally posted by yankeewitch:
I have witnessed someone dying with cancer. I think not giving her any pain meds is just what she deserves.


Never thought I'd agree with a yankee Big Grin Wink, but I'm right there with you yankeewitch. I'm a big fan of the Bible's "eye for an eye" punishment. Compared to what she did you her victims, she's gotten off so lightly all these years.

Sociopaths, of which she is one, are dangerous up until they draw their last breath. She should definitely not be allowed outside those prison gates, no matter how sick she is.
quote:
What do you think? Should she be released to die?


Perhaps the question should be, "Should the citizens of the state pay for he most expensive part of keeping her alive or should the state toss her in the gutter to let her waste away?"

If she is really wasting away and almost dead with no chance of remission, sure, toss her butt in the gutter with the rest of the trash. The state had done its job.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
What do you think? Should she be released to die?


Perhaps the question should be, "Should the citizens of the state pay for he most expensive part of keeping her alive or should the state toss her in the gutter to let her waste away?"

If she is really wasting away and almost dead with no chance of remission, sure, toss her butt in the gutter with the rest of the trash. The state had done its job.


Better yet take her out back and put a bullet between her eyes.

Meanasasnake, I never said I wasn't cruel, but only to people that deserve it.
Last edited by yankeegramma
quote:
Originally posted by yankeewitch:
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
What do you think? Should she be released to die?


Perhaps the question should be, "Should the citizens of the state pay for he most expensive part of keeping her alive or should the state toss her in the gutter to let her waste away?"

If she is really wasting away and almost dead with no chance of remission, sure, toss her butt in the gutter with the rest of the trash. The state had done its job.


Better yet take her out back and put a bullet between her eyes.

Meanasasnake, I never said I wasn't cruel, but only to people that deserve it.


Does not matter. The final decision will not be up to you. Your cruelty is innocuous - except maybe to those who actually have to deal with you personally.

I am curious by the remarks that have been made about who pays for prisons. Who do you expect to pay for inmate incarceration? Inmate healthcare? Medications? Food? The tax payers ALL pay for such institutions.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
For example, then, should taxpayers be required to pay for, say, a liver transplant for a prisoner serving a life sentence? Or should the condition be allowed to run its course?

The difficult question is not, "who is to pay?". It's "how far do we go?"



I am not sure how we make those decisions. Life in prison means just that - life in prison. I understand your point, but I believe once we incarcerate an individual we then become responsible for that individual to a reasonable extent. If someone is in prison for armed robery, but had never killed anyone - is that the same as an individual who actually did murder someone? Do you give the transplant to either one? Its not really an easy question to answer. All these people who want to take em out back and shoot em are not being rational. No matter their crimes, they are human beings who have become the burden of the state because of those crimes. We are a civilized society - a great nation based on laws and morals.
quote:
Originally posted by MarianLibrarian:
Hmm, wonder what my mom's cancer was payback for.


quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Always a voice for reason.


You & mean misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying everyone that has had cancer is payback for anything. My Mom died with cancer too. I'm only saying that if there is a God that could be his way of letting Atkins reap what she sowed.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×