Susan Atikins begs for release from prison
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
While we're at it, let's give Clifford Olsen a break. He must be cured by now. A few years down the road we could turn Bernardo loose as well. No? I wonder if it is because they are men and Atkins is a woman? Was Atkins not as bad as olsen, or Bernardo?
I don't think any of Manson's "family" can be released because I don't think they can ever get around the fact that they have repeatedly shoved knives into eight people plus an unborn baby. Atkins wants out because she somehow thinks that she is less deserving of punishment because she is now born again, And that she is penitent and that makes it okay.
I don't think she should get out because life in prison is what the law requires. She has been turned down for parole many times because the people in charge of those decisions didn't want her out. We all knew when she was sentenced, that she would get older and old people do get sick. It is probable that she wouldn't hurt anyone if she was let out, but damn it, her sentence was life in prison for mutilating and killing nine people. I think she should stay in prison.
I don't think any of Manson's "family" can be released because I don't think they can ever get around the fact that they have repeatedly shoved knives into eight people plus an unborn baby. Atkins wants out because she somehow thinks that she is less deserving of punishment because she is now born again, And that she is penitent and that makes it okay.
I don't think she should get out because life in prison is what the law requires. She has been turned down for parole many times because the people in charge of those decisions didn't want her out. We all knew when she was sentenced, that she would get older and old people do get sick. It is probable that she wouldn't hurt anyone if she was let out, but damn it, her sentence was life in prison for mutilating and killing nine people. I think she should stay in prison.
Prison is for rehabilitation. Examples are kept in zoos. Don't get me wrong. What she did was reprehensible. If it's only to rub an unrepentant crazy Charlie's nose in it, she should die outside those walls. Manson never will....
Last edited:
People keep making the assumption that Atkins has been rehabilitated. Is she?
She has become physically sick but has her mental process become miraculously 'well'?
If she were younger (as she was during the parole hearings earlier) and still of sound body (much less mind), would she truly be rehabilitated?
I wonder if she is making the argument that her illness has caused her to repent and if so, how is this true repentance?
I wonder if she is truly not sorry for her crimes because she is an anti-social personality without conscience and again is using the system to gain freedom because she now has a viable argument for release. To me the incarceration for a life sentence reduced from death is just that: with or without health or sanity.
The authorities who have interviewed her during the long parole hearings know more than we do as the public weighing information provided by news writers but without valid first-hand knowledge of her true rehab.
I think she was far beyond redemption - one has to be mad to consistently and violently take lives - especially an unborn life - and I doubt she has had to do enough work on herself to test her societal improvement. There is no way to know she is not the same madwoman she was when she committed the vicious crimes.
Cancer and the loss of a limb doesn't have a positive effect upon her mental status.
She has become physically sick but has her mental process become miraculously 'well'?
If she were younger (as she was during the parole hearings earlier) and still of sound body (much less mind), would she truly be rehabilitated?
I wonder if she is making the argument that her illness has caused her to repent and if so, how is this true repentance?
I wonder if she is truly not sorry for her crimes because she is an anti-social personality without conscience and again is using the system to gain freedom because she now has a viable argument for release. To me the incarceration for a life sentence reduced from death is just that: with or without health or sanity.
The authorities who have interviewed her during the long parole hearings know more than we do as the public weighing information provided by news writers but without valid first-hand knowledge of her true rehab.
I think she was far beyond redemption - one has to be mad to consistently and violently take lives - especially an unborn life - and I doubt she has had to do enough work on herself to test her societal improvement. There is no way to know she is not the same madwoman she was when she committed the vicious crimes.
Cancer and the loss of a limb doesn't have a positive effect upon her mental status.
I agree that they should have executed her.
At the time she was a danger to society (So society needed to be protected) and it would have saved a whole lot of money.
But they didn't execute her, society made a concious decision to keep her alive.
Now the end result of that decision is that she is no longer a danger to society, cannot be rehabilitated and it is a pointless waste of money that serves no purpose but revenge, to keep her incarcerated.
Society spoke, now it seems to want to undo what it said.
I actually recall saying just the opposite, that she can't be rehabilitated, and since she is no longer a danger to others (being infirm) it really doesn't make sense to keep her locked up and spending money.
Well she might have enough energy still to spit some strong medication from her mouth into the eyes of someone and cause them blindness, or she might get them in the mouth and they ingest it and die.....
..... we shouldn't take that risk.
Zzarchov
Agreed - but the people will continue to spend money whether she is in jail or in a hospice setting - she is a ward of the court and of the welfare system.
She may very well get more medical attention within the prison system than she would as a 'regular' welfare recipient.
The message I still hold onto is the acts she committed. They are in my mind unforgivable and certainly inexplicable by reason of insanity or now excusable because of medical necessity and physical challenge.
If execution is off the board, what other deterrent can we have except incarceration for life - even when terminally ill?
There are many lifers who die in prison - quick onset of heart attack, long standing treatable cancer which finally fails, emphysema is rampant, lung failure, STDs in their final stages - what makes Atkins so special???
Ok, am I seriously hearing the word deterent?
You think someone crazy enough to go into a murder cult is going...
"Well Im willing to spend 30 years in prison, but If I guess I won't murder that family if I also have to spend my last few days there too as I sit infirm in a hospital bed"
And nothing make Atkins special. Anyone with no danger to the community (permanently) or hope of rehabilitation should be allowed to go die on the family farm or wherever they want to.
Its a pointless waste of money to keep her in prison for no valid reason. The same with anyone in the same circumstances.
The Legal system has already done its job, it protected society from any danger the person posed.
Now they are just a corpse waiting to stop breathing, they have no danger to others and it really doesn't matter what they did, because it can't be undone and they will soon be dead.
You think someone crazy enough to go into a murder cult is going...
"Well Im willing to spend 30 years in prison, but If I guess I won't murder that family if I also have to spend my last few days there too as I sit infirm in a hospital bed"
And nothing make Atkins special. Anyone with no danger to the community (permanently) or hope of rehabilitation should be allowed to go die on the family farm or wherever they want to.
Its a pointless waste of money to keep her in prison for no valid reason. The same with anyone in the same circumstances.
The Legal system has already done its job, it protected society from any danger the person posed.
Now they are just a corpse waiting to stop breathing, they have no danger to others and it really doesn't matter what they did, because it can't be undone and they will soon be dead.
Well she might have enough energy still to spit some strong medication from her mouth into the eyes of someone and cause them blindness, or she might get them in the mouth and they ingest it and die.....
..... we shouldn't take that risk.
If you want bad people to suffer for the terrible crimes they have committed against the innocent, thats fine, there is no need to be ashamed of the legal system pursuing revenge if thats a belief you hold.
She is a monster after all.
I just don't see the point in letting some other person die from lack of funding, to put that extra screw in a harmless corpse that will be dead and forgotten in two weeks anyways.
Zzarchov You write:
Regarding the issue of money - there is no issue.
Atkins will continue to live off the public purse until her death and even after at her burial because the public will pay for her medical and residential care in jail or in a hospice until the end and then bury her. She has no resources.
The issue of her spot in prison - it isn't a matter of money - but a matter of space needed and lack of specialized staff to handle terminally ill people.
I can see why the prison system would be glad to rid themselves of her.
Regarding the issue of money - there is no issue.
Atkins will continue to live off the public purse until her death and even after at her burial because the public will pay for her medical and residential care in jail or in a hospice until the end and then bury her. She has no resources.
The issue of her spot in prison - it isn't a matter of money - but a matter of space needed and lack of specialized staff to handle terminally ill people.
I can see why the prison system would be glad to rid themselves of her.
____________________________
Just find a toilet with a large enough hole, and flush her.
On second thought, that amount of pollution going through the water treatment center might
cause it to break down............just leave her where she be.
There is always a money issue. There isn't an unlimited amount of money. Money spent in the prison system is money not spent somewhere else.
Anytime the government makes a decision to spend a dollar on one thing, it is deciding not to spend the money on other important things.
If less money was spent in prisons, there would be more to be allocated to better armour for our troops, or cheaper medicines for those unable to afford.
A dollar spent is a dollar spent. Spending a couple thousand dollars to "make her pay" is a nice way of telling some soldier "sorry, maybe you can keep your other leg if it gets blown off by a landmine too"
That is the ridiculous nature of this. She is infirm and helpless and there is no benefit to the public to keep her locked up other than the thought that she "pay for it". Its a waste of resources better spent somewhere else to actually help people, on meaningless vengeance. Soon she will be dead and it won't matter anyways, so why waste the money?
How much is it going to cost to keep Ms Atikins in ICU in a prison infirmary? How much is it going to cost to fix up all that flood damage along the Mississippi valley? How much is to going to cost to have a home care nurse pop in to say hi with a bucket of KFC and a strong hit of morphine?
Think about it....
Think about it....
I think her point is the government will be paying for Atkin's care regardless of where she receives it. She's in a hospital. She has no money. That means the government will pick up the bill. It doesn't matter if she's there as a prisoner or not, the cost of caring for her until she dies will be the burden of the taxpayers. There is no way to save money here.
She should be very grateful IMO.
Tracy thank you for clearing up the point I was trying to make. Susan Atkins is under the public care whether she is in prison, in a prison ward in a hospital, in a regular hospital, or
in her case, probably under a hospice respite situation in a nursing home handling terminally patients.
There is another hearing on July 15, 2008 (see below) about her release - with brain cancer I doubt if this wil be necessary - but it may be just another 'compassionate sounding put off' by a government agency wishing to avoid responsibility of decision-making. She may not live to receive release.
One other point I would like to add which is unsubstantiated but with brain cancer, Atkins is hardly able to make profound and legitimate remorse statements as she is probably laboring with a confused mind at the present time - given less than six months' of life.
I saw this item in a blogspot called http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com and it gives some information which seems pertinent:
June 18, 2008 12:36 AM
Tate Legacy said... I am the webmaster for TateFamilyLegacy.com.
We are now encouraging you to write the Board of Prison terms to voice your concern about the possible "compassionate release" of Susan Atkins.
Atkins was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the combined Tate-Labianca murders and the murder of Gary Hinman.
She received the death sentence, however, in February 1972, the death sentences of all Manson Family members awaiting execution, were automatically reduced to life in prison by California v. Anderson, in which the Supreme Court of California abolished the death penalty in that state.
Now, on July 15th, 2008 the board of prison terms will meet and decide if Atkins should receive "compassionate release" due to having a terminal illness.
You need to send your letter ASAP to make sure that your letter is considered.
You can send your letters to:
James Davis
Board of Prison Terms
1515 K Street
Suite 600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Susan Denise Atkins (Whitehouse?)
Bid for Compassionate Release
CDC # W-08304
July 15th, 2008
Earlier this week Good Morning America aired part of a 2002 interview with mass murderer Susan Atkins, conducted by Diane Sawyer.
Sawyer had interviewed Atkins' fellow Manson Family members Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel in 1994 for the premiere episode of ABC's Turning Point news program. At that time Atkins declined to be interviewed.
During this 2002 interview Atkins claimed to not be a monster. (This claim was unsubstantiated.) She smiled, cried and spoke in a small voice. She is seen leading what appears to be some sort of class, or group, in prison. Later, Sawyer is at the head of the classroom and she asks the prisoners who among them has had the most parole hearings. They all look at Atkins who, while smiling, raises her hand high. They all laugh.
Atkins talks about not wanting to "live a life with any unforgiveness in it." But she's talking about her forgiving others, not the other way around.
Clips from a recent interview with Atkins' husband were shown as well. However, there was no interview with any family member of any of Ms. Atkins' eight victims. (Sawyer did read an excerpt from a letter Col. Paul Tate wrote to the board of prison terms.)
Sawyer interviewed Debra Tate and Anthony DiMaria (nephew of Jay Sebring) a few years ago, and the Turning Point episode from 1994 included an interview with Patti Tate, so she had ample material from which to gather clips that would have represented some of the victims' families.
Sawyer ended the program by asking that viewers let them know what they think about the "remaining days" of Atkins. Judging by the 151 comments posted (as of this writing) the overwhelming majority believe that Atkins should remain a prisoner until her death.
In 1985, Taking no personal responsibility, but blaming the media and her "past", Atkins said:
"I would like anonymity. I would like to not be known as the Susan Atkins that the media and my tragic past created."
It's worth noting that despite stating she wanted anonymity Atkins authored two books about her part in the murders.
The first was The Killing of Sharon Tate, which was her account of the Tate-Labianca murders, and the other was an autobiography - Child of Satan, Child of God.
We were recently told of a claim, made on another website, that Child of Satan, Child of God made fourteen million dollars.
That seems incredible, especially considering it was released in the 1970's.
Regardless of how much it made not one penny went to her victim's families.
She claimed that she gave her proceeds to a man who was supposed to open a Christian foundation. She later claimed he duped her and disappeared with the money.
When asked by the parole board why she didn't give some of the proceeds to her victim's families she said she "never thought of it."
Who will pay?
One argument put forth by those who say that Atkins should be released is once she is released the cost for her medical care will become the burden of her husband and herself, rather than the CA taxpayers.
Susan Atkins has been an inmate for almost 40 years. She claims that she did not profit from the two books she wrote. It seems that when she comes out of prison she would not be able to support herself financially and would not be physically able to obtain employment.
IF Susan Atkins is released, and IF she or her family do not have the money to pay for her medical care then who will pay?
Will the cost of that potentially un-reimbursed health care be passed on to the taxpayer in the form of higher insurance rates?
Releasing Susan Atkins is of no benefit to society and would make no difference in the life of Atkins herself. Her own husband has said that barring a miracle she will remain in the hospital if given compassionate release or not.
in her case, probably under a hospice respite situation in a nursing home handling terminally patients.
There is another hearing on July 15, 2008 (see below) about her release - with brain cancer I doubt if this wil be necessary - but it may be just another 'compassionate sounding put off' by a government agency wishing to avoid responsibility of decision-making. She may not live to receive release.
One other point I would like to add which is unsubstantiated but with brain cancer, Atkins is hardly able to make profound and legitimate remorse statements as she is probably laboring with a confused mind at the present time - given less than six months' of life.
I saw this item in a blogspot called http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com and it gives some information which seems pertinent:
June 18, 2008 12:36 AM
Tate Legacy said... I am the webmaster for TateFamilyLegacy.com.We are now encouraging you to write the Board of Prison terms to voice your concern about the possible "compassionate release" of Susan Atkins.
Atkins was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the combined Tate-Labianca murders and the murder of Gary Hinman.
She received the death sentence, however, in February 1972, the death sentences of all Manson Family members awaiting execution, were automatically reduced to life in prison by California v. Anderson, in which the Supreme Court of California abolished the death penalty in that state.
Now, on July 15th, 2008 the board of prison terms will meet and decide if Atkins should receive "compassionate release" due to having a terminal illness.
You need to send your letter ASAP to make sure that your letter is considered.
You can send your letters to:
James Davis
Board of Prison Terms
1515 K Street
Suite 600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Susan Denise Atkins (Whitehouse?)
Bid for Compassionate Release
CDC # W-08304
July 15th, 2008
Earlier this week Good Morning America aired part of a 2002 interview with mass murderer Susan Atkins, conducted by Diane Sawyer.
Sawyer had interviewed Atkins' fellow Manson Family members Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel in 1994 for the premiere episode of ABC's Turning Point news program. At that time Atkins declined to be interviewed.
During this 2002 interview Atkins claimed to not be a monster. (This claim was unsubstantiated.) She smiled, cried and spoke in a small voice. She is seen leading what appears to be some sort of class, or group, in prison. Later, Sawyer is at the head of the classroom and she asks the prisoners who among them has had the most parole hearings. They all look at Atkins who, while smiling, raises her hand high. They all laugh.
Atkins talks about not wanting to "live a life with any unforgiveness in it." But she's talking about her forgiving others, not the other way around.
Clips from a recent interview with Atkins' husband were shown as well. However, there was no interview with any family member of any of Ms. Atkins' eight victims. (Sawyer did read an excerpt from a letter Col. Paul Tate wrote to the board of prison terms.)
Sawyer interviewed Debra Tate and Anthony DiMaria (nephew of Jay Sebring) a few years ago, and the Turning Point episode from 1994 included an interview with Patti Tate, so she had ample material from which to gather clips that would have represented some of the victims' families.
Sawyer ended the program by asking that viewers let them know what they think about the "remaining days" of Atkins. Judging by the 151 comments posted (as of this writing) the overwhelming majority believe that Atkins should remain a prisoner until her death.
In 1985, Taking no personal responsibility, but blaming the media and her "past", Atkins said:
"I would like anonymity. I would like to not be known as the Susan Atkins that the media and my tragic past created."
It's worth noting that despite stating she wanted anonymity Atkins authored two books about her part in the murders.
The first was The Killing of Sharon Tate, which was her account of the Tate-Labianca murders, and the other was an autobiography - Child of Satan, Child of God.
We were recently told of a claim, made on another website, that Child of Satan, Child of God made fourteen million dollars.
That seems incredible, especially considering it was released in the 1970's.
Regardless of how much it made not one penny went to her victim's families.
She claimed that she gave her proceeds to a man who was supposed to open a Christian foundation. She later claimed he duped her and disappeared with the money.
When asked by the parole board why she didn't give some of the proceeds to her victim's families she said she "never thought of it."
Who will pay?
One argument put forth by those who say that Atkins should be released is once she is released the cost for her medical care will become the burden of her husband and herself, rather than the CA taxpayers.
Susan Atkins has been an inmate for almost 40 years. She claims that she did not profit from the two books she wrote. It seems that when she comes out of prison she would not be able to support herself financially and would not be physically able to obtain employment.
IF Susan Atkins is released, and IF she or her family do not have the money to pay for her medical care then who will pay?
Will the cost of that potentially un-reimbursed health care be passed on to the taxpayer in the form of higher insurance rates?
Releasing Susan Atkins is of no benefit to society and would make no difference in the life of Atkins herself. Her own husband has said that barring a miracle she will remain in the hospital if given compassionate release or not.
Last edited:
No, she will be treated far better in the prison hospital (discounting the ENORMOUS security costs associated with a prison hospital). It is VASTLY cheaper in a public hospital, especially considering her nation.
She's in the US remember. No OHIP.
I'm aware she's in the US, it's the same state I'm in. There isn't OHIP, there's MediCal. It's pretty much the same thing for someone in her position.
In a prison ward, or a regular hospital, the government is picking up the tab. According to the LA Times, she's been in a local hospital for a few months already. The prison didn't have the capability to care for her. If she's granted this release, she'll stay in the same bed, in the same hospital, eating the same meals.... with the same payment arrangement: tax payer money.
And I know you're going to say "Well they would save money by not having to have guards watching her" or something like that, but I can pretty much assure you security at any hospital would watch her regardless of her legal status. She's likely in a hospital that has a ward devoted to prisonners (I know of one in the LA area). One inmate like her wouldn't change the security staffing in a place like that.
Last edited: