Crime & Punishment: Does Manson Killer Susan Atkins Now Deserve Mercy??

In my view we need to get past all the touchy-feely BS about prisons and recognize that regardless of anyone's intentions, they are at least good at keeping animals like Atkins away from decent people. Moan about the injustice of it all if you like, but do admit that for 37 years Atkins was not able to harm anyone.

As for poor little Susan being led astray by mean old Charlie, who among us here, no matter how big an idiot you were when you were twenty, could ever have been convinced by anyone that sneaking into someone's house and then stabbing a pregnant woman to death was a good idea?

Tim
 
I'd Show her Mercy...

Bring her over to my house. I've got a .47c work of lead and powder for a gut shot. That's the extent of my mercy.
 
I would say turn her loose and save the state the money of her medical bills but since she has no means of income that wouldn't work so she might as well stay in jail. Maybe she and Charlie should have been executed a long time ago.
 
Jesus even forgave those who killed him.
Click to expand...
First, He is Jesus; the rest of us aren't. Second, He chose his manner of coming to mankind and his manner of death. Neither Tate nor her baby nor Hinman chose their fates. Third, the death of Jesus, for those who are believers, was for the salvation of mankind. The deaths of Tate, her baby, and Hinman were for sick, sadistic pleasures.
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??
Click to expand...
Yes, and that happens with all such crimes. That too is part of the crime, which in this case was not merely against Tate, her baby, and Hinman but against society as well. That's why such cases are "State (or People) v. XYZ." If good people weren't affected in some way, I'd question just how good they really are.
Do the rules change, the more horrific the crime is??
Click to expand...
It is self-evident that they do. We treat different crimes in different ways. For example, we don't punish burglary the same way we punish murder.

In this case, Atkins still has obligations to fulfill. Her crime continues in its awful aftermath.

If you map out Tate's family tree, her line ends with her. Cut off completely. She has no descendants. She never got the chance to have her child or any grandchildren. In other words, her particular line was made extinct by Atkins. As the saying goes, "Extinction is forever."

Her immediate family lost her. Her extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. lost her. Her friends and their kids lost her. Society lost her and her descendants, who probably would have made positive contributions. This damage continues on forever. So every time Atkins comes up for some hearing, we must consider that ongoing loss. We cannot think of the loss merely as a point in time that has long past, because that loss is still with her family, friends, and society.
 
Last edited:
We cannot think of the loss merely as a point in time that has long past, because that loss is still with her family, friends, and society.
Click to expand...

Whenever I see posts about felons being paroled and how they should be given all their rights back and that they have paid their debt to society I think of your statement. Someone may have paid their sebt to society by serving their sentence but not necesarily to their victims. A drunk driver takes the life of a father or child and serves 10 years in jail. When they get our that parent or child is still suffering. Society will probably have long forgotten about it but that victim hasn't. That is why I don't favor returning gun rights to felons even after they have served their time.

As for victimless white collar crime. My brother bought a truck and financed it. It turned out to be from a chop shop deal and the police took his truck and returned it to the original owner. My brother was stuck still having to make payments on the truck even though he no longer had it. He was able to get his money from the chop shop operators but some of the victims involved did not.
 
California? Isn't that the place where they have packed the jails and prisons so full that they could not even incarcerate Paris Hilton after she made a mockery of that states judicial system?
The truth is that aside from alerting the media, they could slip a house arrest beacon on Susan Atkin's remaining leg and push her right out the back door; NOBODY would give a damn. I bet if you went to California and asked 10 people on the street who Susan Atkin's is, 10 of them would tell you they don't know. She is going to die in a nice clean hospital bed real soon - is it really some kind of stupendous act of mercy if she dies on one side of a wall rather than the other? Forget her man, she's wasted.
 
imagine it was your wife, daughter, mother...then tell me she deserves mercy
Click to expand...

Well, one could make the same argument the other way too, and say imagine if Susan Atkins was your mother, sister, etc....

She does have family, and they have committed no crimes.

.
 
The truth is that aside from alerting the media, they could slip a house arrest beacon on Susan Atkin's remaining leg and push her right out the back door; NOBODY would give a damn. I bet if you went to California and asked 10 people on the street who Susan Atkin's is, 10 of them would tell you they don't know. She is going to die in a nice clean hospital bed real soon - is it really some kind of stupendous act of mercy if she dies on one side of a wall rather than the other?[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

Exactly. All this stuff about dying for a cause reminds me of the saying that goes something like "There is no casue worth dying for that is not also worth living for". Does it really matter which bed she dies in? People put too much emphasis on dying as a hero and not enough on what they did while living.
Click to expand...
 
Lance, I guess that would mean simply having family means you should never be punished for a crime, since it would affect the lives of your family also.

Myself, I have a wife and a baby, so if I ever kill someone and I'm lucky enough to have you as the judge in the courtroom, I guess I have a "get out of jail free" card. Even sending me to prison for only a month would affect them seriously.
 
Well, one could make the same argument the other way too, and say imagine if Susan Atkins was your mother, sister, etc....

She does have family, and they have committed no crimes.
Click to expand...
It is not the same argument. It merely masquerades as the same argument. It is actually the false "If you punish the person, you punish his/her family" argument.

In reality, when the state punishes the perpetrator, it is punishing only the perpetrator. The perpetrator, not the state, is punishing his/her family by committing the crime in the first place.

Like I posted before, Atkins committed a crime against a variety of victims, including society. Society includes her own family. She committed a crime against them as well as against Tate, Tate's baby, and Hinman, and she is the one who is punishing her own family.

As for the state saving money by releasing her, maybe so, maybe not. But that's not the point. The point is that Atkins has received her full measure of mercy and her full measure of moral consideration. The state now has a duty and an obligation to fulfill: Ensuring Atkins pays her debt. Atkins also has a duty and an obligation to fulfill: Paying her debt.
 
She has expressed remorse many times during the past two decades for the murders she committed, and people have reported that she is now a born-again Christian who strongly believes in God. All she is asking for at this point is simple humanitarian mercy, to allow her to die as a free woman, and be able to see the outside world again before she passes away.
Click to expand...

The business of Atkins conversion to born-again Christianity deserves comment.

First, the adoption of any particular religious creed ought to have no effect whatsoever on the working of the Justice system. To mitigate a sentence based on a convict's religion is a blatent violation of the principle of the Separation of Church and State.

Atkins should not get any special consideration based on her alleged conversion to born-again Christianity any more than if she converted to Islam, Hinduism, or any other faith, or any faith at all.

Second. It's always hard to judge the sincerity of another persons faith. However, the particulars of Atkins' case cast doubt on the sincerity of her conversion.

There are indications that the Manson family, Atkins included, may have killed several more people than just those at the Tate-LaBianca massacre. Local authorities, including Tate's sister, are pushing for a search of the Barker ranch where the Manson family hung out.

Atkins has consistently refused to provide any information on these additional victims.

And so where is the sincerity of her taking responsibility for her (sins) actions that being born again entails?

Atkins asks for compassion, but where is her compassion for the families of these additional victims?
 
Atkins should not get any special consideration
Click to expand...

But the point is that she is not really asking for anything truly extraordinary. For the law allows for convicts that have less than six months to live to be granted early release. It would be perfectly legal and within the law in California to do this. This provision is available so that mercy can be shown to those who are about to die.

Should the cruelty and barbarity of the murders done by the Manson family justify showing no mercy to Susan Atkins and her relatives??

To me, this would be an extremely tough choice to make. For I can fully sympathize with arguments on both sides of this matter. Thankfully, I did not have to rule on her appeal for mercy. For I would have felt real bad afterward no matter how I ruled.

I just don't see this being so totally black and white. I see some gray. And that is why I brought it up as a topic for discussion.

I would not be in such a quandary, though, if it was Manson himself who was dying. For he was the true ring-leader, the conductor of the Manson Family orchestra.

Perhaps I must also admit to being a little sexist here, since Atkins is a woman. Am I feeling more mercy towards her, simply because she is a woman?

We just had two local teachers here where I live get convicted of having sex with one of their students this past year. One was a man, and he was sentenced to two years in state prison last year. The other was a woman, and she just recently got a 60 day sentence in the County Jail. But since the county jail was overcrowded with dangerous criminals, they had to release her early, after only a couple of days.

Our Assistant District Attorney defended the mild sentence for the woman, since he pointed out that it basically ended forever her career of being a teacher, as she was now a registered sex offender. However, that was also true for the male teacher as well. The plea bargain also saved the county a lot of money in not having to prosecute the case at a trial. And since our county government is now currently broke, that could well have influenced things.

The male teacher had been put on trial last year, before the big cuts that were recently made to the county's budget.

Some local people did charge reverse sexism for the discrepancy between the two sentences. But perhaps it was simply just plain economics, and what the county could now afford to do. But perhaps they also view a female sex offender as being a lesser threat to society.

.
 
I don't see how letting her out is special consideration at all. You could build Susan Atkins a castle made out of butcher knives and BEATLES albums, and wall paper it with sheets of LSD. All she is capable of doing is laying in bed pooping her diapers. She is no threat to society, she is of no use to society, in fact she is something much worse in that she is now a draw on society - a society that wants her to pay a purely symbolic debt and is willing to spend millions of dollars in hospital bills to prolong her life because it's the humane thing to do. Her prison term has been 100% successful in that she has been reduced to a festering bag of rotting meat. Time to kick her butt to the curb and let her fend for herself.
 
She has expressed remorse many times during the past two decades for the murders she committed, and people have reported that she is now a born-again Christian who strongly believes in God. All she is asking for at this point is simple humanitarian mercy, to allow her to die as a free woman, and be able to see the outside world again before she passes away.
Click to expand...

After working in the prison system for 20 years, I can say that most criminals always express remorse after the fact.
My response is usually that they should have thought about the consequences when they broke the law. To bad she had not thought earlier. She should be left to die alone in a prison cell and go straight to hell afterwords! Her and Manson.
 
The article doesn't say who would pay her continuing medical bills. I suspect the state will pay either way, and that if her treatment changed it might end up costing more.

To the remaining victims, such as her family, friends, etc., there's nothing symbolic in her debt.

Because she cannot fend for herself, someone wiil have to do it for her. Again, I suspect it would be the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top