This is an interesting topic for a different discussion. Here, we were discussing Susan Atkins and whether she should be released to die at home with her loved ones. Personally, I vote no.

SB, if the victim had no family, would you be ok with her release?

She needs to stay right where she is.

No, I wouldn't, svsg. She was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, and she had her parole hearings. For whatever reason, the parole board didn't find her worthy of release. Because she became fatally ill since that hearing should have no bearing on her release date.

This debate comes down to assessing why we have a criminal justice system. Is it to deter crime, or to administer punishment, or exact revenge, or to rehabilitate people, or a combination of all of those? Which of those purposes does the continued incarceration of a dying inmate satisfy?

Probably a combination of all those things.

The administration of an effective and fair criminal justice system requires a dispassionate approach. While our sympathies for victims of violent crimes might might affect our view of punishment, it is important to know that considering the murder victim's family members' opinions on the imposition of sentence or possibility of parole is as unfair as allowing the criminal's family to determine sentence and parole. Both have passionate feelings and therefore should not be determiners of sentence. Nonetheless, both parties have a right to speak at sentencing about the defendant and victim, but their opinions of sentencing would add an emotional element that could disrupt the integrity of the process.

It is also important to note that in criminal cases, the prosecution is not brought by the victim, but by the State or Commonwealth (The People). That said, while the families of Sharon Tate and Susan Atkins have the most interest in the outcome of the parole hearings, they are perhaps the least equipped people to make such a determination as their opinions are no doubt enflamed by their passions.

I don't know whether Atkins should be paroled, but I think the decision should rationally evaluate the gravity of her offense (including heinous features), contrition, rehabilitation, what she accomplished or did in prison, and capacity for commiting other crimes.

Well said Kly.

Good. I'm glad she'll rot in there.

Hey DJ's visiting.

Liberal bastard.

Meh, I think that we should let Manson and Sirhan Sirhan out so that they can enjoy the chocolate rivers and gumdrop skies that we have been unfairly depriving them of for far too long!

If we let the victims and their families control these aspects of the judicial system, we wouldn't have justice, we would have revenge. It would not be a fair and constitutionally supervised system... not that it particularly is now. It would be chaos. It's human nature to feel as if you're owed something and to want revenge, but you can only go so far before there are more important issues and ethics at hand.

Some of you may want to surf on over to the Innocence Project: http:\\www.innocenceproject.org

It provides plenty of reasons why we need to keep the the administration of justice as objective as possible.

Sounds a lot like the opening of "The Godfather".

Revenge is good.

Yes, that was exactly my point. One of the internet pieces carried a photo of two of her female relatives in tears, I believe it was her sister & niece. Her family is pleading on her behalf as she is probably in no shape to do so.



Right again. Look, all families stated their case on behalf of loved ones who can no longer speak for themselves. One side got their wish, the other did not. Susan Atkins will die in a hospital and probably get all the care she needs and be kept as comfortable as possible right to the end. Even though 39 years have passed and 'what's done is done' (as one brilliant poster states)...Ms. Atkins still gets a far better deal and far more compassion than HER victims received.

Apple

It could be a combination, except for the 'revenge' part.
As Don Corleone would tell you, revenge and justice are two different things.

True, it's pretty complicated in this day & age. In the case of Susan Atkins and her co-defendants, we have a criminal justice system to administer punishment for a crime so horrible it is still legend almost 40 years later.

The 'continued incarceration of a dying inmate' satisfies justice. After all, her original death sentence was commuted to LIFE in prison. That means the rest of her life in prison. I will try to have a little more compassion for her than she did for Sharon Tate & her unborn baby. But I still don't think she should be released.

Apple

Meh, they should bring back sparky. At least it would give me something to watch while I eat my popcorn.

Well said Apple.

I remember back in the 90's, one of the other Manson Family members, Patricia "Katie" Krenwinkel was supposed to go up in front of the parole board, but chose not to. I think that it was Barbara Walters who was interviwing her, and she told Barbara Walters that she decided NOT to go in front of the parole board because she herself felt that she did NOT deserve to be released. She said that as the years went by and she matured and grew older and had all that time to reflect on what she had done, she realized that what she partook in was so dispicable that she didn't even deserve to live, PERIOD.

-------------------------------------

"I sat in a courtroom with a jury and watched with others. I saw a young woman who giggled, snickered and shouted out insults, even while testifying about my daughter's last breath, she laughed. My family was ripped apart. If Susan Atkins is released to rejoin her family, where is the justice?"

- Paul Tate (Sharon Tate's father )

Yes, that was exactly my point. One of the internet pieces carried a photo of two of her female relatives in tears, I believe it was her sister & niece. Her family is pleading on her behalf as she is probably in no shape to do so.



Some of ya'll are fogetting that comparing the action one takes against someone else with the action that government takes against someone is comparing apples and oranges. While justifiable action taken by an individual is a consummation devoutly to be wished, action taken by government must be justifiable or we are all in peril. Susan Atkins is supposed to get a far better deal because it is government that provides the deal.

Remember, the Founding Fathers inveighed against the potential oppressions of government, not against the actions of individuals. It was the actions of government which they constraned through the provisions of the Constitution and, later, through the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Everybody slow clap...LET HER ROT.

Yeah, because dying a slow painful death in a prison hospital where no one cares about you is a lot different than dying a slow painful death in a room where no one cares about you.

Well...if you're going to bring the Founding Fathers into it that's swell. But also try to keep in mind that in the time of the Founding Fathers, Atkins, Manson and the whole gang would've been probably been hanged the day after their trial ended.

Good point. In those days, the right to a speedy trial meant the jury met in the am, the hangman crew in the pm.

I'm sure that she'll be kept medicated to minimize the pain. She'll die surrounded by her loved ones, or at least be allowed to say her goodbyes to them. She'll have time to make her peace with her past before she dies.

That's certainly better than being held down and knifed to death while you plead for your life and/or the life of your baby, all time being told by your killers, "Shut up, bitch."

As for the families having or not having input, I understand the idea of it destroying objectivity. However, during sentencing, the families of criminals are allowed to plead for them. What does that do to objectivity?

I truly believe that too often the rights of defendants are trampled. However, I think that we too often forget that crimes have victims, and that those victims should have rights, too.

No cigar Apple.

The strong abolitionist movement that laid down its roots at this time resulted in changes to various state judicial proceedings, criminal laws, and punishments. By that time the states already had a sophisticated system of judicial appeals that precluded the "probaby" that you refer to.

I believe she already has made peace with her past. The Susan Atkins website (last updated 2005) is pretty interesting.

http://www.susanatkins.org/

But that doesn't mean I think she should be released.

Oh, and olivant...strike that 'probably'...they would've been hanged the VERT next day.

Apple

I think I would be more impressed with that website if the author had bothered to spell the names of her victims correctly. It's "Tate-LaBianca", not "Tate-Labiance".

Yes, I noticed that too.

However, it's pretty obvious that whoever built the website was far more devoted to Ms. Atkins and her 'accomplishments' than to what she did that got her incarcerated.

The crime itself is treated as more of an 'honorable mention' than anything else. It's clear they couldn't ignore it but wanted to turn the focus to all the 'other' things Atkins has done.

Apple

Wasn't she also convicted of killing Gary Hinman? I notice that he didn't even get a mention on the site.

It was all about Susan, Susan, Susan. The site claims that without her testimony Manson never would have been convicted. Um, she gave that testimony to the grand jury, and then recanted before the trial. Yes, she seems properly remorseful. Suuuure she was.