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.