Sharon Tate's killer released from prison to die?
 

This is interesting.

The hard-nosed part of me says, "Fuck her. Did she show any compassion to Sharon Tate? Was it compassionate to scrawl 'pig' in blood on the walls? Let her die in prison experiencing loneliness, pain, and helplessness as she goes."

The prosecutor of the case seems fine with letting her out. Sharon Tate's sister doesn't seem fine with it.

If the choice were yours to make, what would you do?

I wouldn't let her out.

I wouldn't let her out.

I used to drive by the Tate house growing up. It's like a Halloween thing or scary dare to do. We'd also go to the Manson Caves area and see derelicts and other people living there... was just urban legend creepy more than anything.

Clemencey because she's going to die? Fuck her...

While I'm not that tough, I've got to say, those killings were tremendously brutal and she already had her sentence mitigated to life in prison. In my humble opinion, that's about as much leniency as she deserves. Life in prison implies you will die in prison, so it's not exactly shocking . . .

Still, a difficult decision.

A part of me says, "Fuck her, she didn't show Sharon Tate compassion."

Another part of me says, "Wait a minute--that doesn't mean the state shouldn't show compassion. The state isn't Susan Atkins, nor should it be placed on the same moral plane as her."

The second part is the larger.

no, she needs to stay in there. This would set some sort of precedent for escape attempts with the help of crooked doctors being bribed on the outside.

Or, what if she miraculously recovers and lives another 20 years? Then what? Are they going to hunt her down and throw her back in prison?

Nah, life in prison means life in prison.

And shauk? Stop watching television.

Yes, I see the irony in what I just said.

I haven't watched tv in like 9 years, whats your point?

Keep her in there.

Prison for life, is prison for life? I'd say that this only makes the ending less far away. What exactly changes now that she actually is nearing the end of her life?

She was given life in prison. That should mean life in prison.

She was going to die at some point, no?

Let her rot.

I look at it from a different angle. Is she a danger to anyone? Who's now paying for her care?

My guess is she has one leg and brain tumor so she's not likely going to be cutting anyone up into little pieces anytime soon. And now that's she no longer a ward of the state she's probably responsible for for own treatment.

I have little concern for what happens to her but it sounds like she's done for and her level of care and treatment is likely extremely costly. Let her and her family pay for it. Less burden on the tax payer. Of course all that assumes she is indeed now responsible for her own care, I'm assuming her attorney husband is paying for it. If it turns out the state is somehow funding it then screw her let her die in the prison ward.

Damn, there really are some hard hearted people around these parts, so much for compassion or empathy for a young women who was drawn into a cult by a madman & seduced into believing a lie through various brainwashing techniques.

She's paid her dues, lived the majority of her life in prison, and is now going to die from brain cancer. I don't think she can pay anymore.......but after she's dead, someone could dig her corpse up & pound her bones to dust, I'm sure that would be very satisfying for some.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...FtjKgD919KPB00

Really hard to have compassion for someone who's done what she's done. Her comments during and after her trial say it all for me:


About stabbing 8 1/2 month pregnant Sharon Tate as she pleaded for her child's life:
"I don't know how many times I stabbed her and I don't know why I stabbed her.... She kept begging and pleading and begging and pleading and I got sick of listening to it, so I stabbed her."


After the trial:
"I feel no guilt for what I've done. It was right then and I still believe it was right."

Sorry some acts or so inhumane they boggle the mind. I'm not in favor of treating her inhumanely, yet I think she's one of those people that deserve to spend the rest of their life in prison. Now it would seem her life is coming to an end. I see no reason for the tax payers to have to fund her hospice.

Of course the murders were horrific, murders usually are. But why would a middle class girl with no history of violence do such a thing??? Answer that and you understand my position, even if you don't agree with it.

They shouldn't let her out. She's being cared for in prison...why should she be let out? She did what she did...those were the consequences.

I agree with Tully that it sucks that the American taxpayers are paying for her care...but she still shouldn't be let out.

Honestly? I don't care if they let people out who are verifiably going to die of a horrific illness like cancer within months. I don't necessarily think they should, but I don't necessarily think they shouldn't, either.

she didn't allow for any mercy or compassion in her crimes, she shouldn't be allowed any in her death.

I know of people who have had brain tumors and lived many years. Brain cancer, dead within several months. Since people don't really understand cancer so well, as to why it responds and retreats sometimes and not others, why it happens and why it doesn't, why take the risk that she could live out her last days on a nice homestead overlooking a nice view of some sort... even if it's her family that pays for it.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

The time at judgement was life. Not "Well if you get terminal cancer or another life threatening disease we'll let you out."

So if I committed one of the most horrific crimes in recent history would I get a break because I'm middle class too?

Well, I haven't read enough about it, but I am assuming that her condition is deteriorating enough that the near future outcome is fairly predictable. And I'm sure if there were to be some 'miraculous recovery' she would be put back in.

I've seen someone die of brain cancer, too. While I'm not overwhelmed with grief for this woman, I'm not full of hate for her, either. It's a horrible way to die, for sure.

Who do you think would fund it if she remains in prison? I'm guessing tax payers don't if the state shows the compassion she's requesting.

I don't. That's why I stated I'm in favor of them letting her out, let her or her family pay for it.

Actually "the time at judgment" was death. She's lucky she didn't die in the gas chamber years ago.

I don't care. Upper class, lower class, middle class- doesn't matter to me. I fail to see what her "class" has to do with any of this. And history of violence? At some point every violent offender doesn't have a history of violence... then they do. What's that have to do with her hacking up and killing several people?

I understand she may have been under the influence of a mad man and on who knows what substances. In the end it matters not to me. I don't see that as any more of an excuse then "yeah I ran over that kid and killed her, but I was drunk at the time so it wasn't my fault."

To be on the same plane as Atkins requires a persistant disregard for humanity while selfishly and horribly destroying beauty and promise.
I think a carefully made and meticulously enacted judgement in a public court, supported by evidence and ungoverned by the emotional hunger for Lynch Law puts the state on a higher moral plane.
Too many times does life in prison mean a brief pitstop in a holding cell. Here in Canada we let nasty sociopaths out to reenact their terrible crimes, which is totally f*ed up IMHO. If the sentence is "Prison until we feel softhearted enough to let you roam free" then the judge ought to say that. If the sentence is 10 years, then make it 10 years. Period.
Life means life. If she wants to suicide in order to ease her suffering, that ought to be a private matter between her and whoever she needs to help her die. Which is a different topic entirely.

Sorry, I needed to be sure. (It's still early for me.)

* * * * *

• She is available for parole. (Though her next hearing is in 2009.)
  
• She is terminally ill. (Brain cancer took down my grandmother in under two months.)
  
• She only has one leg.
  
• She's 60 years old.
  
• She has good prison behaviour, having participated in a number of prison programs (and has been commended for saving two lives).
  
• She's been a born-again Christian for over 30 years.

The first two should be enough to suggest the compassionate release isn't as big a deal as people are making it out to be. There will be no "roaming free" going on here.

So, by that logic, because the Branch Dividians were under the influence of another cult leader, they also deserved their fate??? They were breaking the law, not murder but fully automatic weapons are illegal and may get the attention of the ATF. No matter, the ATF got their revenge.......

I don't see how her family would end up paying for her care unless someone's got loads of cash or the capability to put her on their insurance. So, she'll be on Medicaid/Medicare and we'd all be paying for it anyway.
Brain cancer, born-again, single-legged, whatever, she still did it.
I'd kinda expect them to do the same to me if I was in that situation, though I wouldn't like it. Nor will she or her family I'm sure.

Little problem with your logic... Tate was afforded her day in court.

It's not about revenge, it's about justice.

Six months to live? She can spend them in that very same prison.

Edit: Actually the Davidians did commit murder but sadly they never received their day in court. At least we didn't have to pay for the trial or anyone's incarceration, right???

Her husband has a J.D. from Harvard. Maybe he has money.

Again, she's also available for parole.

I don't get this comparison at all. The situation with the Davidians is not in any way like that of Tate's. To get anywhere near a comparison you have to add a lot of "ifs." If they brutally stabbed and murdered people, if they were arrested, if they were convicted, if they had been sentenced, if they were dying of a fatal illness. If, if, if and more ifs.

I'd be willing to bet if she leaves* her care will not be provided by the state. I'd guess DOC is in favor of her leaving for funding and staffing reasons.


*My first read of the OP I didn't see the "?" at the end. I thought she had already been released.

My opinion is that either you are sentenced to die in prison, or to be hanged by the neck until dead.

She already got a reprieve.

Everyone pretty much sums up my feelings. Let her rot.

Geez I almost got a big crocodile tear from that one. You probably feel that Manson should be parolled also. Afterall he didn't kill anyone, he supposedly brainwashed them.

I don't feel the least bit compassion or empathy for any murderers. She may use the excuse she was on acid, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the murders were premeditated.

She should have fried long ago with the rest of those losers.

No one can do anything to you that you don't allow them to do. No one can be brainwashed without their consent. And regardless of whatever voodoo Manson did or how supremely charming he was, Susan Atkins still made the decision on her own to stab Sharon Tate and her unborn baby. No one held her hand and forced it.

Also, I'm sure it would be satisfying for some to dig up her corpse and pound the bones to dust, but that is a far cry from saying she should stay in prison as her sentence dictates.

I concur.

I'd like to add: fuck that whore.

If less famous and less sick murderers can rot, so can she.

Such an angry, angry people we are. So much for compassion.

Just remember, we all rot. Even babies and puppies do. Maybe that's why none of this really matters, ultimately.

An interesting survey, nonetheless.

Strange....such vehemence concerning a harmless husk of a woman who killed so few at such a young age, yet so little vehemence concerning what should be done in response to the crimes against humanity, planned and ordered by our elected leaders.

Did it occur to anyone in the "let her rot" group, why she is the longest tenured female prisoner in California? If you think it is because her crimes were the most "horrific", think again. All of the other murderers who were paroled, had less visible, less politically and media sensitive cases, even if their crimes were more callous, more violent or involved greater number of victims.

You appear ugly in your reaction to this, and unresponsive when it comes to REAL, contemporary crimes where your forceful, condemning tone could be constructive...it isn't here....it puts some of us....we don't know you, when you post this way.....don't want to know you.....

So easy to lash out at this terminally ill woman, so difficult to accept that we have some responsibility for our president's violent, illegal policies and actions. A quick, hard response to the question of what should be the fate of this woman, only silence or rationalizations about the officially sanctioned, avoidable, unnecessary serial killing, of this decade.

I'm guessing this is why things are the way that they are. Justice won't even begin until we accept that it must be pursued.

I was 14 when these murders happened. They and their aftermath were in the forefront of the nation's conscienceness for a very long time. In an era that was supposed to be about love, free spirit, yada yada, this destroyed a lot of that idealism, made everyone look at things differently, begat a level of distrust and fear of anyone not deemed "normal".
If anyone gets their hands on a copy, read "Helter Skelter", the book about the murders, the trials, the people involved.
Those that did the actions still claim to have been "under the influence" of another and take little if any responsibility for anything they've done. A born-again Christian? Bah.
If she's got just a few months to live, let her do it in her current home-her cell. I'm a very compassionate person, but this doesn't deserve compassion.

The purpose of her dying in prison is because society demands it. Otherwise the murders she took part in are not bound up (if that makes sense)

To me, and I said the same thing in another thread, the purpose of punishment is partly deterrent and partly to protect society from dangerous people sure - but on a higher level it is a cleansing ritual to rid society of the evil of the crime.

For the victim who gets his car pinched, the ritual requires an appropriate sacrifice - so the villian might get 3 months.

When someone is killed, and worse (for society) when someone who is innocent, young, and beautiful is killed - it is necessary that the sacrifice made of the murderer is full.

If she was released, all of the damage done by the crime seeps into the world again. Even when we talk of her being allowed to die peacefully and with dignity (as Sharon Tate did not) - the horror of the killing comes into people's minds, disturbs them afresh.

If she was a man she should have been hanged, and as she is a woman she should be spared this, but she should certainly die in prison - society demands this - or else the ritual is broken. That women should not be hanged is my own person opinion and I am aware it may seem sexist and paternalistic to some people - and it is a side point to this argument.

She must pay the maximum penalty. There is no room for compassion, she has placed outside of full humanity through her crimes.