Susan Atkins wants out of jail to die...

[philamena]

SNIP

philamena, If she had murdered your mother, sister or daughter, would you still feel she had "served enough time"?

Jean,
Yes. 31 years is enough time, IMO.

 

[philamena]

....

I also dont like the precedent this could set. When you do life in prison, you die in prison. I will express my compassion by praying for these peoples souls. I'm sorry if I sound cold, but thats the way I feel

RagDoll,
This thread is about releasing Atkins. It's not about releasing every terminally ill lifer.

 

[Rag Doll 02]

RagDoll,
This thread is about releasing Atkins. It's not about releasing every terminally ill lifer.

Hi philamena !!

I do realize this is specifically about Adkins, but what makes her different than any other killer ?? If she doesnt deserve to die in prison because she is terminally ill-- why wouldnt any other killer have to ?

 

[XcomSquaddie]

This woman, and the others, are guilty. There is no doubt whatsoever. They inflicted hideous pain and suffering on completely innocent people for the simple joy of doing so.

They were justly tried, justly convicted and justly sentenced to death. There is no doubt whatsoever.

These people deserve no mercy. They deserve no compassion. They express no remorse. They deserve no forgiveness.

By quirks and the insanities of our legal system, these vermin have been allowed to live. In the 39 years since their crimes, the victim's families have been tormented by the potential reality of their release. In itself, this is a heinous crime.

39 years is not long enough. The victims are still dead. The families are still suffering.

I do not care how crippled, how debilitated or how pathetic these creatures become in prison. The only compassionate release they deserve is execution. Let them take that if they can not handle their confinement.

 

[Jean]

The more I read about her the LESS impressed I am



http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJbh3P9MzPikM2kD6Yv4HYjFtjKgD919OI1O1

She said the killings were done under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.

"I was stoned, man, stoned on acid," she testified.

She expressed no remorse until years later when, at her parole hearings, she apologized. But she also suggested she may have exaggerated her role during the trial and that she did not actually kill Tate. The claim was dismissed by prosecutors as self-serving.

At the end of her trial testimony, she said, "I feel no guilt for what I've done. It was right then and I still believe it was right."

A psychiatrist who examined her at the time said she was mentally ill. Jurors heard about her troubled childhood and the trauma of losing her mother at a young age to cancer.

She and the others were sentenced to death but their terms were commuted to life in prison when the U.S. Supreme Court briefly outlawed the death penalty in the 1970s.

I will never forget her words at trial. I simply can't wrap my mind around the possibility this woman/monster might be able to enjoy freedom before she dies. I truly feel she dosen't deserve one minute of freedom before her death.

Scott Peterson is a monster too, and I would hate for him to be let out of prison if he developes cancer, but if Susan goes free Scott, along with numerous others, should be treated in the same manner.

JMO

 

[PSUfan]

This woman, and the others, are guilty. There is no doubt whatsoever. They inflicted hideous pain and suffering on completely innocent people for the simple joy of doing so.

They were justly tried, justly convicted and justly sentenced to death. There is no doubt whatsoever.

These people deserve no mercy. They deserve no compassion. They express no remorse. They deserve no forgiveness.

By quirks and the insanities of our legal system, these vermin have been allowed to live. In the 39 years since their crimes, the victim's families have been tormented by the potential reality of their release. In itself, this is a heinous crime.

39 years is not long enough. The victims are still dead. The families are still suffering.

I do not care how crippled, how debilitated or how pathetic these creatures become in prison. The only compassionate release they deserve is execution. Let them take that if they can not handle their confinement.

And the families are being further victimized by having to make statements such as this, from Sharon Tates sister. We thought that justice WAS served, and the families should be allowed to take comfort in that. But they still have to fight to keep these killers in jail.

"It is her duty, in order to pay for her crimes, to die in prison."

 

[shana]

I do not care how crippled, how debilitated or how pathetic these creatures become in prison. The only compassionate release they deserve is execution. Let them take that if they can not handle their confinement.

Ack, I must admit to having that very thought creep into my mind today. I dashed it, cuz like Bug, I'm older too and have my moments. ;->

Point is well-taken.

Wondering if this entire matter is her husband's doing rather than hers. If she's been hospitalized since March, her cancer is likely way advanced and her mental abilities seriously compromised as a result. At least that's what I know of just one person very close to me who died of this awful disease.

 

[philamena]

Hi philamena !!

I do realize this is specifically about Adkins, but what makes her different than any other killer ?? If she doesnt deserve to die in prison because she is terminally ill-- why wouldnt any other killer have to ?

I know terminally ill patients die in prisons all the time. I can tell you why I wish this woman, a convicted murderer could die at home.

It's rather simple honey. Both my parents died within 4 months of each other last year. Both had terminal illnesses. I'm thinking about the look in their eyes during their last days on earth. There was a certain comfort zone they were in because they were at home and my daughter's, my husband and I surrounded them each until they passed.

I guess I just don't want anyone to die alone .

I understand and respect your point of view Rag Doll.:blowkiss:

 

[i.b.nora]

The original California compassionate release laws includes the following, which should put some at ease:

"3. Requires Board of Parole Hearings to make findings regarding a prisoner's eligibility for the recall and resentencing procedure prior to making a recommendation to the court. A prisoner sentenced to death or to a term of life without the possibility of parole is not eligible for the recall and resentencing procedure."

In November 2007 Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law AB1539 which went into effect on January 1, 2008 and added some further definitions of eligibilities:

"Allows early release of medically incapacitated inmates, defined as those with a medical condition that renders the inmate unable to perform activities of basic daily living. Includes those in a coma or persistent vegetative state or who are brain dead; those dependent upon a ventilator; and those who have lost control of muscular or neurological function."

Other states apparently have similar laws, although I don't know which states.

 

[Jean]

The original California compassionate release laws includes the following, which should put some at ease:

"3. Requires Board of Parole Hearings to make findings regarding a prisoner's eligibility for the recall and resentencing procedure prior to making a recommendation to the court. A prisoner sentenced to death or to a term of life without the possibility of parole is not eligible for the recall and resentencing procedure."

In November 2007 Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law AB1539 which went into effect on January 1, 2008 and added some further definitions of eligibilities:

"Allows early release of medically incapacitated inmates, defined as those with a medical condition that renders the inmate unable to perform activities of basic daily living. Includes those in a coma or persistent vegetative state or who are brain dead; those dependent upon a ventilator; and those who have lost control of muscular or neurological function."

Other states apparently have similar laws, although I don't know which states.

Thanks for posting this--it does make me feel somewhat better to know that the flood gates won't be opening--so to speak.

I still don't want Susan to be released because I don't believe she is truly sorry for what she did. As someone else mentioned, I wonder if this is her desire or her husband's?

I can't imagine how the victims' families will feel if she is released--even if it is just to die.

 

[JBean]

The original California compassionate release laws includes the following, which should put some at ease:

"3. Requires Board of Parole Hearings to make findings regarding a prisoner's eligibility for the recall and resentencing procedure prior to making a recommendation to the court. A prisoner sentenced to death or to a term of life without the possibility of parole is not eligible for the recall and resentencing procedure."

In November 2007 Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law AB1539 which went into effect on January 1, 2008 and added some further definitions of eligibilities:

"Allows early release of medically incapacitated inmates, defined as those with a medical condition that renders the inmate unable to perform activities of basic daily living. Includes those in a coma or persistent vegetative state or who are brain dead; those dependent upon a ventilator; and those who have lost control of muscular or neurological function."

Other states apparently have similar laws, although I don't know which states.

But she was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. I don;t think we know if she meets the other requirements.

ETA: I should add I think she has been turned down for parole 10 or 11 times.

 

[i.b.nora]

But she was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. I don;t think we know if she meets the other requirements.

ETA: I should add I think she has been turned down for parole 10 or 11 times.

Hi JBean, probably you should read the whole thread to better understand why I posted what I posted. In any case, it has already been determined by the prison people that she does meet the requirements and there is a hearing scheduled for mid July.
Being turned down for parole does not necessarily factor into a compassionate release.

 

[Texana]

For me, the difference between saying "enough, let her die in comfort in a home outside of a prison hospital" would be the way my loved one died. Unfortunately, Susan Atkins made sure that Sharon (and the others) died not only painful deaths, but agonizing last minutes.

There has never been any awareness from Susan that the way she and the Manson Family made Sharon die (again, as well as the others) was not evil and cruel to the infinite degree, as cruel as possible. She extracted the last possible minutes of suffering from Sharon Tate. It is not just that she killed Sharon, it was the absolutely depraved way she did it, and her complete indifference to the humanity of another person.

She's never said one word of remorse for that, or responsibility.

No sign she's to this day acknowledged that killing another person is wrong and inexcusable, whether stone cold sober or high or drunk.

So, would 39 years be enough? No. Not for me. She's not aware of what she did, or refuses to admit it, so why should be let free for any reason?

 

[i.b.nora]

Hey Shana, how ya doin? I don't mind disagreeing with you since your opinions are generally informed ones. Good to see you. - i.b.

 

[shana]

Too bad their death penalties were not reduced to LWOP, because in my mind there is no question whatsoever they should have been. The condemned members of the Manson Family were lucky the 'law' went in their favor back then. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing their pleas for mercy.

I am an opponent of the DP for many reasons not said here, but the very most Susan deserves is Life In Prison until death, no exceptions.

Just cuz she got religion in prison...um, nope, not good enough. Plus that, if you read her confinement record, it's not all that sterling.

It makes my head hurt and my stomach turn to think that the surviving family members would have even to think about any other possibility.

Far as I'm concerned, Susan 'killed' Doris Tate too...broke her heart.

 

[Kiki]

I think families of people who've been horribly murdered should at least be entitled to the small comfort of knowing the killer is never getting out and be able to mourn their loved ones without worrying about periodic court hearings. Susan Atkins, and others like her, at least owe their victims' families that.

 

[kline]

Susan Atkins has expressed remorse for the killings she was involved in and repudiated Charlie dozens of times not that it excuses her crimes.
The problem with the death penalty when its not applied in a timely fashion or drug out for decades is that often as in this case the person that is supposed to be punished doesnt even exist anymore.
Far more dangerous people then Susan Atkins are released around the clock onto our streets every day of the week.
I truly hope her spiritual conversion was genuine.If so she will be out of the hell her decisions have created for her soon.
Its a tough question.
I dont know what the difference if any when your looking at a killer like Edward Duncan who killed of his own volition and Susan Atkins who probably would never have murdered if not for Charlie Manson.
I feel like she's paid all she's going to be able to It wouldnt bother me if she died outside.

 

[shana]

Both my parents died within 4 months of each other last year.

Mine too, almost 5 months apart...after many years of being bedridden, both of them.

I did not think of my parents at all as applies to Susan's plea. If I do now, I think of Doris Tate.

Sincere condolences to you, with wishes that your grief eases with each year ahead.

ETA: Each DAY...I was thinking year since it's Father's Day tomorrow...sorry.

 

[shana]

Hey Shana, how ya doin? I don't mind disagreeing with you since your opinions are generally informed ones. Good to see you. - i.b.

Hey nora!

Yeah, generally informed. ;->

I'm fine, thanks...and you?

Good to see you too...been a while.

 

[Jean]

If they release Susan--which I hope they don't-- I sure do agree with the bolded part of the following paragraph:

"As one reader pointed out, taxpayers have paid for her 37 years in prison; let her husband pay for her medical expenses the remaining years of her life. The crimes she committed were horrific beyond measure

I don't agree with the remainder of the paragraph:

but she has served her time. She is not a threat to society now."

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-me-atkins13-2008jun13,0,7824240.story