After reading this entire thread it is clear that this isn't an easily answered question. Good points have been made on both sides. Makes me wonder how hard it would be to have to make this decision if I were on the parole board. I am assuming that is who makes the decision? Or in this case, will it be a judge?
I think if I had to cast a vote in this, I would have to invoke both justice and mercy. The question is, mercy for whom? Justice demands that Atkins pay for her crimes. Each time she has asked to be paroled she was in effect, asking that justice be "set aside". Each time that has been denied. I would think that the fact that her victims family members speak out plays a large part in why she keeps getting her parole denied. This time she is asking for "mercy" to over rule justice on the grounds that she is dying. That is a persuasive argument, since all of us comprehend what death means, we feel almost a knee jerk reaction of compassion for her situation. After all, if we cant grant a dying person their final wish what does that say about us?
I think it is important to remove the decision from the context that Atkins is asking it to be looked at from. If she was not terminal, would she be asking this? If she was not terminal would we be so quick to grant her freedom? The obvious answer to both of those questions is no. She didnt ask for this extraordinary "mercy" when her leg was amputated, she only asked now, when she can play that all powerful death card. Society didnt see fit to release her earlier even though it legally could have by paroling her.
So apparently it is the "death" thing that is supposed to trump all previous decisions. Realistically, we are all dying. Susan Atkins just has an approximate date. That is the only thing that separates her from Sharon Tates mother, herself an Atkins victim who has died and Sharons sister who will die too, at some point. All of Atkins victims family members will die. We all will, death is inevitable and renders us all equal in the end. Since that is the case and everyone in this scenario is going to die, not just Atkins, how is justice best served, and what about mercy? It would appear that justice would best be served by giving Atkins the same answer she was getting before she "knew" she was terminal. Bottom line is, she was "terminal" from day one. We all are. The ONLY thing different about her is she has that "approximate" date. Since that means that all of her victims are terminal too, who should get the "mercy"? It would be great if the innocent family members were fine with Atkins being released to die, but they are not. And that is the whole defining point as to which way "mercy" should flow.
It is pretty clear that when you neutralize the feelings that are stirred up by the thought of imminent death, things need to proceed just as they have been. Her impending death doesnt trump her need to serve out the justice of the society she lives in. Mercy in its truest sense would best be applied in making the most innocent feel the best for the longest. That would mean that all of the family members of Atkins victims not see her released under some mistaken guise of compassion. It would be great if the innocent family members were fine with Atkins being released to die, but they are not. And that is the whole defining point as to which way "mercy" should flow.
These innocent people dont want her released and they have a moral and legal right to those feelings. After Atkins is dead the mercy that was extended to them by considering their feelings over a dying murderers will remain.
Hopefully the small amount of justice that Atkins received while taking art classes and writing books will continue right to the end of her life. Then the victims family will have closure. Even if ineptly, justice was served, and mercy was shown to THEM. The loved ones of the victims, who have to keep on living until their own deaths.
