Susan Atikins begs for release from prison

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
The only issue is whats the point.

No matter how you slice it, keeping her locked up is nothing but revenge.

we have said it is morally wrong to act on revenge or use it as a basis in our legal system.

Im not saying we shouldn't have revenge based punishments. Im saying if we are going to punish other people for acting on revenge (like beating within an inch of their life someone who killed their child), then we cannot have our legal system act as an agent of revenge.

If we are going to say revenge is acceptable and a valid emotion the state sponsors, then fine, lets stop arresting people when they succumb to that emotion.

If the victims sister had killed this woman she would be in Jail, why? If we claim its ok to make the woman suffer as form of revenge, why would we then arrest someone (and make them suffer) for doing the same thing?


That's not the only issue. It's the only issue you're focused on and I think you're wrong btw. The rules of society as a whole are not the same as the rules for an individual. That's why you can't declare war on Germany tomorrow, but the government could. That's why the government can enact laws that affect us all and you can't. Different rules apply to the government than to you so it stands to reason that they can enact punishments to people that you can't.

Some people think honouring sentences is important if you want the legal system to be taken seriously. When someone is sentenced to 25 years and gets out in 7 in makes a mockery of the legal system. That's happening all the time unfortunately. This woman is supposed to be in jail for life. That was the consequence of her actions. Until her life is over, the sentence remains in place. There is no practical value in not honouring the decision the judge and jury made years ago. If she died of a heart attack today, would people say "Oh, we should have let her out last year because she was going to die"? Of course not. So why does knowing death is close change how the penal system should treat someone?
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
To have been denied parole 17 times her sentence must be something like life with no eligibilty for parole for 20 years. Letting her out wouldn't mean she hasn't paid for her crime and is simply bipassing the justice system. They could've let her out a long time ago based on the justice administered. Parole hearings aren't meant to judge whether you've paid enough penalty, they are to assess whether society is safe if you are let go. If society is unsafe with her out, keep her in. If it is safe, pack her a lunch a call her a cab.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
To have been denied parole 17 times her sentence must be something like life with no eligibilty for parole for 20 years. Letting her out wouldn't mean she hasn't paid for her crime and is simply bipassing the justice system. They could've let her out a long time ago based on the justice administered. Parole hearings aren't meant to judge whether you've paid enough penalty, they are to assess whether society is safe if you are let go. If society is unsafe with her out, keep her in. If it is safe, pack her a lunch a call her a cab.

Her being denied parole that many times tells you something doesn't it? I guess they didn't buy her remorse...
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
The only issue is whats the point.

No matter how you slice it, keeping her locked up is nothing but revenge.

If that's what you want to think of it as, then fine.... Pox a Revenge on her Ass and let her die in jail.

The thing is, I don't see it as revenge, because I was not directly affected by the crime and I have nothing to gain from it one way or another, except to maintain justice as it was originally served. You speak about her as if she has equal rights as any other free human, but she voided herself of many of those rights when she took those rights of freedom and health (Life) from her victims. In my view, she's lucky to still be alive for as long as she has been since she was originally going to be executed in the first place.

Just because she might have been cute when she did these crimes, it's been so long since it occured, she's sobbing that she's dying from Brain Cancer, is a Born again Christian and wants to feel freedom one last time before she dies, doesn't cut it with me, it doesn't excuse what she did, and she's no more special then any other muderous criminal in prison waiting to die who doesn't get to go out and spend their last days in freedom.

we have said it is morally wrong to act on revenge or use it as a basis in our legal system.

Im not saying we shouldn't have revenge based punishments. Im saying if we are going to punish other people for acting on revenge (like beating within an inch of their life someone who killed their child), then we cannot have our legal system act as an agent of revenge.

You keep talking about refusing her freedom as some type of revenge, when all it is, is upholding the law and what the courts decided on her. Nothing has changed that.

If someone killed my child, you bet I'd act on revenge, and I sure as hell wouldn't beat them from an inch of their life.... they'd be dead in one of the most horrible manners my twisted little mind can think of. If I lost a child due to some other person's sick mentality, then I honestly wouldn't care what happened to me after I rip their wind pipe out of their throat with my bare hands and started kicking them in their lungs so they can gradually drown in their own blood. (One of many thoughts that crossed my mind of how to deal with someone like that)

If I was to spend the rest of my life in jail because of those actions, then so be it. I'll accept the responsibility of my actions like I always have and always will. Just because I always think through the consequences of my actions, doesn't mean I'd avoid doing something the rest of society would deem wrong.... there's a thing for me called principles, and one of those would be to protect my children from scum like that. If I failed in this, then I will qwell my failures in making sure the person who killed my child could never kill someone else's child in the future.

Of course I would tell the police they better find the ass who killed my child before I do.... I'm not completely ruthless. They'd have a small chance. And of course what I tell the police wouldn't be a threat, it'd simply be a promise as my father used to say a lot.

If we are going to say revenge is acceptable and a valid emotion the state sponsors, then fine, lets stop arresting people when they succumb to that emotion.

Fair enough.... I'd personally like to go back to the ol' Eye for an Eye justice myself..... after one was "Proven" to be guilty of the crime of course. There has been plenty of cases in the past where one person was killed out of revenge who was actually innocent (Which is probably one of the reasons why Eye for an Eye no longer exists in many societies.)

If the victims sister had killed this woman she would be in Jail, why? If we claim its ok to make the woman suffer as form of revenge, why would we then arrest someone (and make them suffer) for doing the same thing?

She is suffering in jail because of her own actions, and if she truly accepted her actions as being wrong, she wouldn't be sobbing and begging to be freed now. She wouldn't be shooting off excuses like she was on drugs at the time, or she was brainwashed, or that she's a born again christian, etc.

She did the deed.... she can live with it until she dies.

I'd like to back track a bit to something you said above:

"we cannot have our legal system act as an agent of revenge."

The thing is, it's an unwritten rule about police, courts and prison..... all those things are a form of revenge (Or as I call it, Punnishment) but it is a system in which helps control societies mob rule on someone they want to make suffer in a horrible way.... it's a process in which makes sure (To the best of it's ability) that they have the right person, that they can prove that it was this person who did what they were accused of doing, and to make sure a proper Punnishment is placed on them in which satisfies the public and family of the victim(s).

That is why certain States in the US and elsewhere in the world have death penalties and some don't. Their societies deem them appropreate. If that's what they want, then that's what they get, regardless if we think it's right or wrong.
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
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.


Forgiveness is like a Tylenol, it helps relive the pain. On her last leg I am sure she is not able to be a problem to society. Forgive and be free.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Forgiveness is like a Tylenol, it helps relive the pain. On her last leg I am sure she is not able to be a problem to society. Forgive and be free.
Why would one want to 'relive' the pain?? Relieve, maybe. But anyway the sentence was death in prison, so that should be the end of it.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Why would one want to 'relive' the pain?? Relieve, maybe. But anyway the sentence was death in prison, so that should be the end of it.
The death penalty is a moot because that is not her sentence. The sentence is life with eligibility for parole, and she has served 40 years. I doubt she's even remotely close to the person she was. If she isn't remorseful and is still a risk then sobeit, but her prison time shouldn't be about avenging an escape from an unlawful death sentence.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
The death penalty is a moot because that is not her sentence. The sentence is life with eligibility for parole, and she has served 40 years. I doubt she's even remotely close to the person she was. If she isn't remorseful and is still a risk then sobeit, but her prison time shouldn't be about avenging an escape from an unlawful death sentence.

Actually, she got the death sentence originally, according to the wiki article.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Actually, she got the death sentence originally, according to the wiki article.
She did but she doesn't any more because it's unlawful, so her situation has nothing to do with it. If it had any relevance they would put her to death, but it doesn't.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
The death penalty is a moot because that is not her sentence. The sentence is life with eligibility for parole, and she has served 40 years. I doubt she's even remotely close to the person she was. If she isn't remorseful and is still a risk then sobeit, but her prison time shouldn't be about avenging an escape from an unlawful death sentence.

No one is guaranteed parole. If they've decided she should stay in prison, I don't see why anyone else's opinion really matters.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
No one is guaranteed parole. If they've decided she should stay in prison, I don't see why anyone else's opinion really matters.
I wouldn't argue with that. I'm sure they decided on something we don't know much about.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Is she one of the persons who repeatedly shoved a knife into sharon tate's stomach,
killing her and her unborn baby, if so, leave her where she is to die in prison, as sharon
tate and her child, did not have one more minute of life after they were finished with her.

If she didn't actually push a knife into anyone, then I have some compassion for her,
and in my opinion, she could be allowed to die on the outside.

I remember the crime very clearly, just cannot remember each 'stabber'.

Drugs is not an excuse for killing anyone, or doing anything to hurt anyone, ever.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I'll bet she isn't remotely close to the same person that she was, being away from Manson for 40 years.
 

Canaduh

Derailing Threads
Mar 7, 2008
304
2
18
Southwest WA
I'll bet she isn't remotely close to the same person that she was, being away from Manson for 40 years.

Does anyone really care who she is now, go to the victims families and tell them that she should be released because its been 40 years and shes a different person. Drugs or no drugs the crime was done and she needs to die in jail, if only to make an example.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Does anyone really care who she is now, go to the victims families and tell them that she should be released because its been 40 years and shes a different person. Drugs or no drugs the crime was done and she needs to die in jail, if only to make an example.
Hey, it doesn't bother me if she stays in or not. So why the 17 parole hearings if she is only to be an "example" of how not to let someone out?
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Praxius, Im honestly curious.

Is it that I am not explaining myself correctly, or that you simply aren't reading what I am writing (though I did write it correctly).

I am fully willing to believe Im simply not expressing myself correctly.

But when I say its not revenge to kill or imprison someone, why do you keep acting like I am saying the exact opposite?

If you have a valid reason for executing or imprisoning someone (like the safety of others, to rehabilitate them etc) I am all for it.

Sentancing this woman to death or life in prison, thats A-Ok. She was a danger to others when they made these sentances.

She is no longer a danger to others. She cannot be rehabilitated.

In my opinion, keeping her locked up is vengeful and a waste of money.



To tracy:

I would say that isn't true, governments themselves (more appropriately those who actually carry out the actions since the government isn't a person) are still held accountable.

Governments rise and fall and the authority they held is retroactively removed. Its easy to say "the governments get a different set of rules" but they don't. They often have no accountability, but they operate on the same principles.

When governments murder people, then people try and stop them, no different than with people. The same goes for theft etc.

Locking her up doesn't do anything but waste a finite resource.


If causing her to suffer is worth somebody being denied life saving treatment, go for it. But every dollar spent means it isn't spent somewhere else.

She can't hurt anyone nor can she be rehabilitated. If you are really concerned re-introduce the death penalty and just shoot her to put her out of her misery (bringing up the Euthanasia debate).

She's dead, no amount of suffering on her part will do anything to bring back her victims, nor "make her learn" because she's dead.

Its about as useful as spitting on her corpse.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
When a society chooses to spend the money needed to keep a convicted killer alive while many in that same society suffer.......

Could those same drugs and care she's receiving be better directed toward a family unable to afford the care of their dying loved one....?

She decided to live and kill according to the choices she made whether those choices were product of substance abuse or "brain washing"..... That a society that tolerates homelessness and food banks will spend money to keep these people alive.....