Should Susan Atkins die at home or in prison?
posted at 11:50 am on July 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Few if any murders carry the horrifying cachet of the Manson murders in 1969. The deaths of seven people on two nights at the end of a tumultuous decade combined all of the political and cultural baggage of the era — drugs, counterculture, celebrity, cults, and pure evil in the form of the perpetrators, especially Charles Manson himself. Combining mass murder and serial murder, the Manson Family has played on the imaginations of Americans for almost 40 years, while its members routinely apply for parole and get rejected.
Now one of them faces death, although much different in nature than the deaths she herself inflicted on her victims. Susan Atkins, probably the most committed of all the Tate/LaBianca murderers to Manson himself, has terminal brain cancer and is not expected to live out the year. She wants to be released so that she can die at home, presumably with family and friends. Matthew Schmalz asks in Newsweek whether mercy or retribution should take precedence (via Shaun Mullen):
Justice or mercy? That is the pressing question in what seems to be a coda in the story of the 1969 Manson family murders. At issue is the request by Susan Atkins, now 60, for compassionate release from prison on the grounds of terminal illness.
Apart from Charles Manson himself, Atkins was the public face of the Manson family during the Tate-LaBianca murder trial. She had bragged about mercilessly stabbing the pregnant Sharon Tate and laughed when details of the murders were presented in court. When she received a death sentence, the verdict seemed particularly appropriate. When her punishment was later changed to life imprisonment with possibility parole, it seemed to be a gross distortion of the justice process. If there was an example of unmerited mercy in the criminal justice system, surely this was it.
I have to admit to an-almost lifelong fascination with the Manson case. I grew up in Southern California and read Helter Skelter at 13, just seven years after the murders, and it was the only book that ever scared me — and I used to read everything Stephen King wrote. The bloodthirsty nature of the defendants, especially Atkins, was brought to life by Vincent Bugliosi. Now I oppose the death penalty, but these defendants certainly were the poster children for its imposition, and Atkins only slightly less than Manson himself.
It was Atkins who killed the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, telling her first that she had no mercy for Tate or her unborn child, which makes her plea for mercy now more than a little ghastly. Most people feel that she got more than her allotted measure of mercy from the Supreme Court decision that threw out their death-penalty sentences.
In view of her illness, though, the issue is worth discussing. Prisons have three purposes in modern times: rehabilitation, justice, and public safety in keeping dangerous criminals from harming any more innocents. Are any of these purposes served by keeping Atkins in prison until she draws her last breath?
To hear Schmalz tell it, Atkins has already been rehabilitated. She has served her sentence as a model prisoner since the mid-1970s, and has posed no danger to herself or others. Schmalz tends to over-credit the Christian conversion of Atkins — it’s an oft-used ruse by prisoners looking for parole — but let’s assume he’s right and she’s rehabilitated. That would also indicate that we no longer need to worry that Atkins will resume murdering people in their homes to start race wars on behalf of Manson.
That still leaves justice, however, and it’s pretty hard to argue that Atkins has paid that measure yet. Atkins was convicted of eight murders, which means she’s served just over 4.5 years for every life she took. Atkins is both a serial and mass murderer, having committed the eight murders in three separate incidents. Is 37 years really enough to provide justice for these acts?
And while I oppose the death penalty, I fully support life without parole, although Atkins is eligible for parole thanks to the way the death sentences got dismissed. Life without parole pretty clearly means that we expect the worst offenders to die in prison, not in the comfort of their homes. Atkins qualifies as the worst of offenders, and she should not see the light of a free day.
Addendum: I want to make one more point about Christian forgiveness, in line with Schmalz’ essay. We believe in redemption, of course, but redemption does not exempt people from the temporal consequences of their actions. Merely going to the confessional, for instance, does not mean a murderer should not receive their just punishment. Christians hope and pray for the redemption of all souls, including that of Atkins (and Manson, for that matter) — but that essentially remains between Atkins and God and has little to do with the question of release.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
I happen to believe that Leslie Van Houten, one of the Manson “Girls” actually deserves to be paroled. If you research her role in the murders, she should have (and would have) been out years ago, except for the notoriety of these murders.
As for Atkins however, I don’t think you can let her go home for what she did.
asc85 on July 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM
You are seriously off your rocker. Dismissed!
upinak on July 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I vote for prison.
Anyone who is truly converted should be willing to abide by what Scripture says; in this case the applicable passage would be Romans 13:1-7, particularly verses three and four.
psrch on July 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Here is another thought, her release, even under these circumstances, will give her accomplices hope. And with the screwed up california courts it will be warranted.
peacenprosperity on July 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM
You can blame that argument on her “Defense Guy.”
I’ve been wrong, too. But the fact that she has only a few months to live and contrary to popular belief she isn’t going to die in prison or alone, anyway, the savings in cost and manpower favor release.
Blake on July 3, 2008 at 2:19 PM
She knows of other crimes, even murder, and has not told the story. She’s attractive, well spoken and may be to some respect remorseful but if she continues to protect herself and others she is not fully repentent or rehabilitated.
peacenprosperity on July 3, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Sure. It would seem to me that the obvious choice of sentence when you must commute death sentences would be to life without parole and not merely life. Perhaps California didn’t have a life without parole statute on the books at the time.
Defense Guy on July 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I’ve read quite a bit on this subject. I’ve never seen the stipulation that all Van Houten has to do is give the police certain information that she is now withholding, and then they would consider letting her go. She’s a “Manson Girl”, and all objectivity is thrown out the window.
And please don’t misunderstand me…Van Houten absolutely was guilty at the time, deserved to be convicted, etc., etc. But it’s time to let her go.
asc85 on July 3, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Sorry if it has already been posted before, but Susan Atkins should have died 40 years ago. Had they committed those murders in Texas, she would be dust by now.
carbon_footprint on July 3, 2008 at 2:26 PM
As I previously stated, California did not have lwop on the books in 1969. It was either death or life with the possibility of parole. I’m not aware of any other state that had lwop back then, either. This isn’t the first time the law had to play catch up to the extent of human depravity.
Blake on July 3, 2008 at 2:30 PM
What the heck are you talking about? Stipulation?
The parole board decides if someone deserves parole. If she is still protecting herself and others and obstructing justice why would she deserve parole.
peacenprosperity on July 3, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Prison
JonRoss on July 3, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I suppose I would too, in a perfect world. However, there is valid precedent for review and appeal of guilty verdicts. The Duke lacrosse player rape case comes to mind, and there are others. The lab charged with handling the DNA evidence was conspiring with Nifong as prosecutor. Had those boys not had the best defense money could buy, the lab-prosecutor relationship might have yielded a guilty verdict. While not a death penalty case, it is a good example of how the deck can get stacked. Sure, the principle gets abused, and sure, the time spent till execution is too long, but that is a fault of the legal system, not the principle. Death penalties are not consistent, and we all know it hinges to a large part on how much one can afford to pay for the defense, plus the plea bargaining power and political aspirations of the prosecutor. So, it isn’t really fair to all who are accused. The other side of the coin is the O J Simpson trial. So, as long as our legal system doesn’t treat everyone the same, the appeal system allows at least a chance mistakes can be corrected, and that only has value if the defendant is still alive.
a capella on July 3, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Nope. Until the law changed in Sept 2005 or 2006, it was either death or life with the possibility of parole in Texas. The USSC threw out the death penalty shortly after the convictions, so her death sentence would have been reduced to life with the possibility of parole — just like California.
Blake on July 3, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Christian or not, you reap what you sow. Sometimes you reap in this world, sometimes in the the world to come. Atkins already got her mercy by not being executed. Her victims didn’t have a say in their deaths; why should she?
Mrs. Happy Housewife on July 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM
She can get her mercy in the next life as far as I’m concerned.
If she got out, how long before some rag media outlet would be willing to pay her family big bucks for an interview?
BigD on July 3, 2008 at 2:49 PM
The parole board believes Van Houten continues to minimize her participation in the crimes.
Blake on July 3, 2008 at 2:49 PM
justice = prison
JustTruth101 on July 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I’m a proponent of the death penalty, not in abolishing it.
And I wasn’t making the statement to you but to someone else. You’re the one who started arguing with me, going the strange route of supporting a woman’s release while arguing for the death penalty.
Also, I already said that I’m well aware of the biases, or perhaps you skimmed over that part. Bias or not, the truth is what it is. I can accept that it’s more expensive despite my own bias.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I’m a Christian. She should stay in Prison no matter what her current profession of faith. Her crime was unspeakable! Sharon Tate didn’t get the years that she’s had, and she should be grateful for them!
sabbott on July 3, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Rehabilitation should not automatically mean decreased punishment. I say let her stay in prison.
exhelodrvr on July 3, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I certainly agree with you, but ideally, under a perfect judicial system that always sentenced only the guilty, I’d want them executed immediately.
Of course if I’m thinking about a perfect system, it’d be nice if there were no crime in the first place.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:01 PM
But, it isn’t.
Blake on July 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Then let justice be served.
SouthernDem on July 3, 2008 at 3:04 PM
What’s that old line…”let God sort them out”…
right2bright on July 3, 2008 at 3:07 PM
As a Christian who supports the death penalty (although I get no pleasure when it’s carried out and would gladly give it up in a trade to end abortion) I truely feel compassion for this woman. I also recognize that justice dictates that the merciful sentence she has received should be carried out to the end. After all, she gets visitation, and many other “perrks” that set her incarceration apart from the old Alcatraz style jails.
She did the crime, now finish the time.
edgehead on July 3, 2008 at 3:08 PM
This is stupid.
“Is too!!!!!!!”
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Another though..
Is it the same kind of brain cancer ted kennedy has?
peacenprosperity on July 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM
t
peacenprosperity on July 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM
This is the problem with life sentences. They’re still alive.
I watched some MSM report years back about the aging prison population. It presented this sympathetic story of these sorry, old men and women,,, so old and senile they couldn’t hurt a fly,, (don’t they just remind ya of grand pa and grand ma), just sittin looking out there prison cell windows.
Well, that’s what a life sentence is about. Life.
JellyToast on July 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Exactly. That is the punishment. Them no longer being a danger is a good thing, especially to those who live with them, but it doesn’t undue what they are being punished for. That’s the whole point.
Laws that allow murderers to escape not only their sentence of death but to also live free at home with their remaining time completely undue the courts that sentenced them.
Without justice, there will be vigilantes.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Ed, you are forgetting punishment. That is why we need swift implementation of the death penalty.
Johan Klaus on July 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Let her die in prison. She had no mercy for Sharon Tate and treated getting caught like it was a big joke. I hope she’s still laughing all the way to the grave. She’s pure evil and deserves to die in her cot.
Geronimo on July 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I think that’s what he means by justice, though I could be wrong.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Sharon Tate didn’t have the luxury dying peacefully with friends at her side comforting her. Neither should Susan Atkins.
Let her rot in jail and out of the media spotlight. She should’ve been executed in the first place; she’s already gotten more mercy than she deserves.
Hollowpoint on July 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I think Sharon Tate’s unborn child would say “PRISON“
brtex on July 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Wellllll, maybe because Jesus was setting an example for us to ask forgiveness from God, it is God who grants forgiveness (asking and granting are two different tasks). We can ask for forgiveness, or mercy from the Lord, but only he grants it. Jesus didn’t look at them and say “I forgive you” (or my Father forgives you as in other passages), he asked God to grant them mercy., knowing he cannot unless they come to Him, and they did not.
We have no right to grant forgiveness, if the harm was not done to us. That would put you as equal to God, something that many ministers and priests like to do.
Mt 6:14,is a starting point, remember God grants mercy to those who ask for mercy, who are repentant. He doesn’t walk down the path and willy nilly point to people and forgive them.
So, like him only not so smart, we can’t willy nilly grant it, there has to be some action or purpose, besides it makes us feel good, to do it.
That is why the ultimate sin (yeah, I know denying Him also) is murder, there can be no forgiveness, this is not something that slipped by God…
But your point of “complete” forgiveness is well stated. I will have to do more thought and study.
I guess I just don’t like the ministers who come on after a mass murder, or a rape, and off the cuff (in a solemn voice) “We forgive him for the terrible act that he committed”, it just irks me…maybe I should ask God to forgive them (the ministers), for they not know what they do…
right2bright on July 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Eh, not sure why mercy in this case is beneficial. I’m the last person to play this card, but it seems that the only reason why we’re even thinking this is because she’s a white woman. If the cutesy little picture of her on the front page were replaced with a picture of a hardened gangster, it’s doubtful that this discussion would even happen. That’s my take, at least.
Let her friends and family come to the prison to watch her die.
spmat on July 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Just a little rehash, this gal stuck a fork in Tate’s belly, and then sat down and had lunch…how much sicker is that?
I hate the fact that she gets any publicity.
right2bright on July 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Why leave her in prison where she can die in peace? Send her home where we can harass her and the her sick relations who still thinks she is worthy of their attention.
csdeven on July 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM
What a waste.
All of them wasted their whole lives for Manson.
Let her die in prison.
Think of the terror Sharon Tate, 8 months pregnant and unable to defend herself or her child suffered.
I hope as she dies she sees the jackals of hell coming for her just so she can feel a little of the terror that Sharon did.
ArmyAunt on July 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM
But He wasn’t asking for Himself. So what kind of example is that, especially since you go on later to say that we can’t do that?
It is my personal belief that anything done to a human being on this planet was also done to me. Susan harmed all of us when she did what she did. She made the world a little darker and pushed it even further after being caught.
You’re saying God cannot forgive murder?
Obviously the victim can’t forgive, but not all victims do forgive. If I hold a grudge, even over something small, and the person who wronged me apologizes sincerely, I don’t see how my lack of an apology should affect the person negatively with God.
I can’t say I understand where you’re going with that.
Thanks. And honestly I’ve never heard your point of view on this before. I’m not saying you’re wrong. It just doesn’t make as much sense to me from my perspective.
I get that. It really can be annoying. They come off as holier than thou, acting as though they are God.
It reminds me of the story where Jesus forgave a crippled man of his sins (even though the cripple had come to be healed). The Pharisees nearby were shocked, because of course only God can do that.
Then Jesus,upon hearing them, said that just to prove He could forgive sin, He would heal the man, which He then did.
Probably should, though I sometimes wonder about those famous ministers. I think they do know.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM
I hope that’s not true, especially in the context of a discussion about a Manson girl, but it would make sense.
She looks innocuous and maybe even a little pretty.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:57 PM
It was Patricia Krenwinkel who stabbed poor Mr. Leo La Bianca with the fork. [I expect the predictable outrage because I prefer facts and law to be correct.]
Blake on July 3, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I haven’t read all the comments, so forgive me if I’m repeating something here but how many people get sentenced to life in prison, especially for brutal murder? Obviously, each of them will come to the end of their life at some point. Do we let them all of out prison because of it? No.
If you earn yourself a cozy little cell for the rest of your life, then that’s where you should spend the rest of your life. Period. Whether you die of cancer, heart attack, stroke, old age, or a prison beating. You earn your sentence, you serve it.
CookeyD on July 3, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Has she asked for forgiveness?
Glynn on July 3, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Yes, you’re right.
Atkinsonly stabbed Tate, while saying, “Look, bitch, I have no mercy for you. You’re going to die and you’d better get used to it.” Or maybe she only held her down while Watson stabbed her. Atkins gave two different accounts.
Either way, afterwards, she wrote “PIG” in Tate’s blood, participated in more murders, and sh!t on a stairwell.
That’s much better.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Sharon Tate begged for mercy for her unborn child and was slaughtered by that animal.
Prison for this demon.
UnEasyRider on July 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
My take (sorry if someone else has already said it)
It’s not about punishment or mercy. It’s about what could/will she do when she gets out? Has she be deprogrammed? Was she even programmed at all or did everything she was just dovetail into what Mason was?
- The Cat
P.S. This colors my stance on the entire penal code.
(This has been a serious post and so I can’t leave it there, so let me leave you with an old Vulcan Proverb.
You don’t send Jared into a pie shop.
MirCat on July 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM
If we let Atkins out, then we should let all of them out at the first signs of old age, lest anyone be forced to die in jail.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Google manson tate murders crime scene photos before you vote for sending her home.
Akzed on July 3, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Keep her in prison. Sharon Tate and her baby weren’t allowed any dignity or mercy, why should this scum? This scum deserves no mercy. Have her scrubbing bathrooms until she collapses.
Mooseman on July 3, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Die in jail when her body shuts down.
Justice is blind.
TroubledMonkey on July 3, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Susan Atkins did not up and decide to murdering one day. She was abandoned by her family and became a stripper in her mid-teens, then got mentally and physically raped by Manson for a few years prior to becoming one of his killers. What is the point of keeping her in prison dying of brain cancer?
miles on July 3, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Unreconstructed supporter of the death penalty that I am, my vote is that Atkins should die in prison. As you note, Captain, there’s a matter of justice here as well as mercy. Justice indicates that she should not be released to go home to die with family and friends. Somehow, the weepy set seems to forget that her victims have been deprived of their constitutional rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. If Ms. Atkins isn’t going to be executed, she certainly should not be released. Life in prison means life in prison. Period. She can leave prison after they screw the lid onto the coffin bearing her mortal remains. Not until then.
Orson Buggeigh on July 3, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I vote for prison.
kirkill on July 3, 2008 at 5:14 PM
She should be given just as much mercy as she gave Sharon Tate and her baby. ZERO. Let the monster die in prison.
SoulGlo on July 3, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Prisons are filled with criminals with hard-luck stories of broken families, falling in with the wrong crowd, etc. Do we let them all go too?
A life sentence is supposed to be just that- you live and die in prison; anything less renders the sentence meaningless. Don’t want to do the time? Don’t do the crime.
She was initially going to be executed many years ago; whether execution or life imprisonment, her sentence intended for her to die in prison and that’s what should happen.
Hollowpoint on July 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM
die in prison and then burn in hell (if there is one…)
Kaptain Amerika on July 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Let her die in prison. The people she murdered or help murder would have liked to be with their families when it was time to leave this earth too.
mixplix on July 3, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Sending her home is good for what? Who in the hell even though of the idea? crazy question to start with. Thats what this freakin world has come to.
johnnyU on July 3, 2008 at 5:33 PM
It isn’t justice or mercy, it’s compassion.
Having counseled hospice patients, this is outside of whatever this person did as a crime. This is a sign of our ability to allow this person to pass on to whatever perfect justice God has in store for her, and be able to to show Him that we showed compassion, which is emulating Christ.
Hening on July 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Rot in prison until death.
Lunkinator on July 3, 2008 at 5:40 PM
It is my understanding that Tex Watson did almost all the killing and that Sadie’s role was greatly exaggerated by her.
Either way, she should not get out under any circumstances.
Metro on July 3, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Should we send Manson home too, for the sake of “emulating Christ”?
Buddahpundit on July 3, 2008 at 5:59 PM
I’ll reserve my compassion for the family members of the victims of these freaks. Keep her in prison.
coyoterex on July 3, 2008 at 6:19 PM
You left out “punishment.”
Woman stays in the clink.
greggriffith on July 3, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Ed,
How do you support life without parole for murderers when you simultaneously support parole for Susan Atkins, mass serial murderer? How do you reconcile those contradictory positions?
That is precisely the problem those of us who support the death penalty have with those who oppose it and offer life without parole: Those sympathetic to the murderers will try to spring them loose. Heck, Manson was sentenced to death in California and lefties reduced his sentence to life. Now he regularly comes up for parole. If you do not execute murderers, the liberals will spring them loose.
That’s why Texas reinstated the death penalty. Kenneth McDuff was sentenced to death in Texas in 1966. He had kidnapped three teenagers, shooting the two boys then raping the girl, then sodomozing her with a broomstick, after which he strangled her with the broomstick on a rural road. “It was like you kill a possum,” McDuff said.
In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled execution to be cruel and unusual punishment. McDuff’s death sentence was reduced to life. In 1976, ten years after his crime and conviction, mass murderer Kenneth McDuff was eligible for parole. The Democrats who ran Texas had refrained from building prisons, which led to overcrowding which prompted Texas to accelerate its parole schedule. In 1989, McDuff was paroled after serving less than 23 years on his “life” sentence.
McDuff killed a prostitute two days after he was paroled. His parole was revoked in 1990 after he tried to stab a black teenager after racially taunting him. He went back to prison less than two weeks before being paroled again. In 1991, he killed another prostitute, then another five days later. Then he kidnapped a woman washing her car, raped her, tortured her, and then beat her to death. He kidnapped and killed the pregnant wife of a co-worker at a convenience store. They don’t know how many women McDuff killed. Maybe a dozen.
He was caught in 1992, convicted in 1993, and executed in 1998. Only execution brought his murders to an end. Had the death penalty not been carried out, McDuff would eventually have been released to kill again.
If sentencing a killer to death can be undone, a life sentence is even a weaker guarantee that murderers will not be set free. In fact, back in the 1980s, a study found 625 of the convicts imprisoned for murder (not necessarily on death row) were there on their second homicide conviction. In other words, they killed once, did their time, and then got out to kill again. Life sentences kill people.
When you spring crazed murderers like Susan Atkins, you give hope to every murderer that he can beat the rap, that one day he can breathe free air again. Such murderers should be given no hope, none. While compassionate paroles appeal to the finer instincts of civilized people, they are interpreted as weakness by predators. Executing murderers communicates the kind of simple justice that the reptilian brains of killers can easily comprehend.
Tantor on July 3, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Hening: “Having counseled hospice patients, this is outside of whatever this person did as a crime. This is a sign of our ability to allow this person to pass on to whatever perfect justice God has in store for her, and be able to to show Him that we showed compassion, which is emulating Christ.”
God can have Susan Atkins after we’re done with her and she has died in prison. I am sure that His infinite patience will allow Him to wait.
Tantor on July 3, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Justice will be served when she dies in prison, lonely and, hopefully, afraid. It will still be a death wholly merciful when compared to the deaths of the innocents she brutally murdered.
Rational Thought on July 3, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Strangely enough, I side with sending her home.
God, nature, or fate have handed her a pretty good dose of justice. Brain cancer is not a pleasant way to die. She is already reaping what she sowed.
But more to the point … I see an exquisite sort of retribution in showing mercy to those who have none. Being hated is easy compared to being forgiven.
If she has truly been rehabilitated - if she truly has undying remorse for her actions - then I’d imagine that mercy itself would cause enormous pain.
I’d like to see her own words at trial read back to her. Play the video if it exists. And then have one of her victims children tell her: “You had no mercy. We do. You had no humanity. We do. Go home and die. And may God have mercy on your soul.”
Dying in prison is too easy. I’d prefer one last chance for her to understand her own evil. I’d like her to have a few weeks to see all that she missed for forty long years.
But what if she’s faking her conversion and still unrepentant? (shrug) Oh, well. Then the mercy shown to her makes the rest of the world look good by comparison and just highlights the banality of her evil. And if there’s a Hell, then she’ll just face more punishment on the other side.
Just make damn sure she’s so sick and weak she can’t hurt anybody else. And maybe water down her pain meds a bit, mmm-kay?
Professor Blather on July 3, 2008 at 7:02 PM
What do the survivors of the victims of Adkins say?
Should we not at least hear from them?
I did (and I recommend heding the warnings at some of the sites), I saw photos, some of which I’d seen before, and the victims weren’t simply killed.
In the absence of statements form the families of the victins, I see no reason to let Adkins out.
Arbalest on July 3, 2008 at 7:07 PM
That this is even up for debate is ridiculous.
Die in prison!
ToddonCapeCod on July 3, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Compassionate release for a woman who killed eight and bragged about having no mercy for a woman and her unborn child…….. Only liberals (who don’t have any regard for unborn life anyway) would take more than a nanosecond to deny this request.
If former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards can die in prison for rigging casino licensing, then Atkins can stay where she is too.
highhopes on July 3, 2008 at 7:23 PM
In a fun version of the six degress of separation, I’m related through marriage to Leslie Van Houten.
Well said.
For those Christians on this thread arguing for mercy to me shown in this case as an example of Christian love: you’re missing that justice is important to God as well.
Proverbs 11:10 When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.
even more to the point:
Proverbs 18:5 It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice.
Proverbs 21:3 To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.
Proverbs 21:15 When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.
There is another which I cannot find at the moment which says that it is as bad to let evil go unpunished as it is to wrongly convict.
There’s more evidence to the idea that God is better pleased by the carrying out of a deserved sentence than some notion that He wants us to wow him by letting criminals go free under the misguided banner of “compassion.” Good on her if she did get saved–perhaps the tumor is the Lord’s mercy on her as His way of shortening her sentence. I see no need for us to change course on her punishment due to any physical condition she has or may develop.
TexasDan on July 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Die in
prisonthe private hospital room at the local community hospital near Chowchilla which has already cost the state a million bucks with another $225,000 for the correctional officers that must be assigned to guard her!Fixed it for you.
Blake on July 3, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Hey, I vote for that! Allow them to move into her cell with her if they want to be close and give her comfort.
Socratease on July 3, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Forgive me for being late to this story, and have not read any of the other comments yet so this may already have been said:
And that is exactly the problem.
Prison should do only one thing: Punish. Every day should be horrible, miserable hell that causes the person living it to curse their stupidity in choosing to take an action that put them there.
It should be so horrible that those whom make it to parole would do anything, obey any order, and fear committing any crime lest they get returned to prison.
Anything less is just a vacation paid for by law abiding citizens doomed to fail at it’s stated goal of “reform”.
As for your question: she should be put down in the yard and tossed into the garbage.
Voidseeker on July 3, 2008 at 7:49 PM
I have difficulty with saying that execution is “ok”, because that tends to contradict my feelings about abortion, not to mention the fallibility of humans. But, I have no problem with letting this woman die in prison no matter the circumstances. She was found guilty and she has been denied parole every time. We shouldn’t make special exceptions.
Imagine this scenario; a person with terminal brain cancer decides to go on a killing spree. Does the jury feel compassion for the terminally ill murderer and let them get away with the crime? If not, then are we saying that 32 years is enough of a punishment if you are also terminally ill? Funny, I don’t recall ever hearing of a sentence of, “Life with parole, or 35 years if you become terminally ill”.
Geministorm on July 3, 2008 at 7:59 PM
As a former Correctional Sergeant in the California system I think justice and mercy can meet in the middle.
Let her die in jail, but let her die with her family around her. If they can find space for a conjugal visit, they can find space for a hospice room.
RobertInAustin on July 3, 2008 at 8:02 PM
I disagree. What about those who may be innocent? We may have a good system, but it isn’t perfect. Innocent men and women do wind up in our walls.
When I used to train green CO’s I could tell that they were hitting burn out when they would get that look on their face that basically asked what the hell they were doing there. The inmates didn’t care, they will be back, so what real difference am I making?
I would tell them that not everyone in here may be guilty. We could have innocent people in these walls. We also have people who are guilty, and they are truly sorry for what they did and it is hell enough for them being in here. Why are we here? To keep the peace for the innocent and the repentant and help them to make it home in one piece. Just look at the rest of the knuckle heads as job security.
There is no such thing as easy time. We used to say that some days the only thing that separated the inmates from the officers was the fact that we did our time in 8 hour shifts and the inmates did theirs in 24/7’s.
RobertInAustin on July 3, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Charles Manson’s picture frightens me. Not much else does. He and his followers can stay in jail. Thanks. :D
Vatican Watcher on July 3, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Why are we giving more concern to Atkins than than the toilet paper we used this morning? Only one of them was useful to society. I wonder sometimes what our society would be like if we paid as much attention people who didn’t murder, graduated from high school with good grades and didn’t get in trouble, contributed to society in deed and not words instead of celebs and supposed intellectuals who stampede to the cause of people who have demonstrated they have no place in civilized society. Would we be better or worse off as a country?
Dadzilla on July 3, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Let her rot in jail until her corpse decomposes all the way to dust.
Hog Wild on July 3, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Excellent idea. It should satisfy all parties. I wouldn’t mind the state setting up a special ward for her to live out her last days/weeks with more lenient visitation.
Geministorm on July 3, 2008 at 8:25 PM
You know, I hope this bitch has Internet access and is reading all of these posts………..
Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Of course it is not perfect, no system can be when human error is involved.
The problem is that we are actually putting MORE innocents behind bars now than we would be if prison were hell. Because the perception of ‘doing time’ has come to be seen as ‘forced vacation’ juries are MORE willing to take the risk and convict people - even when there is the doubt that it may be wrong.
If prison was hell juries would not be willing to send someone there unless they were certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant was guilty. This would of course mean that more guilty people would get away with crimes, but the system was setup that way. “Better that X guilty men go free than one innocent man get imprisoned” and all.
Proof is in the size of our prison population today. Juries are all to willing to say guilty to just about anyone these days. They can do it without guilt as they know the person will get 3 meals a day, cable tv, exercise, schooling, etc. etc. etc.
Voidseeker on July 3, 2008 at 8:33 PM
It all is part of secular society’s idea that Christ is a “buddy” who will return to high fives from the “believers” who advocated things like this. That isn’t how Christ will return at all.
highhopes on July 3, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Okay, here comes the libertarian in me. Many of these inmates are in jail for stupid reasons. Possession of a controlled substance that wasn’t invented in the 20th century but goes back to the beginning of recorded history.
Many of these men have become institutionalized. Many of these inmates belong in mental institutions but both republicans and democrats took care of that long ago. democrats because it violated their civil rights, republicans because they did it for a more noble reason…..it saved money.
Inmates have cable, and they pay for it.
Inmates have movies, and they pay for it.
Inmates have exercise equipment, and they pay for it.
Everytime they go to the inmate store they have to pay a tax into the inmate welfare fund that pays for all those things.
If you put a man in a room with nothing, what do you take away from him to get him to get back into line when he steps out? A man who has nothing that can be taken from him has nothing to lose.
Again, there is no such thing as easy time. Try eating three meals a day wondering if each may be your last. Try standing in a dining hall and it is completely silent….you know something is getting ready to happen. Try living like that.
I agree, there needs to be prison reform, but its already a living hell with people who have very bad mental problems.
RobertInAustin on July 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Also, this isn’t a level 4 yard, this is a level 2 and sometimes even level 1. (Level 4 = lifers, level 1 dui’s)
RobertInAustin on July 3, 2008 at 8:48 PM
She should live out her miserable life in prison. No compromises!
kiakjones on July 3, 2008 at 8:50 PM
That’s right. Forgive this animal, sure. But let her die right where she is.
seanrobins on July 3, 2008 at 9:02 PM
“Should Susan Atkins die at home or in prison?”
Ridiculous. Sure, her diet was annoying, but that’s no reason to lock someone up.
Kevin M on July 3, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Stupid or not, it is the law. That being said I fully agree that most drug convictions are a waste and laws need to be changed. But while it is the law, breaking it is the criminals choice.
Firstly this is a moot point given your statement about the mental state of a lot of inmates. I do not believe they should have ‘nothing’. There should be books, and books alone. If the prison as a whole wants to pipe in music that is fine. They should not have access to anything else. That is what should get taken away when they get out of line. And I am a believer in permanent solutions to repeat trouble makers. Yes, kill them. Prisoners should know that is a very REAL and enacted punishment for causing trouble in prison.
Easy is relative, and it is not compared to the life of a free man. But that is an apple and orange comparison, and should not be made. Compare doing time in an American prison to just about anywhere else in the world, and/or at any other time in history: US prisoners do have it easy.
I agree fully that mentally unstable cases need to be addressed.
But I am far more draconian in how I view things:
Life without Parole = pointless and should be ended. If there is no chance of the person getting out of jail, they should be killed.
Temporary Insanity = Cannot be trusted to live among people as could snap at any time. Should be committed to the hospital or imprisoned for life. It is not a get out of jail free card. And if they killed someone while “temporarily insane” it should be treated as Premeditated.
Permanent Insanity = Killed. If there is no chance of the person ever being able to choose right from wrong or be a part of society there is no need to keep them alive.
Mentally retarded = Hospitalized. They have proven able to commit the crime but lack the mental ability to stop themselves from doing or even understanding that it is wrong.
The above of course applies to felonies & violent crimes. Prisoners should still have appeals in order to fight a bad conviction, but far fewer of them. 20+ years to get through 5+ appeals for a crime is a waste of everyones’ time and just a way to prolong punishment.
I know my views are harsh, but then again I also fully support legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and most other victimless “sin” crimes. If someone wants to be self-destructive so be it. This is a country of Liberty and we have gone way too far in criminalizing activities. That being said, it is also a country of personal responsibility so any actions one takes “while under the influence” should/would be considered premeditated. They chose to do the drug, they are responsible for what they do after.
Voidseeker on July 3, 2008 at 9:19 PM
You know vastly more than I about how things currently are for sure. I do see the need for different levels of prison for sure. If I had final say there would be no lifer level though.
BTW, and semi related, thank you for doing and training people for one of the worst jobs there is in this country. While I am not happy with how the system works now, I am very grateful that there are people who do their best to make it work as smoothly as possible.
Voidseeker on July 3, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Esthier on July 3, 2008
Uhh, Jesus was crucified between to criminals. One criminal reprimanded the other criminal for mocking Jesus as they hung dying. He said to that criminal, “We are getting what we deserve, but he is innocent.”
Jesus did tell that criminal, the one who saw Jesus for Who he was, that he would be with Him in Paradise that day(that means, AFTER HE [meaning, the criminal] DIED FROM HIS EXECUTION)! Jesus did not try to have the criminal brought down from the cross, nor did he correct the forgiven criminal when he said “We are getting what we deserve.”
The bible also says, “If we confess ours sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins” John 1:9
Notice the first word is “IF.”
JellyToast on July 3, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Fuck her, let her die in jail.
unclemeat on July 3, 2008 at 10:22 PM
I put in a vote for Scaphism:
It’s a Persian torture technique.
The victim is tied naked to a boat, face up. They would have already been force-fed enough milk and honey to induce severe diarrhea — torturous enough — but it gets worse. Honey was then applied to areas like the groin and the armpits before the victim’s vessel was set adrift in a stagnant pond. The diarrhea and the honey would attract insects, which fed off of the victim and eventually began to breed from within their flesh.
Alden Pyle on July 3, 2008 at 10:43 PM
“Should Susan Atkins die at home or in prison?”
I’m glad she found God. It doesn’t mean she should be released to die at home. She was sentenced to life in prison for the awful crimes she committed. That is where she should die.
Steve Tsouloufis on July 3, 2008 at 10:45 PM
In Christian biblical teachings, one has to ask for forgiveness in order to be forgiven. If that has not been forthcoming from Atkins, she doesn’t desire to be paroled.
docdave on July 3, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »