Susan Atkins release - Yes or no? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

mike890 · 06-24-2008, 09:50 AM

In case you dont know she is one of the members of the Manson family and was responsible for stabbing Sharon Tate and her unborn child to death. She has terminal brain cancer and apparently not very long to live. Officials at the California Institute of Women have requested that she be released to die in the care of her family. However due to public outcry the request has been denied and she will die in prison.
My question is simple. If it was up to you would you have allowed her out of jail so she could die at home? She is obviously going to die before the end of the year and is no threat to society.
Does she deserve mercy and the chance to die peacefully at home?

I will answer first. Although its hard not to feel bad for someone who is dying a very slow and painful death (one of her legs has been amputated), her crime is beyond horrible. She admitted that Sharon Tate begged for her and her baby's life and that she "didnt have any mercy for her". I think a person like Susan Atkins deserves as much mercy as she gave Sharon Tate. Absolutely none. I dont doubt the she is a different person today and is obviously no threat to society in her current state. However some crimes are so horrible that is simply no chance of redemption. I dont think she deserves one minute of freedom and should die where she belongs. I am glad that they stopped her release and feel its justified.

Opinions?

crystaldawn · 06-24-2008, 01:32 PM

No, I don't think she should be released from prison. After all she's got to enjoy a long life after taking someone else's and Sharon Tate didn't get to spend the last moments of her life being comforted by her family. I don't have a problem with her getting maybe a little more frequent visits from her family if she only has a few days left but she deserves to die in prison.

Tap Dancer · 06-24-2008, 01:43 PM

I don't care that she's sick, dying, and wanting to be with her family. She killed a woman and an unborn baby; she doesn't deserve any special treatment.

BarneyFife · 06-24-2008, 01:52 PM

No, let her die in prison. I agree with the posters above.

Kane · 06-24-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tap Dancer

I don't care that she's sick, dying, and wanting to be with her family. She killed a woman and an unborn baby; she doesn't deserve any special treatment.

I agree. Besides, if Susan Atkins wanted to be with her family, she should have thought about it before she participated in the killing rampage. As far as I'm concerned, any sympathy for her amounts to sympathy for the devil.

Mommy2sets · 06-26-2008, 05:00 PM

Agree with previous posters. It would be unjust to show her mercy now especially since she told her victim she 'had no mercy' for her right before she killed her and her unborn child. She should die in prison as she was sentenced. Sharon Tate's family has fought to keep her in prison all these years, shown up at every parole hearing and they don't want her paroled now... it would be very unfair to them.

user296686@aol.c · 06-28-2008, 08:52 PM

I also agree with all of the posters. She should get as much mercy as she gave. She's fortunate she didn't die in an electric chair many years ago. The only mercy she should receive above that would have to come from God.

Pam

Ireneparalegal · 06-28-2008, 09:10 PM

May God forgive that b**ch, because I won't.

She can rot in prison and die a painful death because that is what she was sentenced to: LIFE. Oh wait, she is rotting and dying in prison.

KARMA!

crystaldawn · 07-18-2008, 09:00 AM

Her release was denied.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...JD6WwD91UIOE00

pinkturtle08 · 07-18-2008, 04:09 PM

I know that her release was denied..... however, I have always felt that if the jury who sentenced her or the judge who sentenced her didnt feel that she was mentally unstable beyond help, they would have given her the option of parole, which they did. Apparently they felt that Charles Manson is way past sane, and he didnt get parole. I agree with them on Manson not getting parole. I think I would have released her on parole.... I mean, she is not going to live much longer, and its not like she would have time to make a life for herself to do things that the people she killed didnt get to do specifically, like buy a house or buy a car or something... she is going home to die. I would have definitely released her either on parole or to a hospital where she could have extended visitiations from her family. She may have killed other people, and done horrible things, but nobody in my opinion deserves to get cancer.

Now, if Charlie was up for parole.... I would definitely not release him... I saw an interview with him awhile ago and he is so unstable he makes you question your own sanity after listening to him.... I would make him stay right where he is and let his family come see him for 2 or 3 brief visits a day and thats all.....

Just my opinion.....

Ireneparalegal · 07-18-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkturtle08

I know that her release was denied..... however, I have always felt that if the jury who sentenced her or the judge who sentenced her didnt feel that she was mentally unstable beyond help, they would have given her the option of parole, which they did. Apparently they felt that Charles Manson is way past sane, and he didnt get parole. I agree with them on Manson not getting parole. I think I would have released her on parole.... I mean, she is not going to live much longer, and its not like she would have time to make a life for herself to do things that the people she killed didnt get to do specifically, like buy a house or buy a car or something... she is going home to die. I would have definitely released her either on parole or to a hospital where she could have extended visitiations from her family. She may have killed other people, and done horrible things, but nobody in my opinion deserves to get cancer.

Now, if Charlie was up for parole.... I would definitely not release him... I saw an interview with him awhile ago and he is so unstable he makes you question your own sanity after listening to him.... I would make him stay right where he is and let his family come see him for 2 or 3 brief visits a day and thats all.....

Just my opinion.....

The "life with the possibility of parole" was the only option. They were sentenced to death until our state reversed all death row inmates sentences to LIFE with the possibility of parole. The jury and the judge in the case had nothing to do with that. It was a ruling by California for all death row inmates. Since we have the death penalty again, those who were on death row and then had it changed to LIFE, could not be put on death row again. That is why they have that option every two years of going to the parole board and asking for parole. We know they won't be released for good behavior. This crime was beyond heinous.

pinkturtle08 · 07-18-2008, 04:27 PM

Oh I didn't know that they originally got death.... For some reason I thought that Charles got life without parole and everyone else got life with parole......

I would still release her on parole though, since she is dying and the doctors have given her only a few months...... that wouldnt be enough time for her to rebuild or start this new and fantastic life for herself.... i mean, she has cancer and the end stages of cancer are pretty horrible.

06-24-2008, 09:50 AM	#1
mike890 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Oct 07, 2003 Posts: 46	Susan Atkins release - Yes or no? In case you dont know she is one of the members of the Manson family and was responsible for stabbing Sharon Tate and her unborn child to death. She has terminal brain cancer and apparently not very long to live. Officials at the California Institute of Women have requested that she be released to die in the care of her family. However due to public outcry the request has been denied and she will die in prison. My question is simple. If it was up to you would you have allowed her out of jail so she could die at home? She is obviously going to die before the end of the year and is no threat to society. Does she deserve mercy and the chance to die peacefully at home? I will answer first. Although its hard not to feel bad for someone who is dying a very slow and painful death (one of her legs has been amputated), her crime is beyond horrible. She admitted that Sharon Tate begged for her and her baby's life and that she "didnt have any mercy for her". I think a person like Susan Atkins deserves as much mercy as she gave Sharon Tate. Absolutely none. I dont doubt the she is a different person today and is obviously no threat to society in her current state. However some crimes are so horrible that is simply no chance of redemption. I dont think she deserves one minute of freedom and should die where she belongs. I am glad that they stopped her release and feel its justified. Opinions?

06-24-2008, 01:52 PM	#4
BarneyFife Retired Forum Fanatic Join Date: Mar 02, 2008 Posts: 8,460	No, let her die in prison. I agree with the posters above.
	__________________ BarneyFife has left the building.

06-28-2008, 08:52 PM	#7
user296686@aol.c Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Feb 28, 2008 Location: Auburndale, FL Posts: 278	I also agree with all of the posters. She should get as much mercy as she gave. She's fortunate she didn't die in an electric chair many years ago. The only mercy she should receive above that would have to come from God. Pam
	__________________ Pamela Collins

06-28-2008, 09:10 PM	#8
Ireneparalegal LEGAL SPICE ;) Forum Legend Join Date: Jul 25, 2005 Location: OXNARD, CA - WHERE THE DALLAS COWBOYS TRAIN & PRACTICE Posts: 38,691	May God forgive that b**ch, because I won't. She can rot in prison and die a painful death because that is what she was sentenced to: LIFE. Oh wait, she is rotting and dying in prison. KARMA!
	__________________ DALLAS COWBOYS ARE HERE AT TRAINING CAMP!!!

06-24-2008, 01:32 PM	#2
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	No, I don't think she should be released from prison. After all she's got to enjoy a long life after taking someone else's and Sharon Tate didn't get to spend the last moments of her life being comforted by her family. I don't have a problem with her getting maybe a little more frequent visits from her family if she only has a few days left but she deserves to die in prison.

06-24-2008, 01:43 PM	#3
Tap Dancer Member Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 20, 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 754	I don't care that she's sick, dying, and wanting to be with her family. She killed a woman and an unborn baby; she doesn't deserve any special treatment.

06-26-2008, 05:00 PM	#6
Mommy2sets Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Mar 31, 2008 Posts: 155	Agree with previous posters. It would be unjust to show her mercy now especially since she told her victim she 'had no mercy' for her right before she killed her and her unborn child. She should die in prison as she was sentenced. Sharon Tate's family has fought to keep her in prison all these years, shown up at every parole hearing and they don't want her paroled now... it would be very unfair to them.

07-18-2008, 09:00 AM	#9
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	Her release was denied. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...JD6WwD91UIOE00

07-18-2008, 04:09 PM	#10
pinkturtle08 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Jul 10, 2008 Location: tennessee Posts: 48	I know that her release was denied..... however, I have always felt that if the jury who sentenced her or the judge who sentenced her didnt feel that she was mentally unstable beyond help, they would have given her the option of parole, which they did. Apparently they felt that Charles Manson is way past sane, and he didnt get parole. I agree with them on Manson not getting parole. I think I would have released her on parole.... I mean, she is not going to live much longer, and its not like she would have time to make a life for herself to do things that the people she killed didnt get to do specifically, like buy a house or buy a car or something... she is going home to die. I would have definitely released her either on parole or to a hospital where she could have extended visitiations from her family. She may have killed other people, and done horrible things, but nobody in my opinion deserves to get cancer. Now, if Charlie was up for parole.... I would definitely not release him... I saw an interview with him awhile ago and he is so unstable he makes you question your own sanity after listening to him.... I would make him stay right where he is and let his family come see him for 2 or 3 brief visits a day and thats all..... Just my opinion.....

07-18-2008, 04:27 PM	#12
pinkturtle08 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Jul 10, 2008 Location: tennessee Posts: 48	Oh I didn't know that they originally got death.... For some reason I thought that Charles got life without parole and everyone else got life with parole...... I would still release her on parole though, since she is dying and the doctors have given her only a few months...... that wouldnt be enough time for her to rebuild or start this new and fantastic life for herself.... i mean, she has cancer and the end stages of cancer are pretty horrible.