Kreyzhorse
New member
No. She didn't show mercy to Sharon Tate. She did the crime and the fact that she is dying has no effect on her punishment.
I'm sure Sharon Tate would like to have died naturally as well but she wasn't given that chance.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Crime & Punishment: Does Manson Killer Susan Atkins Now Deserve Mercy??
- Thread starter LanceOregon
- Start date
No. She didn't show mercy to Sharon Tate. She did the crime and the fact that she is dying has no effect on her punishment.
I'm sure Sharon Tate would like to have died naturally as well but she wasn't given that chance.
This is a strange thing for me to try to rationalize. The woman committed cold blooded murder, viscious, and sick.
She was under the influence of LSD and under the control of a madman at the age of what, 22/23 ? I had a brother in law and a friend both die of brain cancer. It sucked, but both went quietly, not screaming in agony (morphine). Does she deserve mercy ? no. Do the taxpayers of Kali need the expence of her health care ? No. Im glad that choice is not mine to make.
She was under the influence of LSD and under the control of a madman at the age of what, 22/23 ? I had a brother in law and a friend both die of brain cancer. It sucked, but both went quietly, not screaming in agony (morphine). Does she deserve mercy ? no. Do the taxpayers of Kali need the expence of her health care ? No. Im glad that choice is not mine to make.
Does she deserve ANY mercy? NO, none at all.
Is there any reason to keep her in prison, sucking up HUGE amounts of taxpayer money? Nope, she is physically incapable of being a threat to the public at all, so I say kick her out of prison with the clothes on her back, and let the cancer kill her (just like its going to anyways) without wasting money keeping her under armed guard in a hospital and being treated at taxpayer expense.kick her out, and let her die in the gutter.It's free, she deserves it, and she is no longer a threat anyways so keeping her in prison or in a hospital is a pointless waste of money.
Is there any reason to keep her in prison, sucking up HUGE amounts of taxpayer money? Nope, she is physically incapable of being a threat to the public at all, so I say kick her out of prison with the clothes on her back, and let the cancer kill her (just like its going to anyways) without wasting money keeping her under armed guard in a hospital and being treated at taxpayer expense.kick her out, and let her die in the gutter.It's free, she deserves it, and she is no longer a threat anyways so keeping her in prison or in a hospital is a pointless waste of money.
LanceOregon
Moderator
Apparently, CA disagrees. By abandoning the death penalty, CA decided that the worst possible fate for her to suffer through would have been execution.
That is not the way that I remember it at all. The US Supreme Court outlawed virtually all existing death penalty laws back in 1972 in the historic Furman v. Georgia case. It was the US Supreme Court that invalidated her original sentence ( and also that of Charles Manson ) so that they then only became sentenced to life in prison instead. All criminals that had received the death penalty in the entire USA between 1967 and 1972 were able to escape the death penalty because of this ruling.
California still has the death penalty on the books there. It has not been revoked in any way. In fact, they currently have 635 people waiting on death row there now. So many in fact, that the state is currently considering building a new prison to house them.
Now, this is not to say that the death penalty in California is not dysfunctional, as it clearly is. It is costing the state huge amounts of dollars to have so many on death row, and they are making very little progress in getting these people executed. California is currently taking approximately 23 years to execute a person.
That is not much of a death sentence, if you let the person live another 23 years. That is about a third of a lifetime.
.
Does her past action thus mean that showing Atkins no mercy now, is thus the right and moral thing to do?
Release at the same time that Sharon Tate is paroled of her sentence.
applesanity
New member
I think the National League deserves some mercy. The AL has beaten them every year for over a decade. Or the comissioner can get of that stupid, "winner of the all-star game gets home field advantage" rule.
I think Susan Atkins deserves a postcard. A postcard picture of a family and their pet dog at the beach, in idyllic summer. Because that'll be as close to being on the outside as she'll ever get.
I think Susan Atkins deserves a postcard. A postcard picture of a family and their pet dog at the beach, in idyllic summer. Because that'll be as close to being on the outside as she'll ever get.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I can have a small amount of compassion for people that kill accidently in a fit of jealous rage, that kill someone through poor judgement (like DUI) without intending to take a life, and even those that kill someone accidently in a fight...but not someone who (with forthought) set out to kill and torture innocent people.
Actually, for Atkins, the applicable case was the California Supreme Court case of Anderson, not the US Supreme Court case of Furman. Anderson invalidated all CA death penalty sentences that were imposed prior to 1972. It was decided on April 24, 1972, two months before the Furman decision of June 29, 1972. So in effect, the CA Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court, did revoke the death penalty in CA, which was reinstated by an amendment to the state constitution later in 1972. Since the CA Supreme Court is a body that represents the CA population, in my book Californians are at least partly to blame for the commuting of Atkins' sentence to life imprisonment.That is not the way that I remember it at all. The US Supreme Court outlawed virtually all existing death penalty laws back in 1972 in the historic Furman v. Georgia case. It was the US Supreme Court that invalidated her original sentence ( and also that of Charles Manson ) so that they then only became sentenced to life in prison instead. All criminals that had received the death penalty in the entire USA between 1967 and 1972 were able to escape the death penalty because of this ruling.
California still has the death penalty on the books there. It has not been revoked in any way.
Besides, she has already received the mercy and moral consideration she is due. She isn't due anything further, and some might say she has received more than she deserves. She must face the consequences of her acts.
And let's not forget that she was also involved in the murder of Gary Hinman.
thrgunsmith
New member
She deserves the same mercy she gave to Sharon Tate
They should line her room with huge posters of her crime scene so she can
remember why she is where she is.
They should line her room with huge posters of her crime scene so she can
remember why she is where she is.
32 posts so far, and not one for "mercy release"
Well, I'm not going to buck this trend. Life means life, and her sentence ends when she dies, in prison.
As to the expense, If it were up to me, I would say save some money by not giving her pain meds, but all the other applicable medical care should be applied.
Kicking her to the curb to "die in the gutter" would likely be more expensive for the people of CA, as she would be taken to a hospital for treatment, and after all, I think a regular hospital with private doctors would charge more for the care than the prison hospital, even figuring in the cost of the guards!
She is being considered for compassionate release, because under the law, they have to consider her, because of how long the doctors have given her to live (6mo). I can see, and even agree with the idea of the compassionate release for someone with 6mo or less to live, if they stole jewelry, or sold weed, or some other lesser crime that killed no one (directly), and were not serving a life sentence in lieu of execution.
And so, she must be considered. Fairly considered. Refused, and allowed to die in prison, completeing her "life" sentence, as ordered by the courts.
Well, I'm not going to buck this trend. Life means life, and her sentence ends when she dies, in prison.
As to the expense, If it were up to me, I would say save some money by not giving her pain meds, but all the other applicable medical care should be applied.
Kicking her to the curb to "die in the gutter" would likely be more expensive for the people of CA, as she would be taken to a hospital for treatment, and after all, I think a regular hospital with private doctors would charge more for the care than the prison hospital, even figuring in the cost of the guards!
She is being considered for compassionate release, because under the law, they have to consider her, because of how long the doctors have given her to live (6mo). I can see, and even agree with the idea of the compassionate release for someone with 6mo or less to live, if they stole jewelry, or sold weed, or some other lesser crime that killed no one (directly), and were not serving a life sentence in lieu of execution.
And so, she must be considered. Fairly considered. Refused, and allowed to die in prison, completeing her "life" sentence, as ordered by the courts.
CGSteve8718
New member
Talking about the failure that is our corrections system makes my blood boil. If the state knows for a fact that someone was guilty of premeditated murder, then she should have been executed shortly thereafter. Instead, she served 37 yrs in prison on taxpayer money, now she is mortally ill, and again, taxpayer money is keeping her alive. Keep in mind, she is certainly not the only one living off our collective dollars.
I normally would not agree with posters who say, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime", as not all crimes are "crimes". In the case of murder[/I however, the only just desserts is execution.
I'm not familiar with the two CA court cases that invalidated the death penalty, but it just goes to show how judges on every level can ruin the country due to rulings that lack common sense.
I normally would not agree with posters who say, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime", as not all crimes are "crimes". In the case of murder[/I however, the only just desserts is execution.
I'm not familiar with the two CA court cases that invalidated the death penalty, but it just goes to show how judges on every level can ruin the country due to rulings that lack common sense.
Just to clarify for you, CGSteve8718.
When I posted the phrase, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime," I was in fact thinking more on the lines of laws that are malum in se and not so much those that are malum prohibitum. In the case of Atkins, it was certainly malum in se.
When I posted the phrase, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime," I was in fact thinking more on the lines of laws that are malum in se and not so much those that are malum prohibitum. In the case of Atkins, it was certainly malum in se.
So there is no redemption?
Saul of Tarsus would agree with that sentiment, St. Paul would not.
It takes the heart of a bureaucrat to believe that following the rules is more important than the possibility of rehabilitation.
Unfortunately for Ms. Atkins her victim was famous. Even if she truly has become a member of some god's elect (or what ever passes for a mystical conversion) and is truly no longer a danger to society, or even if she were provably more beneficial to society out of prison than in; there's no chance of her being paroled.
The parole process is there for a reason. It is too frequently used as a political tool, but still that reason exists. Wanna be seen as tough on crime? Then deny parole to a famous criminal or oversee the execution of a retard.
Humans, along with an almost endless capacity for evil, also have the capacity to change, to be redeemed or redeem themselves.
To simply leave a person warehoused in prison, that has been rehabilitated, is an injustice.
Saul of Tarsus would agree with that sentiment, St. Paul would not.
It takes the heart of a bureaucrat to believe that following the rules is more important than the possibility of rehabilitation.
Unfortunately for Ms. Atkins her victim was famous. Even if she truly has become a member of some god's elect (or what ever passes for a mystical conversion) and is truly no longer a danger to society, or even if she were provably more beneficial to society out of prison than in; there's no chance of her being paroled.
The parole process is there for a reason. It is too frequently used as a political tool, but still that reason exists. Wanna be seen as tough on crime? Then deny parole to a famous criminal or oversee the execution of a retard.
Humans, along with an almost endless capacity for evil, also have the capacity to change, to be redeemed or redeem themselves.
To simply leave a person warehoused in prison, that has been rehabilitated, is an injustice.
LanceOregon
Moderator
Jesus even forgave those who killed him.
This is what troubles me about this case. Has the horrendous evil that she committed managed to affect good people too, by the way they react to her abominations??
Do the rules change, the more horrific the crime is??
.
This is what troubles me about this case. Has the horrendous evil that she committed managed to affect good people too, by the way they react to her abominations??
Do the rules change, the more horrific the crime is??
.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that she has been rehabilitated.To simply leave a person warehoused in prison, that has been rehabilitated, is an injustice.
She committed the most horrific of crimes -- the brutal, hours-long murder of a pregnant woman and her unborn child. She received a fair sentence for her crime -- execution. She was granted a stay of execution, which was far greater comfort than she gave her victims.
Here in MA, the mandatory sentence for murder is life without parole. It doesn't matter whether the victim was famous or unknown; the perpetrator gets the same sentence.
The only reason you are hearing about her plea for parole is because her victim was famous and the crime infamous. If it wasn't for her high profile, her parole request wouldn't have received this much attention and would have been rejected without fanfare.
The good Lord may forgive her, but she has yet to fulfill her sentence. Buzzcook: It is not up to me to give her redemption. That is up to God.
I would have no problem in letting Atkins out of prison at this point via a supervised hospice. I don't make the remark as a 'bleeding heart' but as someone who has worked in a maximum security environment. Part of the problem with the criminal injustice system - is that it's not selective. It is a kind of chaotic arbitrary confrontive system. The system tries to 'punish' people who are ironically in jail because the don't respond to 'punishment' - and the system lets 'em out arbitrarily as if somehow after their time is served, they've somehow learned something they were not capable of really ever learning?
On the other hand, I see people who made mistakes and got into trouble - people who have a soul and who learn from their mistakes and change as a person. The problem with the system - is that it treats everybody with a one-size-fits-all mentality - and makes very little distinction between a serial rapist carjacker and a mentally retarded homeless person; they both are made to jump through the same arbitrary hoops. One gets out and is a wicked creep and the other gets out and we wonder why they were ever incarcerated in the first place.
In the case of Atkins, she's a changed person. She's been in prison 37 years. She's dying of cancer. She participated in a wicked horrific crime 37 yrs. ago. She is not the same person. Give her cell to someone who needs it. Let her just die. At this point, someone usually jumps in and screams about Sharon Tate and the horror of that crime. I think after 37 years of incarceration, the time has been served; it is now a question of how we let this inmate die. The family of the victims have I think a right to be consulted in this matter. If they are opposed to a hospice for Ms. Atkins,their feelings must be respected. However, I would not be surprised if they would prefer to see this matter ended on the side of greater mercey.
Each case is unique. Some people commit horrific crimes because they have little conciousness - and some of these folks are no better than a wild predatory animal. However, I know that just about anyone is capable of commiting a horrific crime under certain circumstances - and there are quite a few folks who made horrific mistakes...but for whom it was out of their character.
To put it bluntly, if Charles Manson wanted out of prison to die in a hospice, I'd say 'Sorry Charlie'<I'd worry he might try something...> - but Suzan Atkins was in a sense also a victim of Manson and in her case I'd say 'Go to the hospice.'
I am reminded of Saint Dismas, the patron saint of prisoners, the good thief on the cross, the first to show mercey to the christ. For Atkins, there is I believe the litmus test of whether she is like that remorseful good thief on a cross, or like the remorseless bad one. I believe her remorse is genuine, and that her time has been served. In her instant case, I'd allow a hospice.
On the other hand, I see people who made mistakes and got into trouble - people who have a soul and who learn from their mistakes and change as a person. The problem with the system - is that it treats everybody with a one-size-fits-all mentality - and makes very little distinction between a serial rapist carjacker and a mentally retarded homeless person; they both are made to jump through the same arbitrary hoops. One gets out and is a wicked creep and the other gets out and we wonder why they were ever incarcerated in the first place.
In the case of Atkins, she's a changed person. She's been in prison 37 years. She's dying of cancer. She participated in a wicked horrific crime 37 yrs. ago. She is not the same person. Give her cell to someone who needs it. Let her just die. At this point, someone usually jumps in and screams about Sharon Tate and the horror of that crime. I think after 37 years of incarceration, the time has been served; it is now a question of how we let this inmate die. The family of the victims have I think a right to be consulted in this matter. If they are opposed to a hospice for Ms. Atkins,their feelings must be respected. However, I would not be surprised if they would prefer to see this matter ended on the side of greater mercey.
Each case is unique. Some people commit horrific crimes because they have little conciousness - and some of these folks are no better than a wild predatory animal. However, I know that just about anyone is capable of commiting a horrific crime under certain circumstances - and there are quite a few folks who made horrific mistakes...but for whom it was out of their character.
To put it bluntly, if Charles Manson wanted out of prison to die in a hospice, I'd say 'Sorry Charlie'<I'd worry he might try something...> - but Suzan Atkins was in a sense also a victim of Manson and in her case I'd say 'Go to the hospice.'
I am reminded of Saint Dismas, the patron saint of prisoners, the good thief on the cross, the first to show mercey to the christ. For Atkins, there is I believe the litmus test of whether she is like that remorseful good thief on a cross, or like the remorseless bad one. I believe her remorse is genuine, and that her time has been served. In her instant case, I'd allow a hospice.
No. If the idea is that we should show them the mercy that we WISH they would have shown their victim, then we would never even put anyone in jail in the first place.
I recently heard the FULL sequence of events regarding that murder, and it is just about as horrific as what a Hollywood writer could think up.
Educate yourself of the whole story of this murder, imagine it was your wife, daughter, mother...then tell me she deserves mercy :barf:
I recently heard the FULL sequence of events regarding that murder, and it is just about as horrific as what a Hollywood writer could think up.
Educate yourself of the whole story of this murder, imagine it was your wife, daughter, mother...then tell me she deserves mercy :barf: