Susan Atikins begs for release from prison

[Zzarchov]

Are you purposefully ignoring other reasons? Maybe her victims' families would simply like to live without being constantly reminded of the murders this woman committed. Her constant court appearances and the ensuing media coverage makes that impossible. That's not revenge, that's just wanting some sort of peace and closure on the issue. How are they supposed to "get over it" when it's constantly brought up because of their requests for parole and release?

Maybe some people like me resent having my tax money constantly going for these silly trials. Was there any point to most of them? If you want to see money saved, we could have avoided dozens of hearings for paroles that had no chance of being granted. It's like those silly faint hope clause hearings Clifford Olsen gets. Waste money, upset the families... what's the point?

Let's turn it around... What possible reason could she or her family have for wanting her to be granted this "compassionate release" when it's not going to change anything? Why do they want her in the news again?

1.) The wishes of the family are nice and all, but this isn't civil court. Being upset by things isn't the duty of the criminal courts.

If she had any money they could sue her blind.

2.) If there is no proof something is a good or bad idea either way, its generally a bad idea to favour on the side of suffering.

Quite frankly the family will get closure in a few weeks anways, and even if she stays in prison they won't get closure until she actually dies (And the debate about letting her out goes away)


The case wasn't "The victims family V the psycotic murderer" thats a civil case. Shes in jail for "The State V the psycotic murderer". If the state is better off letting her out, then the state should.

 

[Zzarchov]

I agree. Parole hearings are a waste of time. Criminals should serve the entire sentence.

No parole hearings means no incentive not to try and kill guards (or lesser criminals who can be rehabilitated and may otherwise be normal people).

I don't really want a dead guard.

I also don't want dead cops because people refuse to be taken alive (having 0 hope)

"Faint Hope" clauses aren't there for sociopaths, they are there to protect enforcement officials from the desperate with nothing to lose.


The other solution is the death penalty,

but seeing as that leads to people dying for crimes they don't commit (just the other day a Man is finally getting exhonerated for being convicted of one of Bernardo's rapes)


So the faint hope clause is something that does have a use. Whether its better or worse than the death penalty is another matter Im not sure about.

 

[tracy]

1.) The wishes of the family are nice and all, but this isn't civil court. Being upset by things isn't the duty of the criminal courts.
.

That's not true. The victims and families wishes ARE something parole boards are supposed to consider. It's why people can make victim impact statements and testify at parole hearings.

If she had any money they could sue her blind.
.

Well, she apparently doesn't have any, even though she wrote 2 money making books about the murders while in prison. When asked why she didn't offer any to her victims' families, she said it never occured to her to do so.

2.) If there is no proof something is a good or bad idea either way, its generally a bad idea to favour on the side of suffering.
.

Whose suffering? The families will suffer if she is given a release. She's not going to suffer by remaining technically a prisoner and still getting all the best medical care the state can provide. Her supporters can still visit her there.

Quite frankly the family will get closure in a few weeks anways, and even if she stays in prison they won't get closure until she actually dies (And the debate about letting her out goes away)


The case wasn't "The victims family V the psycotic murderer" thats a civil case. Shes in jail for "The State V the psycotic murderer". If the state is better off letting her out, then the state should.

The state has no compelling reason to let her out and you are misinformed by thinking they don't have to consider the victims' families. As I already pointed out, that is one of the things parole boards consider. They also have to consider if the person seeking parole has shown true remorse for their actions. Susan Atkins denies killing anybody to this day and has called herself a political prisoner. That's not exactly what the parole board would like to hear.

When there is no compelling reason to grant this release (since it doesn't change her life one bit and doesn't save the tax payer any money) why bother? The only outcome is wasted money spent on hearings, a change in title for a murderer and added pain to her victims' families.

 

[Risus]

No parole hearings means no incentive not to try and kill guards (or lesser criminals who can be rehabilitated and may otherwise be normal people).

I don't really want a dead guard.

I also don't want dead cops because people refuse to be taken alive (having 0 hope)

"Faint Hope" clauses aren't there for sociopaths, they are there to protect enforcement officials from the desperate with nothing to lose.


The other solution is the death penalty,

but seeing as that leads to people dying for crimes they don't commit (just the other day a Man is finally getting exhonerated for being convicted of one of Bernardo's rapes)


So the faint hope clause is something that does have a use. Whether its better or worse than the death penalty is another matter Im not sure about.

Perhaps the answer is having prisons that are prisons rather than resorts. Have better and proper security to prevent attempts against guards. Give the police and the justice system the power that will enable them to do their jobs. Treat the criminals as criminals instead of someone with the excuse of a broken home or abused as a child. Treat them for what they are: criminals.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Perhaps the answer is having prisons that are prisons rather than resorts. Have better and proper security to prevent attempts against guards. Give the police and the justice system the power that will enable them to do their jobs. Treat the criminals as criminals instead of someone with the excuse of a broken home or abused as a child. Treat them for what they are: criminals.

Risus good day to you,
as we all know crime is a revenue producing industry for all governments and judges are the protectors of that lucrative industry.

 

[Risus]

Risus good day to you,
as we all know crime is a revenue producing industry for all governments and judges are the protectors of that lucrative industry.

LOL, how about some 'proof'?

 

[Zzarchov]

Perhaps the answer is having prisons that are prisons rather than resorts. Have better and proper security to prevent attempts against guards. Give the police and the justice system the power that will enable them to do their jobs. Treat the criminals as criminals instead of someone with the excuse of a broken home or abused as a child. Treat them for what they are: criminals.

All of the "resort" functionality (like Cable TV and nice mattresses) are there because they lower the number of attacks on guards.

Inmates who sit on their ass all day watching Maury Povich are alot easier to restraint than ones who do pushups, pace in their cell and build those ingenious devices to injure and maim guards (requiring but a single prick through the skin with so much diseased blood available).

Ever see prison museums from the 30's with all the cool crafts and mousetraps? They also built tiny crossbows and knives. They had nothing but time ..time and hatred.


Treating "criminals like criminals" is a nice ideal. Up until the point then the Criminal acts like your going to treat him as he knows you are.

If the Criminals were going to sit back and take the punishment they deserved rather than killing everyone in their way and going out fighting, they wouldn't BE hardened criminals.

Go work , or even work in, a prison environment for awhile. Things are how they are to protect the guards, not the Inmates.

And you'd have to deal with the Guards union not the Inmates committee to change them.

 

[karrie]

Zzarchov, as usual, you bring an interesting balanced view to the table.

 

[Risus]

All of the "resort" functionality (like Cable TV and nice mattresses) are there because they lower the number of attacks on guards.

Inmates who sit on their ass all day watching Maury Povich are alot easier to restraint than ones who do pushups, pace in their cell and build those ingenious devices to injure and maim guards (requiring but a single prick through the skin with so much diseased blood available).

Ever see prison museums from the 30's with all the cool crafts and mousetraps? They also built tiny crossbows and knives. They had nothing but time ..time and hatred.


Treating "criminals like criminals" is a nice ideal. Up until the point then the Criminal acts like your going to treat him as he knows you are.

If the Criminals were going to sit back and take the punishment they deserved rather than killing everyone in their way and going out fighting, they wouldn't BE hardened criminals.

Go work , or even work in, a prison environment for awhile. Things are how they are to protect the guards, not the Inmates.

And you'd have to deal with the Guards union not the Inmates committee to change them.

The father of a friend of mine was a prison guard in dorchester and he was murdered by an inmate (who later hung himself) but that doesn't change my opinion. He was sentenced to hang for a murder he committed, which was later converted to life in prison. If the bastard was hung when he should have been, my friend's father would still be alive. Don't preach to me about your bleeding heart crap. If someone is sentenced , let him do the time. No coddling or giving them TVs etc, let them sit in a 10 by 10 cell and think about their crimes. "If you do the crime, you do the time". Plain and simple.

 

[Risus]

I should add that the prisoner referred to above had initially been convicted for assault, was prleased on parole, then murdered an elderly lady while robbing her, charged with murder, found guilty, sentenced to death and had that converted to life in prison. So who dares say the justice system works??

 

[Zzarchov]

The father of a friend of mine was a prison guard in dorchester and he was murdered by an inmate (who later hung himself) but that doesn't change my opinion. He was sentenced to hang for a murder he committed, which was later converted to life in prison. If the bastard was hung when he should have been, my friend's father would still be alive. Don't preach to me about your bleeding heart crap. If someone is sentenced , let him do the time. No coddling or giving them TVs etc, let them sit in a 10 by 10 cell and think about their crimes. "If you do the crime, you do the time". Plain and simple.

Ok, so instead of sit in a 10 by 10 cell watching TV and becoming a fat tub of lard

he sits ina 10 by 10 cell working out, becoming strong to a degree someone can only attain while working out 16 hours a day (something the guards who have to restrain him can't match)

Great plan. Now instead of someone controllable and weak you have a mini-hulk able to overpower the guards and infect them with Aids.


When did your friend die? If it was awhile ago it was probably before these reforms were put in place, if its recently its because he knowingly took risks that would still be there regardless of TV watching (and in fact be risks) such as meeting inmates in person.

Its not "bleeding heart" crap, that implies an emotional weakness

Quite frankly the only "bleeding heart" in that case would be you. Im not being swayed by emotional bias, Im looking at the cold hard facts, costs and rewards.

 

[Risus]

Ok, so instead of sit in a 10 by 10 cell watching TV and becoming a fat tub of lard

he sits ina 10 by 10 cell working out, becoming strong to a degree someone can only attain while working out 16 hours a day (something the guards who have to restrain him can't match)

Great plan. Now instead of someone controllable and weak you have a mini-hulk able to overpower the guards and infect them with Aids.


When did your friend die? If it was awhile ago it was probably before these reforms were put in place, if its recently its because he knowingly took risks that would still be there regardless of TV watching (and in fact be risks) such as meeting inmates in person.

Its not "bleeding heart" crap, that implies an emotional weakness

Quite frankly the only "bleeding heart" in that case would be you. Im not being swayed by emotional bias, Im looking at the cold hard facts, costs and rewards.

Why don't people understand "when you do the crime, you do the time". Its common sense. No wonder with the panty waist judicial system we have now and all the idiots supporting it, that crime is on a rampage. Zzarchov, you are a cog in the wheel that is the reason. Just read the papers. You must wander around with blinders on.

 

[Zzarchov]

Why don't people understand "when you do the crime, you do the time". Its common sense. No wonder with the panty waist judicial system we have now and all the idiots supporting it, that crime is on a rampage. Zzarchov, you are a cog in the wheel that is the reason. Just read the papers. You must wander around with blinders on.

So your logic is, that these criminals who choose to ignore social rules and concepts of things like consequences.

Are going to magically all of a sudden become model citizens who quietly do what they are supposed to with a supernatural calm?

If they are criminals who break the law and disobey rules and need to be controlled, then guess what, when incarcerated they will remain that way.


The kind of wild eyed idealistic junk you spout does nothing but get good innocent people in law enforcement killed.

This isn't Idealism land where a criminal admits he was wrong and quietly sits in prison making quilts and obeying authority figures because its the right thing to do.

Its reality land where criminals are dangerous human beings, with human minds and creativity, being watched over by free citizens who take their life in their hands everytime they walk among them. Without a careful blend of carrots and sticks these inmates will revert to people with the ferocity and savagery of a caged animals and the wits and cleverness of a desperate individual.

And innocent guards and cops with families of their own will wind up dead, and the criminals won't care no matter how you retaliate or respond.


"Tough on Crime" and "Do the crime and do the time" are code words for "I wanna sound tough so I'll sacrifice some hard working law enforcement officials for no real reason other than my re-election"

Do you really thing people in murder cults (with the insanity that entails) are going "Well, I guess if I'd have to do ALL the time I won't murder EVERYONE in the house".

On the one hand you treat Criminals like savage animals for how they deserve to be treated, then you treat them like heavenly saints for how you expect them to act.

It doesn't work that way.

Edit: Side note: Read the stats, Crime levels are not on the rampage, they keep going down. But media coverage keeps going up.

 

[Praxius]

Updatalate:

Woman who killed Tate dying, asks for release
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/World/1067635.html

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley has asked the California parole board to deny Charles Manson follower Susan Atkins’ request for compassionate release from prison.

Atkins, who was convicted of eight murders committed in 1969, is terminally ill.

Cooley says Atkins’ crimes alone warrant denial of the request.

The district attorney notes that Atkins personally stabbed pregnant actress Sharon Tate, tasted her blood and used it to write the word "Pig" on the victim’s door.

Should be interesting.

 

[Praxius]

I guess this would be the final update:

Dying Manson follower denied parole
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/16/atkins-parole.html

A follower of 1960s cult leader Charles Manson who stabbed pregnant U.S. actress Sharon Tate to death nearly 40 years ago but is dying of brain cancer in a California prison, was denied compassionate release Tuesday.

The California Board of Parole handed down its unanimous decision on the release of Susan Atkins hours after a 90-minute hearing, during which it heard impassioned pleas from both sides.

"Obviously, it was too hot of a potato for them to handle," said one of Atkins's attorneys, Eric P. Lampel. "Of course we're disappointed. There's no basis for denying this."

Lampel filed a motion last Thursday with Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Wesley asking for his client's release no matter what the parole board recommended. No hearing has been set, Lampel said after the hearing.

"We're going to be able to make the case in court. We'll take it to the next step," he said after being informed of the board's decision.

Atkins's doctors and officials at the women's prison in Corona, Calif., made the request in March because of her deteriorating health. She also has had her left leg amputated and is paralyzed on her right side, her husband, James Whitehouse, told the California Board of Parole Hearings.

Whitehouse, also acting as one of Atkins's attorneys, had argued that his wife was so debilitated that she could not even sit up in bed. He told the parole board there was no longer a reason to keep her incarcerated.

"She literally can't snap her fingers," he said. "She can put sentences together three or four times a day, but that's the extent of it."

He said doctors have given her three months to live.
Governor 'not for compassionate release'

The request for compassionate leave generated opposition from relatives of the victims, the state corrections department, Los Angeles County prosecutors and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"Those kinds of crimes are just so unbelievable that I am not for compassionate release in that case," Schwarzenegger said Tuesday before the parole board issued its decision.

Atkins, Manson and two other cult members, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, were tried for the 1969 killings of Tate, Leno and Rosemary La Bianca, and four others. Tate, the wife of filmmaker Roman Polanski, was 8½ months pregnant.

The defendants maintained their innocence throughout the trial. Once convicted, the women confessed to the killings during the penalty phase.

On the stand, Atkins recounted her role in stabbing Tate, who pleaded for the life of her unborn baby. Atkins claimed she was on LSD at the time but did not apologize for the crime until a parole hearing years later.

Oh ok, so they're going to still try and fight it.... so there could be more to come.

 

[tracy]

It won't matter much. She'll likely be dead before any court could do anything about it. Her family's time could be better spent.

 

[spaminator]

Panel delays decision on whether to release Manson follower | World | News | Tor

 

[spaminator]

Manson follower Patricia Krenwinkel denied parole | World | News | Toronto Sun

 

[EagleSmack]

They're in for good I'd say.

Then and now...

 

[coldstream]

I'd say as long as the ringleader, Charlie, stays in jail, you could cut his mind controlled devotees a break in their old age. As far as i know they've all renounced him. They have the disadvantage of being notorious and infamous icons of the 60s. They'd likely be out but for that.