Vegas Bride
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 3,032
- Reaction score
- 48
I wonder what ever happened to the baby Atkins had. Knowing she was a mother herself makes what she did to Sharon even more horrible IMO.
VB
VB
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Atkins told the grand jury that she stabbed Frykowski in the legs and that she held Tate down while Watson stabbed her. She also testified that Tate had pleaded for her life and that of her unborn child, to which Atkins replied, "Woman, I have no mercy for you." She also denied her earlier statement to Howard and Graham that she had tasted Tate's blood.[citation needed] Prior to the trial, Atkins discontinued her cooperation with the prosecution and repudiated her grand jury testimony, although years later she would state that this testimony was truthful and accurate as to what transpired in the Tate home.[citation needed]
Atkins has claimed over the years that her participation in the crimes led by Manson was passive and that she didn't actually kill anyone. However, in her grand jury testimony she admits to active participation in the crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Atkins
Susan Atkins will spend her remaining days "out" anyway; she will be hospitalized. If she's released, the State will have no responsibility for her medical care - think about the financial aspect of her case.
I thought about this, too.
That about sums it up.
I don't say it out of vengeance, but out of justice for Sharon Tate and that poor innocent baby who has gone ever unnamed (as far as I know). Atkins is already getting more comfort and kindness and peace than she deserves.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
I am offended that Atkins would even request to be released... again.. her duty is to die in prison.
That said, if all of her victims families want her to die on the outside, then I would be okay with it. As long as she really was dying, and was no threat to society.
In CA, all terminally ill prisoners do have the right by law to ask for compassionate leave.
I agree 100% if we let her out everyone will want out.I didn't know that.
That's fine that they have the right to ask for it, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed that request. I personally find that just a waste of time and resources. Once you are sentenced to life in prison, then that is where you should remain unless paroled. Susan Atkins has been continually denied parole so why should she be let out now just because she has cancer.
I have no sympathy or compassion for her.
I agree 100% if we let her out everyone will want out.
I didn't know that.
That's fine that they have the right to ask for it, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed that request. I personally find that just a waste of time and resources. Once you are sentenced to life in prison, then that is where you should remain unless paroled. Susan Atkins has been continually denied parole so why should she be let out now just because she has cancer.
I have no sympathy or compassion for her.
BAHAHAHAH, Yes but now they will have a reason. If you do it for one.....Everyone already wants out!! LOL :crazy::crazy::crazy:
I agree 100% if we let her out everyone will want out.
I do understand that point SCM however, I would be willing to pay myself to keep her in there! If I had it.I understand your view from the compassion standpoint. From a resource standpoint though, it saves us money. If a terminally ill prisoner is released to family, the family must agree to foot all the bill for care.
Wow, that is interesting. I did not know they allowed that.One of articles states that about 10 in 60 terminally ill prisoners are granted such requests. It has to go through a number of different hoops and can get hung up at any level.
BAHAHAHAH, Yes but now they will have a reason. If you do it for one.....