Susan Atikins begs for release from prison
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
Speaking of not thinking... if you read my post again you would realize what I said matches your own opinion of leaving her in there to rot.
Last edited:
Eagle that little video really brought back the trial. The singularly most upsetting thing was the beatific smile on the faces of the Manson women, including Susan Atkins, when they talked about those horrific murders.
Last edited:
Yeah ... I know the hate toward her. I met the same rage first hand a few years later too. I recall a young girl, so brainwashed by a Roch Theriault that she accepted his torture as her due - for taking some of the money from pencil sales to buy a cold Coke on a hot day.
Sorry I msread. I thought that "Why should thier remaining years be in more agony, just to suit Susan's sad life that she made herself? " you were referring to her family not the victim's. Apologies!
I have no problem with the prison sentence, we must forgive our enemies but also we must insure that the enemy will not get a second chance to f uck us.
I agree. We don't have to hate or wish ill will upon the Manson family murderers 40 years after the crime. But that doesn't mean that because we want them to finish out their sentences we are vengeful. They committed horrific crimes and for that they are to spend the remaining years of their life behind bars.
I am sure that eventually they did become remorseful for what they did. I have seen a number of interviews with the other two women that committed the murders and they seemed remorseful. Nevertheless...they did it and they have to pay for it.
If the only reason you want them in prison is "to pay for what they did", then that is by definition vengeance.
If there is no productive practical purpose for keeping them locked up (and costing in some cases $120,000/year or more) other than make them pay for their actions, that is by definition vengeance.
If you are fine with that, I have no problem with taking a stance that people pay for what they did. But then I really think the laws need to change to ,at the very least, go easy on people with vengeance as a motive.
Good then it's Revenge... get over it. I'll be damned if I'm just going to permit muderous criminals to be walking back out on the streets again to kill someone else, just so I look like the better person that can turn the other cheek..... that's not going to be comforting to the next victims.
They broke the law, they took someone else's life, they lost those rights of freedom and ability to decide what they want to do with their lives.... they can die for all I care, and if you want to label it as revenge, then good.... once again, Pox a Revenge on her Ass and let her die a horrible death where her brain explodes inside her skull, she unleashes all her bowels, makes all her nearby cell mates puke from the smell, and their smell continues throughout the rest of the prison and makes everybody else puke....... then there's one more thing she can be remembered for.
Good.... if it's costing that much, then put a round into her head and get it over with..... afterall, bullets are like kool-aid.... just pennies a glass.
No productive or practical purpose? I Disagree. 1st off..... there's nothing that can be done with this bitch to reform her, and giving her mercy in which she doesn't deserve, isn't going to make any more of a difference then leaving her in there.
But the purpose that it is doing is a message that her sort of behavior is not tollerated by society. She made herself into the example she is.
It boils down to accepting responsibility for one's actions, and her claiming she's a born again christian, that she was influenced, that she was doing heavy drugs at the time, and all those other lame ass excuses she gave proves that she is not truly accepting of her responsibilities for her own actions, which is why she wasn't let out in the past, and she won't be let out in the future if anybody there has any brains.
Which I am.
And to repeat just as much as you are, I'll say that the difference between letting the courts and law do the vengeance rather then people filled with emotional rage, is that it gives the accused a chance to prove their innocence, prior to getting their punishment. An emotionally filled human directly affected by the crime won't give them a chance, they'd be dead.
And what happens when that person whom you killed through vengeance turned out to not be the person responsible for the crime? You just murdered an innocent now, and thus, the situation is now thrown on you, and then the family and those who loved the person you just killed will be coming after you in a vendetta.... and then that's how family feuds start.
There's a reason why there is a court system in process to handle these matters outside of the hands of those affected.
She's had 39 years in prison to regret and think about her crimes. Methinks that is punishment enough and she should be released to die on the outside.
Reading through, Kreskin nailed exactly what it is about her particular case that irked me and made me think she deserves to be released (although, I really was on the fence over this one).
The dangling of the carrot. "Here, jump through this hoop for us."
17 times they heard her case for parole. And from everyone within the prison system it sounds as if she is well and truly rehabilitated as they see fit for granting parole. Yet, despite jumping through all the hoops (and you shouldn't be eligible to do so unless the courts felt it fit into your 'punishment'), she's been denied again and again, seemingly based on emotional appeals. That takes this particular sentencing structure and parole system from being one of justice and punishment (handing out a sentence), to being one of revenge (no, you meet the criteria to be let go now, but we're going to keep you anyway). We shouldn't be paying legal systems to wreak revenge upon people. We should be paying them to hand out their initial sentence, and then honor it. If she's met the standards for parole, why wasn't she granted it? And if she's eligible for parole, how can you POSSIBLY deny it to her in her current condition? NO criminal alive has ever been less of a danger upon being paroled from prison.
The dangling of the carrot. "Here, jump through this hoop for us."
17 times they heard her case for parole. And from everyone within the prison system it sounds as if she is well and truly rehabilitated as they see fit for granting parole. Yet, despite jumping through all the hoops (and you shouldn't be eligible to do so unless the courts felt it fit into your 'punishment'), she's been denied again and again, seemingly based on emotional appeals. That takes this particular sentencing structure and parole system from being one of justice and punishment (handing out a sentence), to being one of revenge (no, you meet the criteria to be let go now, but we're going to keep you anyway). We shouldn't be paying legal systems to wreak revenge upon people. We should be paying them to hand out their initial sentence, and then honor it. If she's met the standards for parole, why wasn't she granted it? And if she's eligible for parole, how can you POSSIBLY deny it to her in her current condition? NO criminal alive has ever been less of a danger upon being paroled from prison.
Karrie
Is the structure of law that's invovled here declare that parole is a "right"? If there's a body of the majority who believe that this person should remain incarcerated...should we simply de-construct that system because we entertain the single factor of this persons potential to repeat or bring harm to the society she flagrantly disowned?
You can try to have "justice" but there are no guarantees.
Is the structure of law that's invovled here declare that parole is a "right"? If there's a body of the majority who believe that this person should remain incarcerated...should we simply de-construct that system because we entertain the single factor of this persons potential to repeat or bring harm to the society she flagrantly disowned?
You can try to have "justice" but there are no guarantees.
To me parole is not a right, no. But, it also shouldn't be held out with no intention of allowing it (and 17 hearings would imply they never had any intention). Pick a path.
Well if you get it wrong then you go to jail the same as now. I dont' see the problem?
But if you get it right, why are you punishing them so heavily?
Zzarchov
This person made her incarceration happen, not the victims of her criminal activity. And the victim of her activities aren't just the people she killed. When a society deems a crime so reprehensible that consequences are appropriate, an element in that consideration is the fabric and substance of the laws subscribed-to by the society. I beleive it was a mistake not to execute her and others (convicted multiple murderers) while resources of the taxpayer could have been better spent.
This person made her incarceration happen, not the victims of her criminal activity. And the victim of her activities aren't just the people she killed. When a society deems a crime so reprehensible that consequences are appropriate, an element in that consideration is the fabric and substance of the laws subscribed-to by the society. I beleive it was a mistake not to execute her and others (convicted multiple murderers) while resources of the taxpayer could have been better spent.