Susan Atikins begs for release from prison

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Susan Atkins, one of the 'Manson family' killers is asking to be released from prison on grounds of compassion as she dies of brain cancer. Diagnosed in April, doctors feel she will have mere months left to live.

A born again Christian, she has been denied parole 17 times, despite her soft spoken assertions that she was brainwashed and under the influence of drugs then, mentally unsound, and she is now clear headed and truly repentant about her crimes.

Debra Tate, the last living relative of her most famous victim, Sharon Tate, has strongly opposed Atkins' release, stating that she ought to die in prison. Given that this was her original sentence when convicted, death, and it was dropped because of the changes in the legal system, is it fair to still expect death within the prison walls? Should compassion be given for Atkins and those she has left to her, an example of how society IS better than the criminals it punishes?
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
She has been in prison for 39 years and probably was brainwashed by Manson. I doubt she'd hurt anyone.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
She apparently is at a point in the progression of her cancer where she can barely even sit up in bed, so, hurting anyone is quite obviously not an issue.
 

dirtylinder

get dirty
Apr 24, 2007
301
6
18
vancouver island
I have seen a news show on her before and I thought she was so calming...she is not the person she was when the murders took place...I say, if it costs less to release her do it, if it will cost more to release her, don't.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I can certainly understand that the families of the victims wouldn't want to see her out. If the sentence was life without parole, she would be expected to die of something while she was in prison. I wish these decisions didn't have to be made, but as well, I wish people wouldn't do what she and Manson and company did. I could probably be brought around to seeing her let out but my first reaction is that she should stay in prison.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Well that depends on the purpose of the Justice system.


Rehabilitation (release her)
Protecting the public (release her)
Revenge (hold her till she dies and don't spare expenses in making it uncomfortable)
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Susan Atkins, one of the 'Manson family' killers is asking to be released from prison on grounds of compassion as she dies of brain cancer. Diagnosed in April, doctors feel she will have mere months left to live.

A born again Christian, she has been denied parole 17 times, despite her soft spoken assertions that she was brainwashed and under the influence of drugs then, mentally unsound, and she is now clear headed and truly repentant about her crimes.

Too bad, accept the responsibility of your own actions. Regardless if you were a druggy or not, she took the drugs that gave her the excuses, she was involved in the whole thing just as much as everybody else, I have no sympathy for her.

If a man a few years ago who raped a woman tried to use the excuse that "he was drunk when he did it, so he wasn't responsible" didn't work to get him off the hook.... why should any other drug use be made into an excuse?

And clearly she's not of clear headed, since she's got brain cancer.... that's not very clear if you ask me....

yeah I know, I'm an asshole.

And besides, a "Born Again Christian" is meaningless, except to perhaps Christians I suppose. A "BAC" title doesn't mean they're immune to commiting evil acts again and doesn't make them perfect.

Debra Tate, the last living relative of her most famous victim, Sharon Tate, has strongly opposed Atkins' release, stating that she ought to die in prison. Given that this was her original sentence when convicted, death, and it was dropped because of the changes in the legal system, is it fair to still expect death within the prison walls?

Yes.

Should compassion be given for Atkins and those she has left to her, an example of how society IS better than the criminals it punishes?

Society IS better then the criminals it punishes, because society isn't the one who killed the innocent the criminals killed. If society decided to kill people randomly who were innocent or commited no crimes, then yes, society wouldn't be any better then the criminals.... since this isn't the case, then the comparison is invalid.

She was involved in killing people who will never be able to live out their full lives.... in fact, she lived much longer then the person she killed, which to me is unfair justice, regardless if she was caged up like the rat that she is since she was found guilty.

I am not swayed by excuses, and I don't give a crap if she's got brain cancer, lung cancer, had several strokes, or has green poop... she's in there for a reason, and when someone is going to be put in jail for the rest of their lives, it should be expected that that person will eventually die from some kind of illness, it should not be sympathized.

Where was her sympathy when she killed? Sorry.... sympathy after the fact is irrelevent, because it doesn't bring back that person they killed. I can not turn back the clock on some of the "Mistakes" I have made in my life, and I accept every single action I have made thus far in my life and will make..... she's in jail for life.... she can rot in there until it's over.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Mass murders perpetrated by Manson's little Family:[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The first murder by the family was of Gary Hinman, a Los Angeles drug dealer and musician. His body was discovered on 1969-JUL-31.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The first series of mass murders, called the "Tate" homicides, occurred at the home of Sharon (Tate) Polanski on 1969-AUG-9. Three victims were shot and/or stabbed multiple times on the grounds of the estate. These were Abigail Folger, Steven Parent and Voiytek Frykowski. Sharon Polanski and Jay Sebring were murdered inside the house. Sharon, 8 months pregnant at the time, died from numerous stab wounds, five of which were by themselves fatal; Jay died of blood loss. Both had their necks loosely attached by a single rope over a rafter.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The next homicides, called the "LaBianca murders," occurred two days later in the home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. They were found stabbed to death with dozens of wounds. [/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Finally, Donald Shea was murdered. He was a former stuntman and hired hand at the Spahn Ranch.[/FONT]
It later came out that all of the "family" stabbed every victim at least once. Susan Atkins was a mass murderer along with the rest of them. I couldn't take part in the releasing of any one of them.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Oh and I would also like to add that my reasoning is not out of revenge, but out of punishment. If you issue a prison sentence for someone over a crime such as this they commited, it should be followed through by the book... giving into sympathy for their condition only sends the message that what they did is tollerated/accepted to a remote degree.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Then the next question is, if the purpose of incarceration is revenge,

why is it so poorly? Why not make prisons alot harsher? We look at nations poorly which include torture in their justice system, but if the whole point of our justice system is revenge (as Praxius said you can't bring back the dead) then why not make it effective at what it does. If the whole point of locking her up isn't to keep others safe (now that she's infirm) but to cause her suffering, why not actually torture her?

Also: Punishment is an act of vengeance. It is like saying Determined instead of stubborn. Punishment can act as a means of deterent but that is exactly the same as vengeance, exact painful enough revenge and others will see what happens when they wrong you.

Other than a politically correct term, it is vengeance.
 
Last edited:

Vereya

Council Member
Apr 20, 2006
2,003
54
48
Tula
I agree with #juan and Praxius. Letting Atkins die in prison of brain cancer is not more cruel than killing an 8 months pregnant woman. I'd say it is not cruel at all - she is going to die her own death, that came to her as it was supposed to, it's not a violent death that occurs of someone else's volition. She got the sentence she fully deserved, and now let her serve it till the very end. You do something - you get the consequences you deserve, it's the law of this world. No one is going to get you out of it, unless you can pay a good price for it, in one way or another.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I'd like to think that the life jail term is the option the judge/jury has chosen as punishment for one or more specific crimes. If we truly wanted revenge, we should have stabbed and shot the lot of them. I don't think we should be second guessing that judge and jury out of pity for a murderess. Pity that she didn't show to the victims.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Since when is death the best form of revenge?

A quick and painless death is often used as a reward in some countries.


"pity she didn't show the victims" is again revenge speak. The victims are dead and locking her away in her final moments won't help rehabilitate her nor will it help protect people from her.

Im not saying there is anything wrong with Revenge, but be open about it rather than hypocritical about it. People want to make her life worse for what she did (beyond keeping others safe from her).

It doesn't really matter if she ate a thousand babies. If she's harmless to society and is not being rehabilitated by this course of action it is revenge.

If you are ok with revenge (and there is no real reason not to consider it a valid emotion) then thats fine, but call it what it is.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Then the next question is, if the purpose of incarceration is revenge,

why is it so poorly? Why not make prisons alot harsher? We look at nations poorly which include torture in their justice system, but if the whole point of our justice system is revenge (as Praxius said you can't bring back the dead) then why not make it effective at what it does. If the whole point of locking her up isn't to keep others safe (now that she's infirm) but to cause her suffering, why not actually torture her?

Meh, I would have just either killed her the way she killed her victims, or just simply put three rounds into her head.

Also: Punishment is an act of vengeance. It is like saying Determined instead of stubborn. Punishment can act as a means of deterent but that is exactly the same as vengeance, exact painful enough revenge and others will see what happens when they wrong you.

Other than a politically correct term, it is vengeance.

Oh well in that case, let's just let all the prisoners out of jail.... They're only in there because we're seeking revenge after all, based on your mentality.... so if that's so wrong, then why do we even bother with jails in the first place?

Frig sakes people.... if we execute the person, that's revenge.... if we jail them for the rest of their lives, it's revenge.... wtf do you expect to do then if you can't do any of those things? Give them a friggin book to read about what they did was wrong and send them back home?

Yeah, like that'd work.

Punishment is not Revenge. If your child starts beating the crap out of your other child and you send them to their room for a while, or put them on some time out, is that Revenge?

"Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal in response to an unwanted, disobedient or morally wrong behavior."

"Revenge (also vengeance, retribution, or vendetta amongst others) consists primarily of retaliation against a person or group in response to a perceived wrongdoing. Although many aspects of revenge resemble or echo the concept of justice, revenge usually has a more injurious than harmonious goal. The goal of revenge usually consists of forcing the perceived wrongdoer to suffer the same pain that was originally inflicted."

Execution is the closest thing to what you call Revenge..... Keeping her sorry ass in jail is upholding her Punishment.

While I would personally not blink dropping a few rounds in the head of someone like her who has taken the life of an innocent, my principles hold me true to keeping her punishment sound and solid to what it was originally stated as... therefore I say keep her locked away until she starts smelling up the place and dump her.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
No, in the instances of sending the child to his room thats rehabilitation. There is an expectation that this action will allow the child to re-enter society a better person who will not re-offend.

In the instance of executions or life imprionsment, that is also not (always) revenge but to protect the population from that dangerous person.

Its not more or less vengeful to choose life imprisonment than execution. For many people, life imprisonment is far worse than death. I know if I had an option between the two I'd pick death. We all die eventually, how many years do I wish to rot in torment before I go? I choose 0 if given the option.

If you asked to imprison an invalid who is unable to move without outside help, that would be revenge again, unless, you could show that that was to rehabilitate the person. If the person was going to die in 3 weeks anyways, it would be petty revenge.

That doesn't mean revenge isn't warranted, it just shouldn't be sanitised from what it is. The reason your definition fails (as an excersize in semantics in societies mind) is it doesn't state WHY the punishment is administered.

Why do you rub the dogs nose in its pee when it goes on the carpet?

if its so the dog doesn't do it againt, then its "punishment for the purpose of rehabilitation"
if its so the dog suffers because you suffer, then its "punishment for the purpose of revenge"


So why are you keeping this dying woman locked up when she is no danger to others?

Since its not so she wont do it again, its not punishment for the purposes of rehabilitation.
Since she is infirm and can't hurt anyone, its not punishment for the purposes of public safety

Since its appears to be from everyone involved that its because she doesn't deserve mercy she didn't give to others (aka making her feel the same lack of mercy as her victims, a trait you stated for revenge) therefore it is appears to be Punishment for the purposes of revenge.
 
Last edited:

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Just one more comment:

The penalties for the crimes Charles Manson's group committed were not a secret. Killing someone in cold blood was a capital crime, and in most states, they would have got the death penalty. It can't be said that the murders were any kind of accident, or that there was any kind of mitigating circumstance. They invaded homes, and brutally, mutilated and killed people. We all know this of course but I can't agree with anything other than easing her suffering in her last days in the prison.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Do you happen to know if her stab was the fatal one? She's going to die anyhow so it's not like she's been forgiven and freed.... Yeah, I know.... God forgives;-)
Your point was to let her die with dignity. Even if her stab wasn't the fatal one, (and she was an accessory), their victims certainly didn't die with dignity. Neither should she be given that opportunity.