ForumGarden

I don't know if this link will work I suck at this but it is on the Yahoo.ca home page... she has brain cancer and she is asking for "mercy" and to be released from jail after 37 years.

What do you think, should she be released... I say no. There was no mercy when she commited murder.



http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... &ch=222562

another link is

http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?cs=bz ... san+atkins

Minks I agree a big NO for me as well.

[QUOTE]I say no. There was no mercy when she commited murder[/QUOTE]

She's a coward. She should have the courage of her convictions, convictions being whatever she felt they were when she mutilated Sharon Tate that night. What a coward. Yo, Atkins, you did the crime, you got your kharma, now suck it up, you evil wretch! Ugh she is frightening and abhorrent to even look at.

There are other tests beside is she capable of inspiring hatred.

A significant one is whether she's a danger to the community. I don't think anyone could pretend that she is.

Obviously jail is an irrelevance to her now whether she's ill or not. It's not going to make her any more or any less sociable. It's not keeping the public any safer. All keeping her in jail is doing is sustaining some members of the public in their smug I'm-better-than-she-is feeling of pride and self-worth. Those are all deplorable emotions and even worse when it comes to keeping someone in prison.

The only person who can be hated with any productive consequence is oneself. Hating others is bad. Hating certain behaviours is a different matter entirely but that's not what we're looking at here.

I must differ completely here, Spot.

Most people ARE better than she will ever aspire to be because they're NOT KILLERS! She breached one of the biggest rules of humanity. If she stayed in jail till her last breath she still would not have paid her debt. It sounds to me as if you are giving this murderer credit and I don't understand that...?

So she has brain cancer. Good. I'm glad. That's a horrible sentence for a decent human being for but a sadistic scumbag like her, it is her appropriate fate. Please help me to understand why she should be released? Out of the goodness of our hearts?

Because she's human, RG.

any impressionable teenager can get sucked in to a religious cult or even just going along with a a peer group in to criminal activity just to fit in. Maybe she could do some good if it serves as a warning to others and help understand how someone can end up doing these kind of things by writing about how she came to do these things.

Mercy and forgiveness is something you choose to give to someone- whether they deserve it or not isn't the issue. Being vindictive doesn't help those who are being vindictive. I don't know what I would do but she's going to die soon anyway and if you take pleasure in her suffering are you actually any better than her?

Yes, absolutely we are.

This notion of cottoning to horrid murderers (remember she stabbed Sharon Tate to death as well as the baby she was carrying) is abhorrent to me and very scary. Forgiveness is a gift to those who deserve it. Susan Atkins, in my opinion can do nothing to warrant such a gift.

RedGlitter;891445 wrote: Yes, absolutely we are.1. Was that a response to "Because she's human, RG"? How do you get from she to we?

2. What does forgiveness have to do with release from prison?

spot;891454 wrote: 1. Was that a response to "Because she's human, RG"? How do you get from she to we?

2. What does forgiveness have to do with release from prison?


No, I was answering gmc, but I didn't mean to skip over you, Spot. My oversight. In response to her being human, all I can say is that so were those unsuspecting people she helped kill. I personally consider her a monster more than any kind of a human being.

Forgiveness....why else would we release her early? If she didn't have cancer, I doubt it would even be a consideration. Why should anyone have forgiveness for her? You know, I forget her name, but Sharon Tate's sister attends every parole hearing that other Manson girl has (can't even recall her name offhand) to speak up about why she should never be released....obviously she hasn't forgiven these creeps, so why should anyone else if Sharon's own kin won't? Since we're not killing Atkins for what she did, I think the least we could do to cap off her punishment would be to maintain her in prison cancer or not. I don't feel sorry for her whatsoever and I don't feel the least bit of regret that I don't.

RedGlitter;891460 wrote: I personally consider her a monster more than any kind of a human being.


That's the vocabulary of genocide, denying the humanity of people you're prepared to bulldoze out of the world. The one essential defining fact about her is that she's human.

You've no authority to forgive her any more than I have. Forgiveness is a gift from those who suffered, forgiveness can be given in proportion to how much a person suffered. If some people suffered more than you then their forgiveness, or lack of it, matters and yours and mine doesn't. You and I are so distant from what she did that neither of us has a right to forgive her.

I must apologise, I had no idea we were talking in this thread about releasing anyone early, I thought we were talking about someone who was eligible for release on parole. Obviously there's no reason to release her before she's eligible for parole solely on the grounds that she's dying. We're all dying, nobody knows they'll still be alive next week, life's a lottery every day.

Spot, we aren't going to be changing each other's mind on this one, so don't think I'm arguing, I'm just stating my views on it. Regarding forgiveness, I partially agree with you that only the victims can offer that. And that's why, since they can't avenge their murder, it is up to us to do it by proxy. Sure, you and I are far removed from it in many senses, however part of the fabric of our society was destroyed when these people were killed. Their breach of human trust caused grief to the immediate victims and kin and a great lot of others who had to live in fear because of their actions.

I think this is a slippery slope, this instant forgiveness or acceptance or tolerance, whatever we should call it. People need to be punished for egregious crimes such as this one, and while it's God's job to forgive (so some say) it is ours to punish those who harm our society, our safety, in such a horrible manner.

Question: if we should let Atkins out, how about letting Chuck out too? Is there any reason we should not, based on this notion that he's human too?

You keep using language that doesn't apply. "this instant forgiveness or acceptance or tolerance, whatever we should call it" after just agreeing that neither of us can forgive, for example. It's not about forgiveness. The only reason that forgiveness keeps creeping in is that you keep using the word, it's a red herring, I've never suggested forgiving her or that we could forgive her if we felt inclined, which I wouldn't anyway. Neither am I accepting of her behaviour, I abhor her behaviour. Neither is it toleration, I refuse to tolerate her behaviour. You keep setting up targets that exist only because you set them up to knock over, it's a waste of everyone's time. Have I suggested forgiving her? On the contrary I've made it clear it's not possible. Have I sounded tolerant or accepting? No. Bringing God into it is just as specious. There is no God unless you're prepared to define the term. If you mean that Christian God there is no God at all, he's a bogey-god invented by Rome to control the Empire, a use George Bush rediscovered recently. Finally, your use of the word "instant" is ludicrous, she's been in jail for 37 years and counting.

What I've done, repeatedly, is to give two conditions for release. One is that the punitive element chosen by society - not by you, RG, by society - has been served, because "part of the fabric of our society was destroyed". The other, once that punitive minimum period has been served, which fully reflected the seriousness and awfulness of the crime, is whether the person presents a danger to society if released back into the community on a parole license. Mr Manson was also given a minimum sentence which had to be served to reflect the nature of his crimes after which he'd be considered for parole on the basis of the continuing danger to society he'd pose. I have no opinion on whether he continues to pose one. I'm quite sure this woman doesn't.

Society needs to be punish criminals for egregious crimes such as this one and it selects the punitive minimum sentence that would wipe the slate, after which it leaves the parole board to conclude on the matter of continuing threat. All of that is incontestable - all I've written, word by word, is incontestable and uncontroversial. What you want to do, RG, is to override the nature of imprisonment and turn it into something which society doesn't do. I'm not the one out of tune here.

OK I'll be human and say give her Morphine to make her comfortable but keep her in prison till she dies. She did the crime, she and the rest of the Manson bunch can do their time.

That's as much forgiveness as I can have for her. If it was Manson with the Brain Cancer I would say let the monster suffer just like Sharon Tate must have.

Its Gods job to forgive monsters like this not mine I'm but a human. :-5

spot;891485 wrote: You keep using language that doesn't apply. "this instant forgiveness or acceptance or tolerance, whatever we should call it" after just agreeing that neither of us can forgive, for example. It's not about forgiveness. The only reason that forgiveness keeps creeping in is that you keep using the word, it's a red herring, I've never suggested forgiving her or that we could forgive her if we felt inclined, which I wouldn't anyway. Neither am I accepting of her behaviour, I abhor her behaviour. Neither is it toleration, I refuse to tolerate her behaviour. You keep setting up targets that exist only because you set them up to knock over, it's a waste of everyone's time. Have I suggested forgiving her? On the contrary I've made it clear it's not possible. Have I sounded tolerant or accepting? No. Bringing God into it is just as specious. There is no God unless you're prepared to define the term. If you mean that Christian God there is no God at all, he's a bogey-god invented by Rome to control the Empire, a use George Bush rediscovered recently. Finally, your use of the word "instant" is ludicrous, she's been in jail for 37 years and counting.

What I've done, repeatedly, is to give two conditions for release. One is that the punitive element chosen by society - not by you, RG, by society - has been served, because "part of the fabric of our society was destroyed". The other, once that punitive minimum period has been served, which fully reflected the seriousness and awfulness of the crime, is whether the person presents a danger to society if released back into the community on a parole license. Mr Manson was also given a minimum sentence which had to be served to reflect the nature of his crimes after which he'd be considered for parole on the basis of the continuing danger to society he'd pose. I have no opinion on whether he continues to pose one. I'm quite sure this woman doesn't.

Society needs to be punish criminals for egregious crimes such as this one and it selects the punitive minimum sentence that would wipe the slate, after which it leaves the parole board to conclude on the matter of continuing threat. All of that is incontestable - all I've written, word by word, is incontestable and uncontroversial. What you want to do, RG, is to override the nature of imprisonment and turn it into something which society doesn't do. I'm not the one out of tune here.


Ok, you're right Spot....my argument is a waste of everyone's time and I'm obviously not doing it the "right" way according to you so I'll give. It was nice while it lasted.

It's not "according to spot", it's according to the rules of the society you live in. I'm merely describing how far adrift you are from those. There's a danger of considering one's personal opinion more important, more necessary, more fulfilling, than the opinion of society at large - you mentioned a slippery slope and that's the one I see.

Susan Atkins felt exactly that way about those she helped kill, she venerated her group and despised those outside it to the point where she didn't see why another's life has to be worth more than the self-expression of any group's opinion. Don't you find that shockingly close to your attitude toward jailed murderers? "Oh but they're murderers, they're monsters, they're not human" is a step along the road to "Oh but they're Tutsi, they're monsters, they're not human" or "Oh but they're Jews, they're monsters, they're not human", it's why your society refuses to take it. It's just too easy to come out with supportable reasons why a group is monstrous and deserves to suffer. Susan Atkins' dehumanising of those she despised led to her assisting in murder with her group but it's the same disregard for life which underpins both points of view, hers and the one which disregards the law of the land - the one I described in such tedious detail - and insists that all murderers in jail should rot there until they're dead.

No, Spot. I don't see that. I think sometimes you can play devil's advocate to the point of silliness. Heck, next you'll say we were wrong to lock her up in the first place. I see something very wrong with mollycoddling murderers. I see nothing wrong with making sure she takes her last breath in prison.We don't owe her any better than that. We certainly don't owe her her freedom.

I'm not playing devil's advocate and I very rarely do, I'm seething with anger at your inability to distinguish fallible people in one thread from systems designed to kill in another, and to continually condemn people while not batting an eyelid at abusive systems.

The horrors inflicted on the victims of Charles Manson's group, or the horrors inflicted by every murderer in all your jails combined, are a flea-bite compared to the utter maelstrom of death and destruction your country's inflicted on the people of the Middle East over the past five years and yet your society applauds the latter while penalizing the former from an utterly misplaced sense of moral rectitude. Personally I find what your country's done collectively abroad to be grotesquely worse than this mere murder the thread's shaking its head over. You applaud people for volunteering for your organized death squads and for training in the art of precision-bombing civilians. The plea that their deaths aren't the objective of the bombing is one which, used in any other circumstance by any other gang, would be laughed out of court as an excuse.

RedGlitter;891672 wrote: Heck, next you'll say we were wrong to lock her up in the first place.Is it possible that I addressed this accusation inadequately earlier on?I've never suggested forgiving her or that we could forgive her if we felt inclined, which I wouldn't anyway. Neither am I accepting of her behaviour, I abhor her behaviour. Neither is it toleration, I refuse to tolerate her behaviour. You keep setting up targets that exist only because you set them up to knock over

She was a drug addled easily influenced young lady who got mixed up with a highly influential person who was trying to start his own race war. She made some horrendous mistakes, she has and is paying for those mistakes, I have no idea of her capacity or willingness to bring more harm to society. I doubt there is much of either so it really wouldn't bother me that much if she was released.



Spot, I question your attempt to compare civil murders with wars ( whether they be just or unjust in your opinion). People have opinions and ideas what must happen to individuals in murder scenarios but really can't do a whole lot about a war that their country is waging except voting their convictions.

i have read this thread through very carefully and have to say that I can see both sides of the argument to a certain point.this crime was indeed the most terrible crime commited by drugged up no good monsters.true to say she is terminally ill so should we show the compassion that she never did?but two questions i have to ask.if she was to be released who would pay her medical bills and who would be responsible for protecting her from vengence squads?it surely would be much kinder to leave her in the care of the prison and we would be denying her wim and fancy to see the blue sky and breathe freedom again as per her sentence.

YZGI;891790 wrote: can't do a whole lot about a war that their country is waging except voting their convictions.You're quite right, I was merely injecting a brief note of balance into the thread by voicing the majority view.

spot;891797 wrote: You're quite right, I was merely injecting a brief note of balance into the thread by voicing the majority view.
Fair enough, I see your point.

Is there any record or precident of parolling convicted murderers who are terminally ill?l



I don't hate any person. I do hate cruelty in any form.

bah drugs or no drugs, she still committed a horrific crime.

If it were your child she killed or parent, or sibling... how would you feel.

Enough is enough of this ***** treatment for convicted killers, it sure isn't acting as much of a deterant.

The horrors inflicted on the victims of Charles Manson's group, or the horrors inflicted by every murderer in all your jails combined, are a flea-bite compared to the utter maelstrom of death and destruction your country's inflicted on the people of the Middle East over the past five years and yet your society applauds the latter while penalizing the former from an utterly misplaced sense of moral rectitude. Personally I find what your country's done collectively abroad to be grotesquely worse than this mere murder the thread's shaking its head over.


"Mere" murder? Stabbing an infant while it's inside a woman's womb is "mere" to you? I know you and I differ greatly on issues but that I find hard to swallow even from you, Spot. :-2 And for once, could you and I have a discussion/an argument without dragging the damned war into it? It may compute for you but to me it does not have a place in this and I'm just not going there. Thanks.

hoxtonchris;891796 wrote: i have read this thread through very carefully and have to say that I can see both sides of the argument to a certain point.this crime was indeed the most terrible crime commited by drugged up no good monsters.true to say she is terminally ill so should we show the compassion that she never did?but two questions i have to ask.if she was to be released who would pay her medical bills and who would be responsible for protecting her from vengence squads?it surely would be much kinder to leave her in the care of the prison and we would be denying her wim and fancy to see the blue sky and breathe freedom again as per her sentence.


Finally we get to the true heart of this matter.

If she is released, who will pay her bills? We will, since she has no insurance and I'm sure her family doesn't have a plan that includes her. If she stays in jail, who pays her bills? We will. As much as I hate to admit it, she will receive better care at a state institute than she will at home. If her family wants to see her everyday, then certain concessions should be made to accomodate them. Family is family--not the family she was involved with, but blood. I'm sure if it was your child, it would be unconditional love and you'd want to see her in her last days.

The emotional burden on the family is something else if she comes home. It sounds good on paper, but try taking care of someone with brain cancer, it's not pretty. Sometimes it just feels good to win a battle without thinking about the casualties afterward. Watching a family member die in your home is very traumatic. Unless they are rich, they will not be able to afford for her to stay in a hospital.

Along for the ride--the answer to your question is yes. People with no hope of recovery have been released early no matter the crime. Certain stipulations must be met, but it has been done.

Let's consider for a moment this senario, she is lucid at this time and she comes home to a place with access to the internet, phones, mail, cars and the public in general. Perhaps she'll do something and perhaps she won't. I understand she has "seen the light", as have many that have been sent to prison. But the majority of them have returned to prison afterwards.

As far as drugs having anything to do with what she did, that was her choice. Like drunk driving. If a drunk plowed down fifteen children and killed them all and then became cancer ridden, who would want them out? For a few months or days that person may be able to drive to the liquor store and kill a few more people before he died---what does he have to lose?

If you want to be compassionate, to her and her family, let her stay in prison where she will get better care.

JMO

along-for-the-ride;891927 wrote: Is there any record or precident of parolling convicted murderers who are terminally ill?l


Lots. Try Reggie Kray, comparable in many ways - disgusting and notorious mass murderer, served beyond his punitive minimum term because he remained a danger to the community, born-again Christian, inoperable cancer, released to die at home in his own bed on compassionate grounds.

RedGlitter;891981 wrote: "Mere" murder? Stabbing an infant while it's inside a woman's womb is "mere" to you? I know you and I differ greatly on issues but that I find hard to swallow even from you, Spot. :-2 And for once, could you and I have a discussion/an argument without dragging the damned war into it? It may compute for you but to me it does not have a place in this and I'm just not going there. Thanks.
RG, the word "mere" stands in contrast between the one form of killing and the other, it's comparative not dismissive. Your bloody-handed airmen have regularly disembowelled pregnant women - and worse - and been applauded for it. I wouldn't bring them up if they weren't relevant in considering the use of the word monster which you introduced, it's my contrast between the socially acceptable and the socially unacceptable forms of disembowelling innocent pregnant women. Apparently it all depends on whether you get paid for it, whether it's a skilled trade or a hobby.

This is a thread about killing people who didn't deserve to die, where else would the war be a more natural comparison?

Your bloody-handed airmen have regularly disembowelled pregnant women and worse and been applauded for it. __________________


Can you show me proof of anyone applauding any of our soldiers for disembowelling a pregnant woman, Spot? And can you tell me who it was doing the applauding?

RedGlitter;892042 wrote: Can you show me proof of anyone applauding any of our soldiers for disembowelling a pregnant woman, Spot? And can you tell me who it was doing the applauding?


Your paid killer airmen have been applauded for "bravely" flying along four miles above the ground dropping bombs on cities, towns and villages, RG. They drop bombs on them. Their bombing has resulted in disembowelled pregnant civilians. This is another use of "it" which you're choosing to interpret, on this occasion, as desembowelling instead of dropping bombs. Of course these killers have been applauded. Of course their actions have resulted in dead pregnant civilians. Which bit are you trying to dispute? The suggestion that they didn't mean to tear these civilians and their unborn children to shreds just makes the outrage all the worse.

You'll have to do better than that, Spot. All you're doing is using the Atkins case to flog the war again. There is no comparison..

I started by talking about her, I'm only interested in talking about her, we were discussing the extent to which the distinction between legal killing and murder is invented by what society puts up with and what it rejects. The vileness of the event and the moral guilt of the people concerned are comparable, in my opinion. I'd rate what she did as far less vile than what they do. You need the comparison because you're saying she isn't human.

You've paid no attention at all to the fact that the judicial system decided early in her sentence how long it should last to purge her of society's demand that she be punished. If you reject that fact, that sentences for murder aren't all a minimum of life in jail, then you're at odds with the legal system not with me.

Come on, Spot. Any soldier will tell you it's easier (if that is the correct term) to drop a bomb from 3 miles up and fly away than it is to do hand to hand combat and look them in the eye.

She was right there when it happened, eye to eye, face to face. That takes a certain kind of person to do that. Jack the Ripper, Green River Killer. . .

A lot of our Viet Nam vets came back with a heavy load on their shoulders for the things they had to do. Some never recovered. War is Hell.



But we're not talking war here. We're talking souless, unconscionable acts perpetrated by a mindless follower.

911;892276 wrote: But we're not talking war here. We're talking souless, unconscionable acts perpetrated by a mindless follower.As a serious question, can you cite instances of a member of your armed forces refusing to obey an order in the field on the grounds that it was an illegal order? Since you brought up the concept of souless, unconscionable acts perpetrated by a mindless follower it seems fair to ask.

spot;892404 wrote: As a serious question, can you cite instances of a member of your armed forces refusing to obey an order in the field on the grounds that it was an illegal order? Since you brought up the concept of souless, unconscionable acts perpetrated by a mindless follower it seems fair to ask.


No. I don't follow that kind of stuff. I don't research wars. I don't understand your connection.

But what I would like to know is why is it always the US forces you talk about? Why not pick on England? I'm sure the royal family would be happy to know their sons are mindless followers also.

But we're talking apples and oranges here. The Mason family was not a government, was not looking out for the greater good of people, was not trying to help anyone but themselves.

Now, before you go comparing my last paragraph with the armed forces, it also applies to a pack of wolves. :yh_smiley

To answer the question and wrap up the non-Susan-Atkins aspect of this thread, England wouldn't have been so hare-brained as to have invaded a Middle Eastern country, that's why my anger's directed at US forces.