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.

Really? You can actually in your heart of hearts link these violent crimes with presidential actions? Amazing.

EDIT: nevermind, I just saw your post in the Meet the Press: Tim Russert passes away it speaks tomes of your state of being.

To those that think she's a harmless old lady... so what. Think of the precedent this sets and allowing the release of some of the worst criminals if they become terminally ill. If that isn't a frivilous use of the court systems. Hell, maybe if they are denied, her lawyer will pony up something like "cruel and unsual punishment" angle since cancer doesn't feel very good at all....

Dennis Rader, BTK Killer responsible for 10 murders, if he in the future gets some terminal disease, we should let him out in the twilight months of his life.

Joel Rifkin, no cool name, in fact no one would have caught him for a while longer had it not been for the missing license plates on his truck, responsible for 17 murders.

Jeffrey Dahmer who killed 17, converted to Christianity to ask God for forgivness of his sins. Had he not been killed by another inmate, maybe he could have been let out too.

Richard Ramierez, Night Stalker, killed 14 people, maybe he should be let out now because he's Mexican-American.

People think that murderers can be rehabilitated, so there's no Megan's Law when they are paroled. They can live in silence among us, but yet a convicted sex offender (note I did not state child molester since not all are) I have many options of finding out who and where they live. Great.. nice to feel uncomfortable since I have a sex offender (this one a child molester) who lives 3 floors above me.

There are regulations and considerations surrounding "compassionate release." I don't think they'd be possible for the worst of the worst.

Can we keep the focus on Susan Atkins' case, or at least compare on the same level? Atkins is hardly Dahmer. How did Dahmer do at his last parole hearing?

As long as Sharon Tate is dead, the killer should remain in prison. Let them be released when the victim is no longer dead.

I was a little younger but remember my dad watching news coverage. I saw the "Manson girls" walking arm in arm to/from(???) court. I asked my dad what were they doing with those girls? He told me "they're going to kill them." A little shocked I asked him "why?" His answer scared the living crap out of me. My mom came running out and told him "you can't tell a kid stuff like that!" He said "Why not? It's the truth."

I read "Helter Skelter" several years later and he was right- it was the truth.

I'm with you. Born again, too young to know better blah, blah freaking blah. Some things you pay for forever, or at least should.

BTW- Host, ever hear the term "one trick pony?" I mean does ever freaking topic have to be turned around to the Bush Ad.?

Again....a huge amount of anger at and condemnation of a harmless husk of a woman, one legged, dying from a cancerous tumor in her brain, who was convicted of killing someone 39 years ago, as a very young adult, while under the influence of a messianic psycopath.

vs....

A curious aversion to taking a position, or discussing, and for many at TFP and in the country, even considering whether we have a mass murdering war criminal in either of the two highest elected offices in the US.

I called this thread as I saw it....majority of posts showing condemnation and bitterness out of proportion for the actual facts.... the woman is harmless, dying....or the authorities will not approve her compassionate release.... at a significant expense to the taxpayers, in a state that is in extreme fiscal crisis, while a spouse of this convict is ready and willing to take her into his custody at his expense....and he is an officer of the court...a person known to the court to be responsible, ethical, his word in court taken as reliable by almost any presiding judge....

So, a reaction here that seems ugly.... on it's face, nonsensical in relation to the personal relationship this woman's crime and circumstances have to any of those who post so vehemently.

Conversely, hundreds of thousands are dead in Iraq.....Tully, I know you get my point...big reaction here, to a tiny problem, even a non-problem....tiny reaction to a mega-problem....it is that the reaction and focus on this inconsequential issue, is huge, and the reaction to the possibility that our country went to war on purpose, avoidably, and unnecessarily....the president's own press secretary has now said that, in writing.....is barely to be seen, in all of TFP, and in 3D America.

We all pick our shots....why are people so worked up about this one....so muted about a huge consequential, on it's face....crime of the new century, contrived, unnecessary war?

I could see, if people demonstrated the capacity to take an unwavering stance of "incarceration until death", as an appropriate, under all circumstances reaction to the possible release of this dying convicted murderer, and still demonstrate a capacity to demand a follow up on Scott McClellan's now revealed opinion that the Iraq war was unneccessary, but that isn't a reaction that is being voiced.....anywhere.

The stern, resolute,reaction to whether or not to release a dying, elderly crippled murderer, vs. the non-reaction to waging unneccessary, aggressive war, is confusing, if the reaction here is related to a sense of justice, and not confusing, if the disconnect is part of a possible explanation as to how the war could have happened, and it's origins and motive still gone uninvestigated.

wow...that could have been me...never would have thought of the juxtaposition to tricky dick and spiro...let her die for all the deaths in vietnam...jeebus freakin' cripes...

host, how old were you when this happened, and what affect did this series of events have on you at that time?

Actually I'm not that worked up about it at all. I have an opinion, that's pretty much it. I've stated that opinion.

In a small way, very small- I do understand your point.

But not every topic of conversation is about Bush and the war. Where are you going next with this? The titty board? "Hey ya know she's naked. Under our clothes we're all naked. Ya know who else is naked under his clothes- Bush..."

You can make silly comparisons if you wish. But really this thread was about one lady possibly getting released from a life sentence for murder because she has a terminal illness. Comparing this to Bush makes about as much sense as comparing it to the Branch Davidians, maybe less.

I get it- you really, really dislike Bush. I'm not in his fan club either. But there are things in life that are not about him.

I was sixteen....I followed the reporting of the murders closely, we were all fascinated about Manson, the connection with the Beatles song, the Manson "family" at the Spahn ranch, Polanski....his later being accused of underaged sex....avoided return to the US to face charges..... six years later....Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme sticks a gun into president Ford....it failed to fire.....

Sensationalized....hyped....ala "Tanya"....aka kidnapped heiress Patty Hearst, brainwashed by her captors into pariticpating in armed robbery of a bank....Symbionese Liberation army, the Harris's....

The point is....Susan Atkins served 39 years...she was probably as much under the influence of Manson as Patty Hearst was, under the Harris's....Atkins is old, one legged....dying..... the wrath posted here is odd.

The "non-wrath" reaction to a war that has killed six figures worth of innocent people, including 4,100 US troops, is an issue, and a symptom, just as the wrath posted here is.

I was as close to Atkin's crime as anyone my age or older who followed the reporting at the time was. I have no objection to her release, under the circumstances described. She has been cut no specific break by "the system", I doubt many know that the commutation or her sentence to life instead of execution was an automatic result of a US Supreme Court decision that declared the death penalty unconstitutional. When that ruling came. in 1973, every death sentence was commuted to life.

Atkins is not the most heinous murderer, and most posting "let her rot", are influenced by third hand accounts, as they were too young to witness second hand accounts.

The Tate-LaBianco murders took place in the year following the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, in a year when the Vietnam war was pressing several hundred thousand civilian males into the military, thousands of which would be killed, as they killed a multiple of their own numbers of dead, in numbers of Vietnamese.

That war turned out to be justified by an incident that we found did not even take place....the Gulf of Tonkin attacks on US Navy ships by North Vietnamese naval forces.....

Manson and the girls turned into folklore, and the elected leaders, those responsible for the REAL sensational numbers of lost innocent lives, did it the same way they're doing it now....via contrived, unneccessary war.

It won't stop until we adjust our misplaced sense of focus and outrage. If you want to get worked up about a perceived injustice, posting condemnations of this powerless, walking dead woman is not a sign that you are heading in the right direction.....

I cannot understand the strong reaction, but it is today's America:
The thread turned into a "no mercy" outpouring....IMO, a society with no capacity for mercy....one that reacts in a predictable, hardline fashion, is an ideal setup for supporting, or acting complacently to politicians who decide to wage contrived, aggressive war.

I don't recognize my own countrymen. When did it get so ugly and unforgiving towards the powerless, and so supportive of the most powerful, no matter how much they deceive the supporters and abuse their power.

I missed the part where we turned into who the majority demonstrate that they are now....

I think she has been shown mercy. Her treatment, to my knowledge, has not been inhumane. I'm not in favor of treating her inhumanely, stated that earlier. I'm not in favor of revenge either. It does not benefit those who seek it nor those that are inflicted by it. I'm in favor of justice. She did some horrible things. She should serve her sentence (I'm actually glad her sentence was commuted, not in favor of my tax dollars going to killing people) however as I stated earlier if her family can pay for her treatment and the state/tax payers could be saved from having that burden, then let her out.

And I don't see her as always being "powerless." At one time she had a knife in her hand and she had all the power. Power over her victims lives as well as her own. She used that power extremely poorly.

She was sentenced to life in prison. Not life -6 months. She may leave prison feet first, on a stainless steel gourney.


You still haven't gotten that cable bill paid? ;)

Yup - if judges want to start putting caveats in the sentences they impose (you can leave if you get one or more of the diseases listed in Appendix F) then that would be another issue. But as of right now, she's in there for keeps.

Except ten people were granted compassionate release last year.

BOR and Highthief have posted opinions as iif compassionate release and parole of those swntenced to life in prison in Cal. are not an option granted to others serving life sentences for the crime of murder. Both have been granted to others convicted of the same crime, serving the same sentence....life with the possibility of parole. Neither poster stated why Susan Atkuns, all things considered, is ruled out of eligibility for release. I'm left to think...'she stays in prison because they say so.'

I'll state it again.

It is my opinion that I don't think that the others should have sent that precedent. The judges that set that precedent was wrong to do so in overturning the original judge's ruling.

Are judges involved or is this solely a decision of the parole board? Or am I completely lost in this conversation now?

I don't know. I made the assumption it is a judge. If it is a whole board, then I disagree with their decision to overturn the judges ruling for punishment.

Well people eligible for parole are released by boards all the time. Sometimes purely for cost or space purposes. That's a whole separate issue. This lady has been repeatedly denied parole. An earlier poster mentioned she's not eligible for parole again until 2009. So I think the only way she gets released prior to 2009 is a "special" medical or mercy release. I don't really care as long as the states not paying for her care. If not she should stay. They didn't seem to think she was parole material any of the other times she was up for it, right?

Basically I'm only in favor of her being released if it saves the tax payers a ton of money and if she's absolutely not a danger to others.

And how many weren't? The large majority I would bet.

I don't agree with the concept of "compassionate" early release for someone convicted of murder and I agree with Cynthetiq. She was given life in prison and that is what she should get - there's no rational reason to release her, the arguments are all emotive in nature.

Host, how is compassionate release compassionate at all? all she'd realize is the gravity of her actions even more if she ever saw the "ideal" compassionate peaceful scenario, I mean I'm envisioning some caretaker wheeling her out to the beach and having her watch the sun set over the ocean or something, something picturesque as such, if life were perfect poetry, she'd die right then and there at peace, but more than likely they'd put her in some sort of assisted living facility where she'd be undercared for. I've had to clean carpets for a job for a while and that was the target market I hated the most, Most of the time i'd wind up meeting with the owner, some jackass driving a benz while these elderly people are peeing on the floor with minimal assistance with anything, One person there to try to maintain a schedule and make sure they all take their meds at the appropriate meds and aren't starving to death.

Yeah, human fecal matter and urine isn't something I ever want to encounter again in my line of work.

just let her stay in prison.

The comparisons are obvious Tully, both groups were led by a charismatic yet delusional man who used different types of mind control techniques on their followers. Both men used religious overtones to instill a mindset of fear in their followers, wherein some type of action must be taken to bring about change. Both groups did commit murder, directly related to the teachings of their leader. The main differences only occur after the murders.

Okay....Tully, under your argument of "if she wasn't parole material at her last parole hearing.....", everyone who is rejected the first time they apply for parole, would be disqualified the subsequent times that they were eligible for a psrole hearing. If you're saying nothing changes in favor of granting parole, in between hearings spaced 3 to 6 years apart....it looks like several things have changed since Atkins last hearing....she lost a leg and contracted a terminal illness shortening her medically diagnosed life expectancy to less than six months, qualifying her to apply for compassionate release....a program designed for inmates in between parole hearing dates.......Cynthetiq, CR release would interfere with her sentence how....since she is not serving a life W/O parole sentence? Are you saying that parole or CR release of anyone serving a life with possibility of parole is interfering with sentencing judge's sentence. A judge had to sign the existing sentence....it is not life W/O parole. BOR....she's served 39 yeqrs, she has a spouse to care for her...pay for her care..he's got a Harvard law degree.... What is behind objections? Why is there such a strong opinion to punish...to death....no matter what....this woman? I want her only to be given what any other convicted murderer in Cal. would be given, in similar circumstances W/O media hyped politics of the crime. She killed how many victims while exhibiting depraved indifference, probably without personal premeditation. Was she the ringleader, was she young and under the influence of a messianic older leader? How has her record been in prison? Was she denied parole last time more because of politics or her own crimes, conduct in prison, lack of convincing remorse and rehab. Is she still considered a threat to society? Has any other terminally ill female convicted of murder who served more than 39 years and has a willing spouse with financial means to assume her care, been denied CR in Cal.? I see your bent for justice it is strong...but it doesn't seem to include an "equal treatment" requirement....so is it even the justice you claim is the reason for throwing away the key, until death. in the case of Atkins?

Yes you can make comparisons and I understand your opinion here I simply and completely disagree with you. I think the best we can do is agree to disagree and move on.

I'm glad to see that you don't feel you need to have the last word. :)

No, often people go up for parole several times before the board rules in their favor, granting them parole. So "everyone who is rejected the first time they apply for parole, would be disqualified the subsequent times that they were eligible for a parole hearing." Is not my position. When the board legally rules in their favor I'm not usually opposed to their release. Though I don't think I would have favored her release, which is fine because the board never decided to grant her parole. I'm thinking there might be a reason she was never granted parole.

And I've repeatedly stated I have no problem releasing her as long as she's paying for her own care and is no longer a threat. And I don't see her as a threat. So I think I am agreeing things have changed.

Fifty weren't, but I think some of them died during the processing. Of course it's the majority, this is an uncharacteristic release condition. But 10 out of 60 isn't an insignificant number, considering.

A rational reason would be to offer it as a conditional parole release so that she can die in the care of her family, rather than at the cost of the state.

She's been recommended for this release by the prison, and the prosecuting lawyer has nothing against it.

Why do I doubt that she has the funds available to pay for the various drugs and care she would need in her final days? I don't fully understand the US medical system, but I presume there is some basic level of medicare - and so the taxpayer may still be burdened.

And, having said all that, I would imagine if you asked the taxpayers if they want her released, most would say "no".

As previously pointed out she's married. Her husband is a Ivy law school grad and my guess is she may not have the funds but her husband probably does.

Perhaps it's less about Susan Atkins being ruled out of eligibility because I say so, and more about the others shouldn't have been granted a compasionate release in the first place. She just happens to be under the spotlight due to the high profile crime that she commited. I should pity her for that? I don't think so.

Besides...who is going to assume the cost of her medical treatment? Odds are good that it's the state. So, she might as well just stay where the hell she is and continue to receive her treatment there.

i was going to stay out of this thread but then read host´s holier-than-thou contributions and i couldn´t be any more articulate than this response by BOR so i´m +1ing it

I can't help but think this "compassion" is due largely because she is a "little old lady".

Unfortunately, Sharon Tate never got to be a little old lady. And her child never drew breath at all. Because of Susan Atkins.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm hoping a lot of it has to do with her condition and also her in-prison behavour.

Whoa, appeal to emotion. Not bad, but this shouldn't factor into this case because Atkins' trial already dealt with this. The trial already factors into the release consideration. Everything does. Either way, this comment does little but mislead from the core issues.

For me the fact that she's a woman has alot to do with it, men are 10 times more likely to kill than a woman & are more likely to kill again. Women who commit murder rarely kill again. Given her age and medical condition the likelihood that she'd kill again is almost nil.

The circumstances of the original murders & the control that Manson had over her is also a factor. Young, naive, drugged & brainwashed sums it up for me.

Either way her last months will be full of suffering, inside prison or out. The only possible reason the keep her in these last months of her life is revenge for her crimes, thats not justice, not even close. As I said before, she's paid all that she can, now she will die. What more do you want???

I don't think that it misleads from the core issue, so much as it definately needs to factor into it. If this were Charlie himself that we were talking about...this thread never would've gotten to two pages. His death in prison is, and should be, a foregone conclusion. Why is Atkins any different? Because she's a woman? An old woman? A frail sickly old woman? Talk about appeal to emotion.

I never appealed to emotion that way. Instead, I suggested that (though it may have been misread) her age, lack of a leg, and her medical condition renders her rather harmless. Her status as a woman factors little, or at least it should. Atkins is different because Manson is beyond compare, for a number of reasons.

This appeal shouldn't factor in because this isn't about feeling sorry for the lost potential of the victims. This is about Atkins' eligibility and candidacy for a special release term, which isn't too far beyond parole (of which she is eligible). Yes, she is a convicted murderer, but her behaviour over the past several years—in addition to the opinions and recommendations of involved professionals—is also an important factor for this particular case. Let's all leave emotional appeals aside.

Eactly.


The odds of most male killers killing again in their 60s or 70s is pretty tiny also, statistically - don't see anyone making petitions saying let all the seniors out of jail.

I don't know of any petitions but there are many agencies out there looking for a way to reduce the aging inmate population. I know there is a DOJ report out there somewhere but can't find a link. Bottom line is keeping elderly inmates in prison is down right costly. I did find this on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons...d_States#Aging


The percentage of prisoners in federal and state prisons 55 and older increased by 33% from 2000 to 2005 while the prison population grew by only 8%. The Southern Legislative Conference found that in 16 southern states the elderly prisoner population increased on average by 145% between 1997 and 2007. The growth in the elderly population brought along higher health care costs, most notably seen in the 10% average increase in state prison budgets from 2005 to 2006. The SLC expects the percentage of elderly prisoners relative to the overall prison population to continue to rise. Ronald Aday, a professor of aging studies at Middle Tennessee State University and author of Aging Prisoners: Crisis in American Corrections, concurs. One out of six prisoners in California is serving a life sentence. Aday predicts that by 2020 16% percent of those serving life sentences will be elderly.

Under U.S. law convicted felons lose their eligibility to apply for Medicare and Medicaid. Housing one prisoner costs a state between $18,000 and $31,000 annually, $33 per day for the average prisoner and $100 per day for an elderly prisoner. Most DOCs report spending more than 10 percent of the annual budget on elderly care. State governments pay all of their inmates' housing costs which significantly increase as prisoners age

The aging prison population is a huge burden on correctional depts. They would like nothing more then to release as many of these folks as possible. I'd like to hope they'd only release those they sincerely thought were no longer a threat. But then I'd also like to think beer makes me better looking and funnier. Bottom line is these compassion releases are largely driven by dollars and not sense.

Release denied for dying Manson follower

Meh, I'll sleep the same anyway.

There's no basis for denying this? How about your client is a convicted murderer who was sentenced to death and had it commuted to life.

It's not the same attorney, is it?

She's not getting out.

Oh, well. Maybe her family will at least have visitation privileges.