Not sure if anyone has followed the story of Manson follower Susan Atkins who has been imprisoned since the Tate-LaBianco murders. She is 60 now and is dying of brain cancer, with one leg amputated and the other paralyzed, and has a few months to live. They asked for an early release so she can live the remaining months outside of prison.

Coincidentally I just finished reading Helter Skelter the book written by the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. A bit long but great book. Anyway on the surface when you read the current story and not aware of the history, it is easy to say she should be released in her condition and with a few months to live. However having read the book and her participation - she is the one that killed Sharon Tate who was 8 months pregnant and testified that as she cried to let her live to have the baby, Atkins just kept stabbing her and saying I have no mercy for you. Tate was a random stranger to Atkins and all of the followers. I was aware of the story but until I read the book had not clue of what really happened. Can't imagine what the time was like when all that was going in terms of the trial that last 7 months. And we thought the OJ trial was a circus this seems worse.

Her release has been denied, she will remain in the prison hospital - no release.

BDD,

I read that book when it first came out and yes it was really gripping and gruesome.

I saw the news story on Atkins and they had pro and con commentators as far as her release goes. You're right, she has brain cancer, one leg and is not in good shape at all.

However, they played a clip of her after her capture and she was calmly describing how she killed Tate and how the whole time she was mutilating her, said (and I quote) "I looked her her face and felt absolutely nothing for her" calmly and coldly. I thought then and there, what a refresher course. Yea, let this be part of her punishment. She showed no mercy, give her none.

That being said I do kind of feel for her family (although I know nothing about them. Maybe they're wackos, I don't know). Strictly from that viewpoint, I can see where the family would want her to die at home.

I'll never forget when that happened and how the news showed and described the blood all over the place. Scarey and very shocking.

TIS

Let the victims' families decide on whether she should be released early to die in peace.

The vicitms' families, those alive did - which is a big reason why she is not being released.

I remember a few years after the Manson murder trial, Vincent Bugliosi saying they Manson was not insane but yet, have you seen this guy???? If he wasn't wacko then he is an eerie, creepy, spine-chilling kind of wacko nows. Give me the major creeps.

I remember years and years ago Tom Snyder interviewed him (maybe the first tv interview) on the Tomorrow Show. I swear if I were to run into Manson in a dark alley, I'd have a heart attack for sure...the beatty-eyed slimeball.

TIS

No surprise there. I'm sure the families want to see her die in pieces and not in peace.

She actually received mercy when she received a life sentence. She was supposed to get the death penalty, but when they did away with it, all the death sentences were commuted to life in prison. She's been up for parole numerous times, and has never proven herself worthy of release, even after almost 40 years.

I'm sure that Sharon and Roman would have preferred that Sharon get to live until 60, see their child grow, maybe see grandchildren. To Sharon Tate, 60 would have been a GIFT.

Do the crime, do the time. Brain tumor or not.

I was a little surprised the other day to hear Vincent Bugliosi say in an interview that Susan Atkins should be released, since she is after all bedridden and dying anyway. The interviewer actually bordered on getting into an argument with Bugliosi, who maintained compassion for Atkin's medical condition despite her LACK of compassion while committing the murders as a young, drug induced, brainwashed Manson girl.

I would think at this point her release would be more for her family's sake than hers, since she's got absolutely nothing to gain at this point anyway. Doctors have apparently given her only about 2 months to live so she would either be in a hospital or home w/ hospice care for the remainder of her days. Either way, she'll have a much more peaceful end than her victims were given.

In the end if it were put to a vote, I would opt for the wishes of the families of Sharon Tate and the other, less famous victims.

Apple

I read all about the Sharon Tate murder on Wikipedia a couple of months back, whilst having the house to myself for the weekend. I wished I hadn't.

On the afternoon of August 8, 1969, Manson set his plan in motion. Calling together several Family members, Manson announced, "Now is the time for Helter Skelter." That evening he told three female members of the Family--Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Linda Kasabian--to get an additional change of clothes, a knife, and a driver's license. Manson discussed details of his plan with a fourth Family member, Charles "Tex" Watson before all four piled into an old Ford. As they drove down the driveway of the ranch, Manson stuck his head in the car window and told them "to leave a sign." He said, "You girls know what I mean, something witchy." Although Tex understood his mission fully, the three women knew neither their destination nor that the night was destined for murder.

Forty-five minutes or so later, shortly after midnight on August 9, the group pulled up in front of the Bel Air residence of actress Sharon Tate, famous for her recent role in the movie Valley of the Dolls. Tate shared the home with her husband, director Roman Polanski, who was in London at the time working on his next film project, The Day of the Dolphin. In his absence, two friends were staying at the large home at 10050 Cielo Drive, including coffee heiress Abigail Folger and her lover, Voytek Frykowski. Also in the home that night was hair stylist Jay Sebring, a friend of Tate's.

After Tex cut the telephone wires leading to the Tate home, the four scrambled over the fence at the bottom of the property and began heading up the hill leading to the residence. A car pulled up the driveway. Tex leaped forward, stuck his hand through the car window, aimed at the driver's head, and pulled the trigger four times. The first victim in the Tate-LaBianca killings was eighteen-year-old Steven Parent, in the wrong place at the wrong time. While Kasabian waited below by the car, the other three Family members entered the Tate home. Within minutes, the screams began. Watson would later describe the next four victims "as running around the place like chickens with their heads cut off."

In all, the four victims received 102 stab wounds. Sharon Tate was the last to die, knived by Watson while she was held down by Susan Atkins. Atkins said later that she tasted Tate's blood and found it to be "warm and sticky." She took some of Tate's blood and used it to scrawl, on the porch wall, "PIG."

The next morning, a maid arriving at the Tate home left screaming, "Murder! Death! Bodies! Blood!" Within hours, investigators discovered two badly mutilated bodies on the lawn of the Tate residence, those of Folger and Frykowski. Inside, near a couch in the living room, they discovered the bloody pregnant body of Tate and, with a rope around his neck and a bloody towel over his face, Jay Sebring.

Manson, meanwhile, expressed his displeasure with the attack at the Tate residence. Too messy, he thought. He decided to accompany the next Helter Skelter mission, which he scheduled for that very night. In addition to the four Family members from the previous night's mission, Manson was joined by Clem Tufts and Leslie Van Houten. Manson ordered Kasabian to cruise the neighborhoods of Los Angeles, in search for potential victims, before settling on the home of Leno and and Rosemary LaBianca. Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten were the killers chosen by Manson. As they left the car, Manson told them: "Don't let them know you are going to kill them."

Police found Leno LaBianca with a knife lodged in his throat, twelve stab wounds, and seven pairs of fork wounds. The word "WAR" had been carved on his stomach. Rosemary LaBianca was found with multiple stab wounds in her chest and neck. On the LaBianca's living room wall, written in blood, were the words "DEATH TO PIGS" and "RISE." On the refrigerator door was written, "HEALTER SKELTER."

- The Charles Manson (Tate-LaBianca Murder) Trial
by Doug Linder (2002)



During the trial Linda Kasabian testified that Sharon Tate begged for the life of her unborn child but was told by Susan Atkins, "Look bitch, I don't care about you. I don't care if you are having a baby. You are going to die and I don't feel a thing about it."

It's been rumored over the years that Atkins actually cut the baby out of Tate's stomach.

Fuck Susan Atkins. Let her suffer in pain the way she made her victims suffer!

Well, I'll say it. She's going to die anyways, let her the fuck out. It's not like she can even enjoy the time out, she has fucking brain cancer. Has anyone ever watched anyone die of brain cancer? I have, and it's fucking horrible. There is absolutely no enjoyment involved.

Besides, aren't you people down with Christ? Isn't that dude all about forgiveness and shit?

How many people have you watched getting gutted while pleading for their life?

I am not following this case at all, so I have no idea in what state she is in and have no idea how brain cancer patients are in general. So, wouldn't she gain anything by spending her last days with family? I can imagine other people wanting to spend time with family before their death.

I'd bet Sharon Tate did also.

Sure that was not my point SC. I am not arguing in favor of anyone. I don't know enough about the case to take sides. I am just questioning Apple's statement that releasing her is not even doing a favor to her. Whether releasing her is correct or not is not something I am getting into now. What does the release mean to a dying person? To me, it looks like a favor, however short-lived.

See, I'm not easily offended, as you know, and that remark doesn't bother me in the least. But I'm absolutely certain that if someone else stated on this board that they watched a love one die of brain cancer, and I retorted with a wise-ass remark along those lines, I'd get scorned to shit, as I usually do in those instances. A little fucked?

And again, how fucking spiteful can one person be? What's done is done. Tate is dead, and Atkins is on her way out. If she is really in the final stages of brain cancer, she probably can't talk, and if she does, it's very incoherent. She probably doesn't leave bed all day, which after a while would make her quite weak and frail. She probably needs help eating and going to the bathroom. And to boot, it's probably very difficult to look at her, because she probably has one hell of a tumor coming off her head... Or, even worse, it has been operated on, and now it is covered in scabs and bloody muck.

The idea that Atkins would enjoy herself too much to be remorseful outside of prison is ridiculous. She may not even know where the fuck she is, she could be so fucked up. She's probably on liquid morphine, which basically means she has no clue what god damn year it is. For all we know, she is locked in a super introspective re-evaluation of her life right now. But, at least her family, who had absolutely nothing to do with the murders, could feel a little more closure by bringing her home. Imagine if you were in the same scenerio as the Atkins family. Wouldn't you want the same, and wouldn't your intentions be pure?

And about the crimes; are we forgetting Manson basically brain-washed a bunch of kids to begin with? All it takes is one very powerful mind, and a few weaker ones, and you've got the potential for a fucking mess. Politicians do it everyday. Like it or not, Manson was a very smart man; you have to be pretty intelligent to pull off the kind of mind game he did. I contest the same of Hitler. I could never brainwash someone like that if I wanted to, and I highly doubt any of you could. I'm not insinuating that Atkins is not responsible for the crimes, but hey.

Bottom line is, we claim to be better than all sorts of sadistic figures, but it would appear we're just as obsessed with the suffering as they are.

It wasn't meant to offend. It wasn't a smart-ass remark. You've got quite a chip on your shoulder.

Bottom line is Atkins was guilty of a self-admitted murder. She never showed any remorse. Now just because she's sick we as a society are supposed to forget and let her have some freedom?

I don't think so.

I think Apple's point was that by releasing Atkins it would be a favor to her family. I think we owe it to the victims' families (who have spoken out against Atkins being released) to keep Atkins in prison.

BTW - I didn't take it that you were arguing for or against anything here.

There is no doubt that Manson was an extremely intelligent con man. He was able to take advantage of the times and lead a bunch of homeless kids from the Haight-Ashbury scene of the 60s. Yes, he brainwashed them, through isolation, through constant preaching, and through fear. However, Bugliosi made the distinction between his followers. For example, Linda Kasabian was the driver both nights, yet she never harmed anyone and turned herself in and testified against the Family. Atkins, on the other hand, not only killed, but literally tasted the blood of the victims. And Tate was not her only victim. She had killed before, and had also sexually abused her infant son. This was not some lost little hippie girl who acted solely under the influence.

I think that there probably is no point in keeping Atkins in prison. As LLC pointed out, she's no doubt so physically and mentally gone that it will make little difference to her. BUT it may make a big difference to the families of the victims, and I believe that their wishes should have priority.

It didn't bother me at all, but it was pretty sardonic.


And the family of the soon-to-be victim?

Atkins is going to die a painful death regardless. How much more can you do to satisfy the scornful?

Scornful? Why scornful? I just think that the victims and their families need to be given more rights and consideration in the judicial process than they currently receive. I think that they should have input on whether she's released or not.

As I said, she was sentenced to death almost 40 years ago. She received the ability to see her family, to be alive. That's more than the victims received, and I don't think she should be given special consideration because she's dying. It shouldn't have any impact on her release.

If the parole board had found her suitably remorseful, she would have received her release. Obviously they didn't, so she should stay in prison.

One thing to keep in mind when we are discussing the criminal justice process is that it is government that acts on our collective behalf through through a system that deprives or seeks to deprive one of life, liberty, or property. In doing so, government must develop and apply a process and apply that same process to everyone.

The US and state constitutions were drafted and ratified in part to protect us against the potential ravages of government, not one another. They realized that any one of us could at any time become subject to the criminal justice process and they wanted to insure that there were constraints and requirements placed upon governments to to maximize the integrity of the process.

Now, statutory law seeks to protect us against the ravages perpetrated by individuals acting on their own behalf. To the extent that such laws enhance our feeling of safety and security, they enahnce our emotional, psychological, and economic prosperity.

Thus, I don't see such laws or the processes that stem from them to be a mechanism through which the feelings of families of victims are to be assuaged.

Someone translate the above post for me please!

When you kill someone in a high profile case your screwed.

Some unknown person kills several people, they do twenty years or so and they get out sooner rather then later.

You kill a Robert Kennedy type and you never get out. Doesn't matter if you were some dumb kid on drugs at the time.

That's what Olivant was saying? Thanks Fathersson, that was much easier to understand

His was a nice try, but no cigar.

My post was in response to that part of Babe's post about making the family of crime victims feel better. Statutory law and the criminal justice process are not designed for such a purpose. They are designed to give us a feeling of reasonable security in our Nationa and in our states, our cities, our neighborhods, and in our homes. Without such a feeling, we would probably be too scared to leave our homes and you can imagine the ill effects that would engender.

While we may sympathize with the plight of those surviving family members of a crime victim, our law and legal processes have to remain as objective as possible.

I did not say that we should be making them feel better. I said that the victims and their families should have rights. They seemingly don't, but they should.

What I did say is that the parole board hasn't found any reason to release her and that her illness shouldn't have any bearing on being let out.

Aren't paroles always based on reasons, not actually related to the original crime itself? Like remorse, good behavior etc... Can't illness be included in that list? Illness is again appealing to sentiment. But you can say that it is not connected in any way to the reform of the criminal (if that is the intention of punishment, rather than justice), so it may not be a valid reason after all.

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that parole hearings are held on a regular basis. If she was denied at the last one, then she isn't eligible for consideration until the next one. And yes, the decision is based on remorse, on the chance that the prisoner will repeat the crime, on good behavior in prison, etc. I have no idea if illness is ever taken into consideration.

Good points. Our criminal justice system has as a large component of rehabilitation of and compassion for an offender. If not, why not place every offender in prison for life or execute everyone?

Babe, you miss my point. The criminal justic system is government depriving someone of life, liberty of property. That's why the US and state constitutions place restrictions on and make requirements of government when they seek to deprive. The drafters and ratifiers of the Bill of rights recognized what a predator government could be. They left it up to legislators to make laws to protect us against each other. Still, governmental processes pursuant thereto have to be fair and objective and evenly applied or we would all be subject to the whim of government agents and institutions.

Rights for the families of crime victims? What should they be? Why should they be? To assuage their feelings, that's all. The Texas Constitution (Artilce I - see below) contains something like the rights you are talking about (perhaps). Those rights contained therein serve one purpose: to assuage feelings. And the objectivity of the criminal justice system is, therefore, compromised by those rights. What rights would you like to see codified?

A crime victim has the following rights:
(1) the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process; and
(2) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused throughout the criminal justice process.
(b) On the request of a crime victim, the crime victim has the following rights:
(1) the right to notification of court proceedings;
(2) the right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless the victim is to testify and the court determines that the victim's testimony would be materially affected if the victim hears other testimony at the trial;
(3) the right to confer with a representative of the prosecutor's office;
(4) the right to restitution; and
(5) the right to information about the conviction, sentence, imprisonment, and release of the accused.